<>
1581
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Monday, February 21, 1994
The House met at 11 a.m.
[English]
The Speaker: Today, as I speak, over a million of our fellow
Canadian citizens are watching these proceedings. In that we
have been attempting since 1920 to change the format of our
prayer a bit, I thought perhaps today we could agree to share in
public with our fellow Canadian citizens what we do in private.
With your permission, colleagues, I am going to read the
prayers in both English and French. Then I would ask you to
observe a moment of quiet meditation, to pray in your own
personal way or simply to think of what you will. Is there
agreement?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Speaker: Almighty God, we give thanks for the great
blessings which have been bestowed on Canada and its citizens,
including the gifts of freedom, opportunity and peace that we
enjoy. We pray for our Sovereign, Queen Elizabeth, and the
Governor General. Guide us in our deliberations as members of
Parliament, and strengthen us in our awareness of our duties and
responsibilities as members. Grant us wisdom, knowledge, and
understanding to preserve the blessings of this country for the
benefit of all and to make good laws and wise decisions.
[Translation]
Dieu tout-puissant, nous te remercions des nombreuses
grâces que tu as accordées au Canada et à ses citoyens, dont la
liberté, les possibilités d'épanouissement et la paix. Nous te
prions pour notre Souveraine, la Reine Élizabeth, et le
Gouverneur général. Guide-nous dans nos délibérations à titre
de députés et aide-nous à bien prendre conscience de nos
devoirs et responsabilités. Accordons-nous la sagesse, les
connaissances et la compréhension qui nous permettrons de
préserver les faveurs dont jouit notre pays afin que tous puissent
en profiter, ainsi que de faire de bonnes lois et prendre de sages
décisions.
[English]
Amen.
We will now have a moment of silence for private reflection
and meditation.
[Editor's Note: A moment of silence.]
_____________________________________________
<>
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest) moved
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the
advisability of amending the Standing Orders to put in place a procedure
whereby, at least once during a session, petitions presented during that session are
considered by the elected representatives of Canadians, and may be the subject
matter of debate and brought to a vote at the end of the debate, such as for
example:
(a) the subject matter of the petition prohibiting the importation, distribution,
sale and manufacture of ``serial killer cards'',
(b) the subject matter of the petition requesting changes to the Young Offenders Act
to make it more difficult for dangerous young offenders to be released, such as the
petition presented in memory of the late Rosalynn Dupuis, and
(c) a petition which will be presented requesting the government to bring forward a
bill which would make recall of members of the House of Commons a part of the law.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is with a great deal of pleasure that I
rise on this very historic day. As the viewers have seen and as we
in the House have experienced, this is the first change to our
prayers in almost 120 years. This would indicate to all of us that
while things may change slowly they can and they do indeed
change.
D (1110 )
I am very pleased to speak to the motion. As I speak today and
as we consider the motion we should think of the underlying
philosophy upon which it is based. It is part of a greater ideal of
ensuring Canadians a continuing role or place in the debates of
the nation through the use of working toward more direct
democracy and the participation of citizens in the national
political life of our nation.
The right of citizens to be heard and the right of citizens to be
recognized and to receive action are fundamental to any nation
or any parliament that wishes to strengthen its democratic
conditions.
<>
1582
Petitions are an effective means of providing Canadians a
greater role in setting the national agenda. The use of petitions is
one of the oldest forms of allowing citizens a form of redress,
dating back to the days of King Edward in the 13th century. It is
through the presentation of petitions that the introduction of
legislation by bills came about. Petitions are the planted seed
from which our parliamentary traditions sprouted. Therefore
their significance should not be ignored.
I am not the first person to stand in the House in recent years
to speak to the veracity of petitions. I will quote from Hansard,
June 1, 1983. Stan Schellenberger, the member for Wetaskiwin
at the time, presented a private member's bill. In support of that
bill he said the following:
The practice of putting petitions to a legislative body is not new. It has been
happening for hundreds of years. We have brought from the mother Parliament in
Great Britain to this institution the practice of presenting petitions to Parliament.
From the beginning, the presentation of petitions was allowed by Parliament as a
means for ordinary citizens to bring their grievance to the attention of the House
of Commons.
It is a method by which ordinary citizens can bring their
grievances, concerns and issues to the House of Commons, to
the Parliament of Canada. It is not just a safety valve that we can
accept petitions, many with thousands of signatures and many
with hundreds of thousands of signatures, reject them and then
forget them. It is not just a means of allowing the citizens to let
off steam so they do not explode. It is a means whereby the
citizens of the country are able to establish a direct link with
members of Parliament on an issue by issue, day to day basis.
I have a further quote from Mr. Schellenberger as reported in
the same 1983 edition of Hansard:
-it is only in recent years that nothing has happened to petitions. Petitions
are brought to the House by a Member of Parliament, are read to the Speaker and
the Clerk who then deal with those petitions, and the next day they are either
found to be in order or not. They then disappear in a room somewhere in the
House of Commons.
They are never to be seen again. He continued:
That is not entirely the case, but it is pretty close.
This was 10 years ago when another member of the House was
speaking to petitions. This matter has come and gone and come
and gone. The reason we are addressing it today is that we hope
Parliament, with a new and fresh face, will pay much more
attention to the fact that petitions are a meaningful exercise by
which citizens participate in the democratic traditions of the
country. He continued:
For example, on the issue of capital punishment, many citizens of our nation
believe this institution is not representing the wishes of the majority of the
nation-
Regardless of whether we believe in capital punishment
individually, do our laws represent the will of the nation? He
went on:
-and their only means of bringing that to the attention of the House is through
the presentation of petitions or Private Members' Bills. Neither of these two
methods has been very successful in bringing about a change in the past, but at
least the opportunity is there to bring a grievance forward.
I draw the attention of members to the fact that in 1981 Stan
Schellenberger brought forward a private member's bill on
petitions. We do have a fair amount of the groundwork already
done.
D (1115)
In petitions we are talking about a much broader issue, of
whether democracy is chained to tradition or whether it is
anchored securely to the past or whether it is a living, breathing
ideal that adapts to the changing times.
Very often whenever the concept of recall or a citizen's
initiative or a referendum passes anyone's lips the retort that is
heard is always Edmund Burke and his famous letter to the
voters of Bristol. It is always said that members are elected to
serve their constituents and if they do not like the way the
member serves them, they can turf him or her out at the end of
the session. In fact after Edmund Burke wrote that famous letter
to the voters of Bristol in 1779, in the subsequent general
election he was turfed.
His letter was in response to his constituents because they
believed that the captured American revolutionary sailors were
pirates. They would be brought to England and after about three
years or so given a fair trial and hanged. He did not think this
was right. Edmund Burke's position was that the American
sailors should be treated as prisoners of war, tried by their peers
and given a swift and fair trial under British tradition.
His compatriot at the time, Thomas Payne, broke with
Edmund Burke on the basic philosophy that Edmund Burke was
chained to tradition and to the past and he had made a virtue out
of the fact that he was pledging himself in perpetuity in fidelity
to the crown, to the Magna Carta, and that because the crown had
given rights to the people, and in turn had pledged certain
requirements to the crown, that these would follow through
forever. Therefore Edmund Burke's understanding of
democracy is built purely on tradition.
Thomas Payne was a contemporary of Thomas Jefferson and
advised him in drafting the American declarations. His
contention was that democracy lives and breathes in changes. In
his book The Rights of Man, he wrote words to this effect: Every
generation has the right and the responsibility to govern for its
time and should not chain future generations to decisions of
<>
1583
today than past generations have the right to chain today's
generation to their decisions.
It is a very important consideration. He also wrote the phrase
that many people will recognize: ``The greatest tyranny of all is
the presumption of ruling beyond the grave''. When we talk
about how we should change or should we change the way our
Parliament works, the way we as a Parliament relate to the
citizens of Canada, and whether empowering citizens is a good
thing or a bad thing, it depends whether we have confidence in
the choice that our voters made in getting us here in the first
place.
We have to understand that we are not in 16th century or 12th
century Britain. We live in a completely different world. We can
focus the attention of every single person in this country on a
single instance. Everybody understands now. Everybody can
remember what they were doing at great moments in our history.
The example that always comes up is Ben Johnson. Everyone
remembers when he won the hundred yard dash. Everybody in
the country knew about it and was aware of it. If this were 16th
century Europe it might take 30 years for the information to get
around, but we knew it all around the world at the same instant in
time.
We have to allow our democratic traditions to evolve and to
change so they reflect the way communication works. We have a
citizenry that is far more aware of what is going on and far more
capable of being a part in providing a valid role in the daily
organization and governance of our country. That is why
petitions should be given the honour and diligence they deserve.
Petitions are a constitutional right of Canadians and are an
effective means, in principle, of putting forward concerns,
opinions and perceived problems.
D (1120)
Although Canadians may use petitions as a means of putting
their thoughts forward to Parliament, the use of petitions by
citizens is in decline. The reasons should be examined. If the use
of petitions is in decline, why do members suppose that is? It has
to be because people do not believe it makes any difference. If a
group circulates a petition until it gets a million signatures on it,
if they work day and night, spend untold hours at it, it comes in
here, is read to the House and then disappears, does that not feed
the cynicism that all parliamentarians feel the citizens in
common hold toward the institution of government?
If we are to build this bridge, this strength and this tie between
the people who must go through some pretty difficult times
because we are eventually going to have to live within our
means, then the leadership to do so has to come from this House.
It has to come from the fact that we as members of Parliament
honour, respect and pay attention to the citizens of Canada
whether we agree with what they say or not.
The voters whom we represent expect us to use our wisdom
and our intelligence but they do not expect it to be a one way
street. They expect it to be a two way street. They do not expect
every single issue that comes before the people to be referred to
referendum or to petition but they do expect us to listen and to
pay attention to whatever they have to say and not just at
election time.
Not everything we do or say can be envisioned ahead of time.
However, we must give members credit, a lot of it is in the red
book. But there are a lot of things that the government did not
envision. It had no way of knowing they would have happened,
could not have prepared for it so it could not be part of the
mandate that gets any of us elected into the House. Therefore we
have to be prepared between elections to listen and respond to
what our citizens have to say.
The decline or the apathy in the use of petitions by Canadians
is a symptom of a much bigger problem. It is the neglect of
petitions by elected representatives. It is a microcosm of the
alienation electors feel toward the political system.
At times between elections issues arise that were not dealt
with during the campaign, as I said a little earlier. It is during
these periods that citizens need the ability to put forward their
opinions to the government. Democracy needs to be a two way
street and petitions allow this exchange to take place with great
effect.
Although in principle petitions seem a valuable way for
Canadians to address their government and an effective means
for government to gauge the mood of the nation, petitions have
been pushed aside in recent years, their value left untapped.
Therefore we cannot blame Canadians for becoming cynical
with government when every time, time after time, they see their
protests ignored. The neglect of petitions by legislatures leaves
a bitter taste in the mouths of all those who demand a bigger
stake in the democratic process. The formulation of a petition is
guided by many rules and procedures and it is a painstaking
process for organizers.
We have received a petition with well over a million
signatures. Imagine the amount of effort that has to go into it and
it should not be taken lightly. The fact that the government is
able to dismiss a petition regardless of the number of signatures
or the importance of the issue with a blanket response is really a
slap in the face for both the signators and for democracy.
Governments must recognize what a great tool a petition can
be as a means of putting forward effective legislation. By the use
of some very simple procedural reform pertaining to petitions,
governments will be able to effectively gauge the thoughts of
citizens as well as allowing them a way to become involved in
national issues.
For instance, issues such as abortion, capital punishment, et
cetera have all been addressed by one petition or another. If the
government were not so quick to dismiss the thoughts of
citizens, it could use these petitions as a springboard from which
to develop policy. If Canadians are to go to all the trouble of
<>
1584
formulating a petition it is most likely a reflection of an attitude
present in the nation on a particular issue. For instance, in 1975
a petition on abortion was presented to the House. This petition
had over a million signatures. Recently we received a petition
concerning the Young Offenders Act, most likely the largest
petition ever brought to the House. It does not matter how big it
was or how many people got involved in putting it together, it
was dismissed with little or no effect, even though it perhaps
recognized the attitude of the great majority of Canadians.
D (1125)
Petitions therefore could be and should be used as a tool of
democracy. Petitions would tie the government closer to
national attitudes and bring individual members, all of us, closer
to our constituents. More important, it would allow Canadians
as individuals back into the decision making process of their
nation.
I stand here today confident that these small, simple
procedural reforms to the use of petitions could become that
very tool. There are many means by which the petition could be
made more relevant. We would have to consider which petitions
carry a particular weight because obviously not all petitions
have the same substance. Petitions that do carry significant
weight either because the same issue is presented over and over
again or because one petition has an overwhelming number of
signatures, must be considered and recognized in deciding what
happens to them.
We can make a couple of procedural changes. I would draw
the attention of members to the private members' bill that was
introduced, Bill C-642 in 1980-81, for more definite attitudes
and things that could be changed. One thing we might do is move
that petitions, after being read in the House, be given to the
pertinent committee for discussion and its merits reported back
to Parliament. I recognize that the House procedures committee
will be looking at petitions as part of a greater analysis.
Another possibility would be to allow petitions to be debated
in the House. The government and each opposition party could
then use a supply day to debate the petition. We know that if a
petition came to the House we could use a supply day and could
debate the petition. That is what we are doing right now where
we have the opportunity to bring forward what is on our mind.
Unless we have the vehicle in place to ensure that the
government does something about petitions then nothing is
going to happen. We have to bring this forward in a fashion that
brings all members of Parliament on side, recognizing the need
to evolve our Parliament into a situation where it is not just the
opposition saying we should pay attention to this. It has to be all
of us, opposition and government together asking how we can
make this institution work better?''
I understand at present the government is required to respond
to a petition within 45 days. However, nothing states that the
response has to be anything more than just a blanket statement
with perhaps little relevance to the petition. It is in essence
merely an acknowledgement that the petition was received.
At the very least there should be some mechanism in place to
keep track of petitions that have been presented in the House in
each session, the number of signatures and the topic of the
petition. This clearing house would provide an effective way for
legislators to keep abreast of the mood of the nation as well as
providing a filing system to ensure that records are kept so that
we can see if one particular issue comes up day after day after
day.
Some people worry that petitions may be a way of allowing
special interest groups easy access to the political process.
However, I would argue that special interests have already
kidnapped the national agenda and that some use of direct
democracy is necessary to offset that and bring the majority of
Canadians back into the game by allowing the majority of
citizens a means of expressing their grievances and the
knowledge that they will be addressed. I am encouraged that the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs is
considering discussion of direct democracy issues, including
petitions.
D (1130)
It is imperative that Parliament listens to citizens and that all
citizens know Parliament cares about what they have to say.
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North): Mr. Speaker, I
have a brief comment and question for the hon. member. He
mentioned toward the end of his speech that special interest
groups had kidnapped the national agenda. The word kidnapped
of course is pejorative and connotes a very negative meaning.
I would like to ask the member who these special interest
groups are that he had in mind, that have kidnapped the national
agenda in a negative way.
Mr. McClelland: Mr. Speaker, I take the comments of the
hon. member under advisement. I had some difficulty with that
word. I thought I should not use it because perhaps it was
pejorative and did reflect something I did not wish to bring into
this debate.
The fact that special interest groups have had a tremendous
impact on the affairs of the nation goes without saying, but not
in this Parliament thus far. However, we know in the past 10
years there has been a tremendous amount of special interest
group politics in our land. Everyone who has a grievance or an
ox to be gored is up front and centre. As members of Parliament
<>
1585
when we open our mail we open a big stack of special interest
group information every single day.
An hon. member: Petitions.
Mr. McClelland: An hon. member said they are petitions. He
is right. They are petitions of a kind but they are not the kind of
petitions we are talking about.
They are organized people who have the resources to be able
to influence the decision making process of this House. It is
either because they can hire some Ottawa lobbyist or because
they have that ability within their own organization and they
know how to turn the wheel, or put a little grease on it.
The vast majority of Canadians do not have access to these
organized means of representation. The vast majority of
Canadians are individuals who may be sitting around having a
cup of coffee saying: ``I am really choked about this. I have had
it up to here. What can I do about it?'' A decision is then made to
start a petition.
What happens? They start a petition which might be big or
small. Their idea might be fantastic but it is not treated with the
dignity it should have when it gets to this House. That is what we
are talking about.
I accept the member's position with regard to the use of the
word kidnapping. It was a word I probably should not have used.
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Industry): Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member on the
initiative of discussing the whole process of petitions.
The idea of creating more awareness about the process of
petitions is useful but I would have to challenge him when he
states that these petitions are presented in Parliament and are not
seen after that. The fact is that all of these petitions are answered
individually and there is further opportunity for those petitions
to have greater impact even beyond their presentation in this
House.
If members of Parliament are seized with a particular idea
they could present it in a private member's bill. The hon.
member mentioned the Young Offenders Act. Last Friday the
hon. member for York South-Weston on the government side
put forward amendments to the Young Offenders Act. Therefore
I think the hon. member is short changing the process.
The hon. member also mentioned that not all petitions carried
the same weight. If we want to continue on the hon. member's
theme of direct democracy I suggest to him that all petitions
should carry the same weight. We should not discriminate. If
someone is committed about an issue to the point of forming a
petition and requesting a member of Parliament to present it,
then we should not separate petitions. It is our responsibility to
place all of them on the floor of this House and members can
react as they choose.
D (1135)
I am a little more optimistic about the petition process. I have
seen many things occur through this process although I was
sceptical during my first year as a member of Parliament. For
example one issue I pursued vigorously in the last Parliament
concerned violence against women and children. Because a
number of petitions were presented other members became
interested and, therefore, the issue became a front burner one.
I do not want to leave the impression in the general public's
mind that once a petition is placed on the floor of this House that
is the end of it. That in fact is not the case.
Mr. McClelland: Mr. Speaker, I too would like to make sure
the Canadian public understands that petitions which have come
forward thus far have not just been thrown away. Many have had
a profound effect on this Parliament.
In general terms if many of us believe as the hon. member
initially thought that petitions do not have all that much
significance, then the perception already exists in the land that
petitions do not really mean much.
Having seen the effect petitions have had either through
repeated presentations or in some other way, if hon. members
believe that petitions are meaningful but the people in the land
think they are a waste of time, then we have a problem. We need
to address that because the citizens of Canada have to know their
representations carry weight. If we can get that connection and
that link together we will go a long way in building a bond
between the elected and the electors.
The member's position on whether all petitions would carry
the same weight is well made. A petition in the public's interest
with 100 signatures is extremely important. We have to be
careful though that we do not petition ourselves out of business.
At its height in one year 33,000 petitions went to the British
Parliament. Obviously that did not work.
Suppose there is a petition on the issue of capital punishment
for example that this House is offside with the vast majority of
Canadians. Let us say we are going to have a petition the people
want and we are working toward a citizens' initiative, some
measures would have to be in place to allow citizens access to
the parliamentary process. Of course it could not be used
frivolously. In something we have put together we have
suggested that it might take 3 per cent of Canadians in order to
initiate something.
However petitions of another nature that just come to the
House do have weight, whether they are from 10, 1,000 or one
million people. However, one million people getting together to
sign a petition is not the same as 20 people getting together to
sign a petition.
<>
1586
Mr. John Finlay (Oxford): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the
comments and ideas behind the speech, however inherent in
what the hon. member has said lies the danger. He has said
petitions must not be frivolous. He said that the British House
had 33,000 in one year and obviously things got out of hand.
Unfortunately most petitions are generated by special interest
groups. I put one example to my hon. friend for his comment. He
mentioned a petition of 1,000 signatures concerning abortion
which took a great deal of effort. I trust the hon. member knows
the latest poll with respect to abortion shows that 70 per cent to
80 per cent of Canadians do not want abortion made illegal. In
other words in the vernacular they are pro choice. Therefore if
we paid too much attention to a special interest petition of one
million signatures we would be getting ourselves into a great
deal of trouble.
D (1140)
All members in this House represent people in their ridings. If
we are doing our jobs we know largely what most of them think.
We should be in touch with the silent majority and we should not
be swayed too rapidly by special interest groups.
Mr. McClelland: I appreciate the point of view the hon.
member has brought to this House. We were elected. We have to
use our minds. We have to use our intelligence and we have to
use the collective wisdom we brought with us to this House. I am
not suggesting for one moment that we operate our country by
referendum or by citizens' initiative, however these vehicles
should be in place and should be available to citizens.
Today we are talking about how our House accepts and deals
with petitions, what we do with them and whether or not citizens
think their involvement and work in putting forward a petition
really matters.
[Translation]
Hon. Fernand Robichaud (Secretary of State
(Parliamentary Affairs)): Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like
to inform hon. members that the principle of the motion before
the House today has already been the subject of debate and was
referred on February 7 to the Standing Committee on Procedure
and House Affairs for consideration and a subsequent report by
the committee.
The text reads as follows: ``That the Standing Committee on
Procedure and House Affairs examine procedures regarding
members statements, special debates, the taking of divisions of
the House by electronic means, the conduct of Private Members'
Business, especially with regard to private bills and to Senate
public bills, any anomalies or technical inconsistencies in the
Standing Orders, the reform of question period, measures to
achieve more direct participation by citizens, including
citizens' initiative, the right of constituents to recall their
MP-binding referenda, free votes in the House of Commons,
debates on petitions and fixed election dates.''
Although this exercise is redundant, having already been
initiated by a standing committee of this House, I certainly do
not question the right of the opposition party to debate the
subject today, on an allotted day.
Before starting the actual debate, I think it is important to
realize there are two kinds of petitions: first, petitions arising
from the fundamental right of citizens to present grievances to
Parliament, and second, petitions to seek presentation of a
private bill, which are signed by the person or persons seeking to
be exempted from the application of certain legislation. Of
course, today's debate concerns the first kind which presents
grievances expressed by citizens.
For the benefit of Canadians who are listening, I will take a
few minutes to give a short history of the petitions presented in
the House of Commons and explain how they are presented and
how the government is expected to respond. I will then give
some examples to illustrate that our Standing Orders give the
members of this House the means to discuss matters presented
by petitioners. Finally, I will provide a summary of what is
being done by this government to bring about a thorough reform
of the operations of the House of Commons, which will
substantially expand the role of members in developing fiscal
policy and in the legislative process as a whole.
D (1145)
Petitions as we know them today were developed during the
17th century at a time when the British Parliament was
beginning to be perceived more as a political and legislative
institution than as the highest court of law in the land. The rights
of petitioners and the powers of the House to act on the petitions
were defined in two resolutions passed by the House of
Commons in 1669. The resolutions were worded as follows:
[English]
``That it is the inherent right of every commoner in England to
prepare and present petitions to the House of Commons in case
of grievance and the House of Commons to receive the same;
that it is an undoubted right and privilege of the Commons to
judge and determine, touching the nature and matter of such
petitions, how far they are fit and unfit to be received''.
[Translation]
Until the adoption in 1842 of several standing orders aimed at
defining the format for presenting petitions and at making any
kind of immediate debate on their content virtually impossible,
the House of Commons imposed very few restrictions on the
debates arising from the presentation of petitions. Petitions had
become a way to introduce a subject into the House for debate
<>
1587
and they were sometimes used to obstruct the planned work of
the Commons.
Moreover, since the composition of the House was becoming
at the time increasingly representative of the different trends of
thought, the need to use petitions as a means of conveying to
Parliament the pressing demands of the public decreased and as
a result, the number of petitions presented declined
considerably.
The Constitution of Canada recognizes that the right to
petition the crown or Parliament to remedy a grievance is a
fundamental principle, one that has been invoked frequently
since 1867. While the House of Commons is an institution that is
representative of the voters, only their elected representatives
are allowed to bring issues before the House. Ordinary citizens
cannot petition Parliament personally. Therefore, it is important
that Canadians have a mechanism for bringing grievances
deemed relevant to the attention of Parliament.
Contrary to the situation in Great Britain, the number of
petitions addressed to the Canadian Parliament decreased
dramatically owing to the establishment of courts of law, to the
lack of clarity in the standing orders of the time and to the
manner in which petitions were handled. The process in no way
reflected the importance that petitions should have been
assigned, considering the fundamental right of the people to
petition Parliament.
Therefore, in 1984, the Special Committee on Reform of the
House of Commons examined the question of petitions and
recommended numerous amendments to the standing orders to
correct the problems associated with the procedure governing
petitions.
Here is what the chairman of the McGrath committee had to
say in his report tabled in June 1985:
``Public petitions addressed to the House of Commons
constitute one of the most direct means of communication
between the people and Parliament. It is by this means that
people can voice their concerns to the House on matters of
public interest. However, despite the considerable effort spent
preparing and circulating petitions to gather signatures, once
they have been presented in the House and received, it is rare
that further action is taken.
We agree that the right to petition Parliament is a fundamental
right of the citizen and that petitions are an integral part of the
process whereby the people of Canada speak to their elected
representatives. However, the use that is made of this right gives
us some concern. The procedure governing petitions should be
defined more clearly to generate respect for the process and
make it more meaningful. There is a definite need to clarify the
rules relating to petitions, to promote increased uniformity in
their presentation and to ensure that they are acceptable by the
House in terms of content. In addition, we should issue
guidelines on the drafting and signing of petitions. We also think
that petitioners are entitled to a response''.
D (1150)
In order to achieve these objectives, the committee
recommended eight amendments to the Standing Orders on
petitions.
Here are the rules to follow in presenting a petition in the
House of Commons-I am sure that all members already know
them, but I am repeating them for the benefit of the people
listening to us-as prescribed under Standing Order 36 and
summarily described in the third edition of the ``Précis of
Procedure'' prepared by the Table Research Branch.
Members wishing to present petitions in the House do so
during Routine Proceedings after ``Motions'' and before
``Questions on Order Paper'' are called. A petition may also be
presented simply by filing it with the Clerk at any time during a
sitting.
Before being presented, a petition must be certified and
examined as to form and content by the Clerk of Petitions.
If the petition meets the requirements specified in the
Standing Orders, the member presenting the petition, after being
recognized by the Chair, can make a brief statement to inform
the House of the content of the petition; debate on the petition
itself is not allowed.
The government is obliged to respond within 45 days to all
petitions referred to it. Various conditions apply to the
presentation of petitions. Aliens, not resident in Canada, have
no right to petition Parliament; nor may ordinary citizens of
Canada address the House directly-their petitions must be
dated, presented and endorsed by a member. A member cannot
be compelled to present a petition and no action may be taken
against a member for refusing to do so.
It is interesting to note that Standing Order 36 includes the
eight recommendations in the McGrath report except for one
element. The committee recommended that the government be
obliged to respond within two weeks of receiving a petition,
while Standing Order 36 prescribes a 45-day time limit.
The Standing Orders of the House of Commons offer several
alternatives for a debate on a grievance expressed in a petition
presented in the House. A member can make it the subject of a
motion or a bill to be included in the ``Order Paper'' of the
House for debate. The grievance can be the subject of a
government motion, like the motion we put forward on cruise
missile testing on Canadian territory, which enabled
parliamentarians to debate this issue often raised in many
petitions presented in this House. Speaker.
The grievance can also be reviewed by a committee of
parliamentarians, or take the form of an oral question during
question period or of a question in the ``Order Paper''. Of
course, the government can decide that it needs to legislate to
<>
1588
redress the grievance submitted to it through the House of
Commons.
Then there are the general debates on the business of supply,
better known as Opposition days like today, when the
Opposition can decide on the motions to be debated on
designated days of a given supply period. We are currently in the
period ending March 26, which includes nine allotted days. The
next period, which will end June 30, will include 10 allotted
days. The period ending December 10 will also include six
Opposition days.
D (1155)
So if they wish, the opposition parties normally have 20 days
a year during which the grievances presented by Canadians in
petitions tabled in the House could be debated.
On February 7, the House of Commons passed the motion
presented by the government House leader, the Hon. Herb Gray,
which changes the rules of Parliament. The purpose of this
reform is to make the House more effective by giving every
member more influence over policy development.
These changes which give members a greater role in drafting
legislation and setting the government's spending priorities
were the first initiatives arising from the Liberal election
program for job creation and economic recovery, as mentioned
in Creating Opportunity, our famous red book. These initiatives
were adopted by the House of Commons.
During the debate, Mr. Gray said, ``Today, we are providing a
framework for renewal. It will be up to all members, both
government and opposition, to make these procedures
effective''.
The main changes to the Standing Orders are as follows. Two
new processes, in addition to those that now exist, are being
established so that members can review bills. Thus members
will participate directly in the preparation of laws and have
greater autonomy in amending government legislation, through
the committee system.
The Standing Committee on Finance will hold pre-budget
consultations and make recommendations to the Minister of
Finance.
The standing committees will be authorized to examine the
government's future defence priorities and to report on them at
the same time as they deal with the Main Estimates for the
current year.
These measures were preceded by a review of the structure of
standing committees to reflect the reorganization of the
government. These reforms are only the first stage.
A petition is an excellent way for the public to express its
opinions directly on the floor of the House of Commons or the
Senate, through a parliamentarian. The government is forced to
respond and in many ways will take the petitions into
consideration in future decisions.
For instance, and this is a very good example, last week, my
colleague, the minister responsible for Canada Post, announced
a moratorium on the closure of post offices. There is no doubt in
my mind that the many petitions presented in this House by hon.
members on this subject definitely had an impact not only on the
decision to review this policy but also on the decision to impose
the moratorium.
Another case is also a good example: the GST. In the election
campaign, we promised to replace the GST and to ask the
Standing Committee on Finance to study alternatives. This
decision was not made in a vacuum. Obviously, Canadians were
heard by our government and their thousands of petitions
presented in this House, submitted to the House, bore fruit.
Of course, the members of the opposition party who presented
the motion are eager to bring up cases where the opinions
expressed by Canadians in petitions were not reflected in
decisions made by the government and they neglect to mention
all the other cases.
The main subject of debate today is petitions, but I believe
that the real issue of this debate and of all the questions raised by
members of the Reform Party on the subject of parliamentary
reform is the loyalty of members to their constituents, to their
party, to their country or to their conscience.
D (1200)
We, Liberals, believe that members of Parliament must strike
a balance between these positions which can sometimes be
reconciled in making a decision, but can also be highly
conflicting.
Canada is a country greater than the sum of its parts. So, for
the sake of national cohesiveness, the decisions made by
Parliament must be greater than the sum of individual decisions
made by its members.
We, Liberals, feel that the credibility of parliamentarians is
enhanced when they contribute directly, and can make an
important contribution, to the development and implementation
of programs and goals that the federal government must
achieve, and not, as some members would have it, by repeating
the public opinion parrot fashion and serving as mere voting
machines.
[English]
In conclusion, and I know my time is running out, as for the
other examples cited in the opposition motion, I wish to bring to
the attention of the members the fact that the Minister of Justice
has already answered in Question Period to some of these
subjects and is looking into those matters.
<>
1589
As for the third and last example, that of recall, I do not need
to repeat what has been said in this House about the experience
in Alberta.
[Translation]
In closing, I sincerely feel that our Standing Ordes already
provide many procedures to deal with grievances presented in
the petitions we table in this House. On the other hand, if the
Procedure and House Affairs Committee were to conclude that
changes were called for with regard to petitions, I am sure that
all the hon. members would consider their recommendations
very carefully.
[English]
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to thank the hon. member for his comments.
We are talking about reform and the government is talking
about opening up the process. The member referred early in his
comments to the fact that petitions will be studied by
committees. As far as I was concerned, he almost said that our
whole motion today was not out of order but certainly
questionable because it seemed that this was already dealt with
by going to committee.
Members know that people get a chance to watch this place on
television. When they see things disappear from the floor or the
Chamber they wonder where they go after that. When something
is referred to committee, for instance, or as we received
information from our orientation session for all the new MPs
this term, it was mentioned by one of our clerks that these
petitions kind of disappear into warehouses.
I appreciate the member's comments about the closure of
rural post offices. This government has just brought in a
moratorium on that. Maybe it is due in some small part to the
petitions. I think that is good. Maybe the government is listening
to a point on that.
To just say that we really do not need this debate today on the
floor of the House and write the whole thing off and say that it is
being dealt with in committee is unnecessary .Canadians do not
know exactly what goes on in committee. I suspect they will not
wait with bated breath until somebody stands up to give a report
from the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs
about a particular petition.
We are asking on this side of the House that we have this
opened up so that people can watch it being debated on the floor
of the House of Commons.
I would like to ask the hon. member if he thinks there is virtue
and merit in the fact that people can be tuned into their
televisions right now watching it. With regard to his comments
about the anti-GST petition, which many of his colleagues in the
last Parliament presented, I dare say hundreds of thousands of
those, what will happen when this government brings in a new,
improved GST? How will this government react to whatever
kinds of petitions are brought forward on the floor of the House
of Commons on behalf of Canadians?
D (1205)
[Translation]
Mr. Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, I want to reassure the hon.
member who just spoke. I have no doubt that her party acted out
of a sense of duty in presenting this motion here today. I simply
said that we had already dealt with this issue and that a
committee would be looking into it, but I think there may be
some merit to debating it further in this House.
She referred to the example I had given: the moratorium on
post office closures announced by the minister. I was a member
of Parliament from 1984 to 1990, and we were already receiving
petitions back then. I had received petitions from my
constituents because the government had decided to axe some
post offices, especially in rural areas.
I think that these petitions did play a major role in calling the
government's attention to the fact that, for the people living in
rural areas, post offices were really very important.
The hon. member also referred to the GST. When we were in
the opposition, we presented many petitions to point out that the
GST was creating hardship for the business community due to
the complex procedure involved. We have decided to find an
alternative to the GST. I sincerely believe that the committee
presently examining this issue and looking for ways to replace
the GST with a much simpler system and one much more
compatible with business management practices will take into
account the demands of Canadians, demands brought before this
House by members of all parties on behalf of their constituents.
[English]
Mr. Jim Jordan (Leeds-Grenville): Mr. Speaker, I do not
think anyone is questioning the merit of this idea of exhausting
whatever is on the minds of Canadians at every opportunity.
I have trouble with the mechanics of it. I wonder if we would
be raising expectations if we would announce that there was a
possibility that petitions might be open for further discussion
and debate at some point, once each session as the motion reads.
I do not know how we would handle that. I have carried a lot of
petitions into the House of Commons. I carried in one last year
with between 4,000 and 5,000 names on it. I am always a little
disappointed in knowing what happens to them afterward.
Somebody signs them and one cannot make out the signature
and then what?
I have not let go of that petition. There is a very strong feeling
in my riding about this issue. I intend to pursue that. As a matter
of fact, it is almost all consuming with me right now. On the fact
that it is sort of passed by and filed, the member of Parliament
would have to be sensitive whether he thought that had enough
merit. A member may have a petition with 25 names on it. We
know that if we want to initiate a petition in our ridings,we
<>
1590
could get one with thousands of names with the opposite
viewpoint.
I wonder that when somebody's petition gets here if we might
not be getting their expectations up, thinking that they had a real
hot issue and it was going to be debated further and then the
mechanics of the way we operate just would not allow it.
As the hon. member was saying, there are many more ways a
motion can be brought forward based on a petition. One could
use it as an opposition day, as is being done today. One could
continue having the issue for an opposition day based on a
petition one received and thought had a lot of concurrence
across Canada.
I am puzzled with the mechanics of how this thing would
work. I do not understand it.
D (1210)
[Translation]
Mr. Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, I will deal only with the points
raised by my hon. colleague. There are indeed several ways
issues raised by Canadians in their petitions can be brought
before the members of this House, but to create the expectation
perhaps that every petition could be taken up in this House
would mean devoting a lot of time to issues which are often of
very regional in nature.
However, I believe at the same time that petitions should be
tabled and I would certainly be willing to consider proposals
from the House committee presently reviewing the whole
petition presentation procedure, if it were to suggest a better
way to respond to petitions and in fact meet the expectations of
the petitioners.
Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to participate in the debate on the motion tabled by the
hon. member for Edmonton Southwest, who represents the
Reform Party.
It seems to me that this motion is somewhat premature,
considering that the Standing Committee on Elections,
Privileges, Procedure and Private Members' Business, which is
already looking at one aspect of this issue, has not yet tabled its
report but will do so in the weeks to come. Be that as is may, the
Reform Party elected to use its allotted day to raise this issue.
This is an important issue since it is directly related to the
basic principles of Canadian democracy, parliamentary
democracy, as well as representative democracy. In our written
constitution, and more specifically the Constitution Act of
1867, the first whereas in the preamble reads as follows:
``Whereas the Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New
Brunswick have expressed their Desire to be federally united
into One Dominion under the crown of the United Kingdom of
Great Britain and Ireland, with a constitution similar in
principle to that of the United Kingdom''.
Thanks to the constituting authority of 1867, namely the
Parliament of Westminster, we have a written constitution as
well as institutions, such as the House of Commons, which are,
in their very essence, based on the same principle as the United
Kingdom's institutions, which is democracy by representation.
This means that members are elected for a mandate which, of
course, is not fixed but lasts from four to five years, depending
on the political situation. During that period, members are not
directly accountable to their constituents.
This parliamentary representation was in effect for centuries,
until the end of the last century. I should point out that
governments and parliaments were so eager to show that their
members indeed represented the public that they would not step
down immediately after losing a general election. Instead, they
would wait until a formal vote in the House of Commons put
them in a minority position, at which time they would resign.
Things greatly improved in the twentieth century and the
process became much speedier, to the point that when
governments now realize they no longer have the confidence of
voters, they do not wait for a formal vote in the House of
Commons to step down. So, there were some adjustments made,
although the process was slow, of course.
D (1215)
I will come back to the motion put forward by the hon.
member for Edmonton Southwest, but let me digress for a
moment to mention that the readjustment of the electoral map is
being debated in each and every province and is an issue of great
concern for our voters. Public hearings on this matter are
expected to be held.
As a member whose riding straddles two areas, the region of
the National Capital, and by that I mean Quebec City, of course,
and Eastern Quebec, let me point out that in Quebec in
particular, one region stands to loose an elected representative
with this bill. In fact, the riding of Matane will be incorporated
into the constituency of Gaspé and my own riding of Bellechasse
will see its population grow with the inclusion of nine new
municipalities.
For example, in this map readjustment project, for most of the
rural ridings, where in the past the number of voters was lowered
to compensate for the vast territory-as was the case in my own
riding of Bellechasse-this weight coefficient by which larger
areas included less voters is not taken into consideration any
more. This is an example of an issue which we could have
debated, and on which petitions could easily have been
presented. All we need to do is ask, and we would get many
petitions to be tabled. I imagine that we could have a debate, if a
reform like the one the Reform Party is talking about was
accepted.
<>
1591
On the same subject, that is the readjustment of the electoral
map pursuant to section 51 of the Constitution Act, 1867, why
did we not use the appropriate constitutional provisions or
petitions to deal with such important subjects as the
representation of the Magdalen Islands, for example, which are
a completely distinct entity under the present system? I think
that we could have obtained consent pretty quickly for the
Magdalen Islands to become a riding under section 51 of the
Constitution Act, 1867, that is a riding in which there is a
sufficient number of voters without having to include voters
from the mainland. And that does not apply only to Quebec; it
could be the same for the riding of Labrador.
I wanted to mention this in order to show that we are quite
willing to comply with the democratic wishes of our fellow
citizens.
As for the wording of the motion of the hon. member for
Edmonton Southwest, it is obviously extremely vague since it
gives examples such as serial killer cards, the Young Offenders
Act, the recall of members of the House and I think I heard the
mover of the motion talk about capital punishment in his speech.
I find it a bit unfortunate that members of this House would
use a motion to amend the Standing Orders in order to bring back
the issue of capital punishment, which was abolished in 1963. It
has been more that 30 years since the last execution took place in
our country. I find it a bit unfortunate that some people would
want to introduce such an issue in this debate today when, as
Quebecers and Canadians, we have shown our tolerance and, as
a country, we have shown the world that it is not by killing
people that we will teach Canadians that it is wrong to kill. This
topic has been widely debated, and it would be a pity if, when
foul crimes occur, often rousing public condemnation, people
were rushed into signing petitions which under our rules would
become votable immediately; this would be somewhat like a
breathalyser or a heart-rate measuring device that prompts an
immediate reaction when a peak is registered.
D (1220)
I think the parliamentary system has to handle situations with
a deeper and more extensive consideration over a longer term,
because in the heat of the moment, it is always easy to have
people introduce motions and table petitions which, under terms
that have not been specified, would become debatable and
votable in this House. I have to introduce a note of caution, here,
because I doubt the effectiveness of such a proposition over the
long and medium term.
It should be understood also that the proposition being made
comes within a certain policy framework. This one is about
petitions, but it has to be related to other propositions made by
the Reform Party about the recall of members of Parliament,
probably about citizens' initiative for bills and of course about
referenda, on which we generally agree since the great
referendum in Quebec is expected soon, Mr. Speaker. You know
better than anybody else that Quebecers will have the
opportunity to vote on their national future.
Since the Charlottetown accord, it is established that, in
constitutional matters, major changes will not be decided in a
vacuum. No more dealings behind closed doors. No more rolling
of the dice. Citizens will be consulted. What happened in 1992 is
a clear indication at the federal level, for federal purposes.
There should be no federal intrusion in provincial jurisdiction.
The federal government should use public consultations on
federal matters only. We will never accept consultations on
matters that are not part of federal jurisdiction.
Our position has always been, and it has now been accepted
that the future of Quebec should be decided by Quebec citizens
under laws passed by the Quebec National Assembly and not
under some federal law of this House. This is the fundamental
right to self-determination. That right was recognized in the San
Francisco Charter, which is the basis of the United Nations as we
know them.
I would even add, Mr. Speaker, that the motion put before the
House today has more in common with an election program than
with a simple routine question, in the sense that during the
election campaign, which ended on last October 25, the Reform
Party suggested many of the reforms that are put before the
House and on which Reform members asked questions to the
Prime Minister and the government House leader. The answers
were quite clear and precise. I believe the government said
clearly that it would not allow free votes systematically, but
rather on a selective basis.
Second, the government House leader clearly indicated that
he really wanted questions raised by free votes to be examined
by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. We
must also take that into account. The government has the
political will to do things that way.
What the government has decided after the elections, I feel, is
that profound changes will not be made during this Parliament.
D (1225)
The Reform Party may be putting forward a nice and
interesting agenda when it speaks of people initiatives, the
recall of Members of the House and other such initiatives, like
petitions that can be debated as well as voted on. Unless the
Reform Party is preparing for the elections that will precede the
36th Parliament, I do not see how changing or trying to change
the Standing Orders will reverse a rather well established
position by the government with which we can disagree but
which was spelled loud and clear.
Oddly enough and unfortunately, the free vote advocates in
the House have given us no example of free votes since the
opening of the session. If I am not mistaken, none of my
<>
1592
colleagues from the Reform Party stood here to express a
personal point of view, unless they always have the same
personal point of view or those who share the same point of
view stand at the same time. This is not my problem but the
problem of the caucus of that party that has to live with its
decisions. But I look forward to the day when the Reform caucus
will not really reveal a split in its approach but rather allow
expression of divergent views, when there will truly be an
exchange of opinions on the floor of the House. But that is not
what we see now. Perhaps they could give us a foretaste of this
by debating freely a given bill. Perhaps they will announce it
soon, but we have not seen it yet.
Of course, and I am happy to mention this to my distinguished
colleague for Kingston and the Islands, the government has not
given us either many examples of free votes in this House. We
were told there would be free votes but none has been announced
yet.
Mr. Milliken: Did you not hear Mr. Gray?
Mr. Langlois: That is not in Hansard, but may I quote him as
saying that it will come soon? So, in the next few weeks, we will
see if what the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands has
been saying is true. So, since that will be in Hansard, starting
February 21-and the hon. member from Kingston and the
Islands did not deny that-the government will soon have free
votes in the House. Should the Leader of the Government in the
House talk to the chairman of the Committee on Procedure and
House Affairs? Perhaps we will see that soon.
It will be another way of going about the business of this
House, but one where the initiative should come from the
government side. We could see this in a lighter way by saying
that the Reform Party has yet to put its program into practice;
but it is easier for an Opposition party to allow free votes, which
would be much less significant. On the other hand, it would be
far more significant for the government to allow its members a
free vote, a free discussion. When the Prime Minister rises on a
bill and states that confidence in the government is not on the
line, we will be able to see how this new procedure will work.
We will see what transpires.
I assume there will be an adjustment period-perhaps a
difficult one. Indeed, one only needs to look at our neighbour to
the South to witness the systematic arm twisting that goes on
within the same party in the case of certain bills, even though
members are supposedly free to vote according to their
conscience. Our system, which allows discussions in caucus,
may not be that bad. This may be the best place to discuss an
issue so that members can agree on a common position and then
try and reach a consensus. It may be so. I am asking the question.
It is not an answer. However, systematic free voting would
impede the quest for a consensus, so important to our
parliamentary democracy.
In any case, Quebec will have to consider this matter once it
becomes sovereign. I have no desire whatsoever to reform this
House. Though a comprehensive reform is necessary, I prefer to
live by the rules we have accepted and with which we comply
willingly, namely the rules of British fair play we have come to
learn and to respect. I feel that, on that score, the Official
Opposition demonstrated complete respect for the British
parliamentary system which we inherited along with our very
first institutions in 1792.
D (1230)
Perhaps this way we feel more comfortable than others
members who seeked to be elected with the mandate of changing
many things in this House. As far as we are concerned, we want
to change many things but elsewhere. We want to change many
things in Quebec and as a result, Canada will of course benefit
from all those changes we want to make through Canadian and
Quebec constitutional reform since there will be an ongoing
interaction between both.
This is what I have in mind when I look at the present debate.
We have on one side a party which is perpetuating its electoral
campaign, a party which is gradually tearing to pieces some
pages or some passages of its red book and finally a party which,
since it was elected on October 25, says the same thing it was
saying before, during and after the electoral campaign.
We have on the other side the Official Opposition party, the
Bloc Quebecois, which is dedicated to defend and to promote the
interests of Quebec and ultimately, not in the years to come but
in the near future, bring about, not a procedural reform or some
amendments to Standing Order 36, but a much more exciting
project which will consist in creating without animosity and
with an open mind our own country, while living in harmony
with our most wonderful Canadian neighbours.
[English]
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Industry): Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed listening to the member for
Bellechasse. I want to pursue the part of his remarks where he
talked about the Bloc Quebecois being devoted to the interests
of Quebec.
Does the member feel that when he is talking about the
interests of Quebec it is appropriate to include all of the things
that are being done for Quebecers by this institution? For
example, the Government of Canada provides useful services in
terms of setting standards in the area of the environment and in
the area of small business support. In other words, there are a
whole series of things that are being done not just for citizens of
Quebec but citizens right across this country.
<>
1593
Does the member feel it appropriate to only talk about the
duplications and the problems with Canada, or does he also feel
that it is part of his responsibility to inform his constituents
about some of the good things that the federal presence brings to
the province of Quebec?
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my honorable
colleague for his remarks. Perhaps I have not made myself clear
or perhaps the member misread what I said. It has to be one way
or an other. Maybe we could make a compromise and say there is
a shared responsibility.
Throughout my speech, I talked about the legacy of the British
Parliamentary system and the chance we have had to live in a
democracy. The idea of granting sovereignty to Quebec simply
by casting a vote, by counting the ballots and by declaring that
the majority shall decide is a legacy from the British democratic
tradition. Without such a legacy, we could not hold this debate
about the sovereignty and the future of Quebec, and also about
the future of Canada because our destinies are closely linked.
We just could not hold such a debate.
D (1235)
If we have a civilized debate, I think it due to the fact that for
200 years now we have had free and democratic
elections-some more free and democratic than others-and we
have been able to capitalize on them.
The question asked by the hon. member and my answer
complete my speech and lead me to a point raised by the main
motion of the hon. member for Edmonton Southwest. I was
wondering about petitions, about special interest groups and
about paying to organize the signing of petitions. Who would
pay?
Court decisions in Saskatchewan confirmed that any citizen,
whether a natural or artificial person, could invest any amount
deemed appropriate during an election or referendum campaign,
and this could apply to petitions. At the present time we have no
clear benchmarks set by law or recognized by the courts. Some
day we might have a Supreme Court decision since the Solicitor
General expressed the desire to refer to the Supreme Court the
decision of the Appeal Court of Saskatchewan.
Personally, considering this lack of benchmarks, I would
prefer to keep the status quo and its well known guidelines,
rather than follow a risky road.
[English]
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West): Mr. Speaker, I
listened with great interest to the comments made by the hon.
member. I have heard many comments and statements since
coming here as a new member, statements such as ``we
Canadians and Quebecers'', the separation between Canadians
and Quebecers. I am most disturbed about the final comments in
the hon. member's speech. I do not know if he wrote them down
or was just expressing them. However, they were something to
the effect that the Bloc be able to achieve two countries,
independence, without animosity. I am greatly disturbed by that.
Certainly there will be animosity. That kind of statement is
not taken very lightly by a person like me, one who has lived in
most provinces in Canada and travelled throughout Canada
extensively. As well, I have lived in Quebec.
I would like to ask the member how he feels the Bloc as the
Official Opposition represents either eastern Canada or western
Canada when in fact it has an agenda, I would suggest, totally
alien to either one of those geographical areas in this country.
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: Naturally, Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Quebecois is
devoted to the defence of Quebec interests, but voters gave us
the role of Official Opposition and we have, therefore, the
mandate to speak for all Canadians irrespective of their province
of residence. We have already demonstrated that fact in this
House by giving our consent to the passage in one day of the bill
to end the strike of longshoremen at the port of Vancouver.
We have been actively involved in the business of the House,
we gave our consent, we asked questions on bills and other
matters of interest to Canadians from the maritimes, the prairies
or the west. Of course, our basic mandate comes from Quebec,
the hon. member is right about that, but nobody can accuse us of
refusing to defend the interests of Canadians when action was
necessary to protect justice and fairness.
Mr. Dan McTeague (Ontario): Mr. Speaker, I would like to
make a few comments for my friend and colleague, the member
for Bellechasse, concerning the value of our responsibility to
represent our riding. Before October 25, it was recognized that
the Bloc Quebecois could not act as the Official Opposition.
D (1240)
I would like to put a simple question to the member: Does he
not agree that it is important for him to represent all Canadians,
including franco-Ontarians, franco-Quebecers,
franco-Newfoundlanders and franco-Manitobans?
I think it is very important that the Bloc Quebecois deal with
subjects that concern Canada as a whole.
Mr. Langlois: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for
Ontario for his question. The fate of French speaking minorities
has been a concern of mine ever since I was in grade school and
we were asked to give a silver coin for the survival of French. In
those days, that silver coin was a nickel or a dime we could have
used to buy a chocolate bar or a pop, but we brought it to school
because we knew it was for a good cause. Everybody pitched in.
<>
1594
Today it is gratifying to see the member express himself in
perfect French.
Think of all the money they collected in Quebec, and not only
money; think also of all the Quebec clergy who went to other
provinces as missionaries in dioceses where sometimes their
work was far from easy. Let us pay homage to those men and
women who worked outside Quebec.
In conclusion, I would like to remind the House that a few
days ago, the Bloc Quebecois, elected only by Quebecers, gave
proof of a great openness and understanding of the problems in
Eastern Canada and particularly those of the Atlantic when it
voted in favour of the constitutional resolution allowing for the
construction of a bridge between Prince Edward Island and the
mainland whereas our Reform colleagues voted against that
project. . . .let us ask ourselves: who in the opposition best
defends the interests of all Canadians from the Atlantic to the
Pacific, the Bloc Quebecois or the Reform Party?
I think if we asked the people of Atlantic Canada today we
would get a very clear and precise answer to that question.
Mr. Speaker, allow me to mention also the extremely positive
comments we received from the press and from distinguished
personalities from western Canada when we took position on the
issue of the lockout in Vancouver harbour.
[English]
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver): Mr. Speaker, on behalf
of the whip of the Reform Party, I would like to advise the House
that, pursuant to Standing Order 43(2), our speakers on this
motion will be dividing their time.
This motion brought forward for discussion by the Reform
Party is another indication of our party's commitment to find
ways the people of Canada can have a greater input into the
decision making process of government.
We want to encourage ongoing discussions of important
issues in every community right across Canada. We feel that this
does not always have to involve the government. It does not
have to be sponsored or funded by the government.
People like to discuss important issues with their friends and
their neighbours. They like to write letters to the editors of the
local newspapers and they like to call local talk shows on both
television and radio.
Some start petitions as a way of highlighting the concerns of
the community. These things happen spontaneously without any
cost to the government and they certainly do not require
government input or interference. Government attempts to
influence the outcome of community discussions on issues can
easily backfire.
Huge sums were spent by the previous government funding
the yes side of the 1992 referendum but the people of Canada
made up their own minds on the issue and the majority voted
against the government position.
The politicians at the time refused to apologize for their
attempts to manipulate the result of the referendum and the will
of the people. To this day many are unable to accept the result
and continue to criticize the referendum process.
D (1245)
The Reform Party takes the opposite position entirely. We
strongly supported the right of voters to express their will
through the 1992 referendum and we absolutely accepted the
result. We continue to actively push for a regular set of
referendum questions to be placed on a separate referendum
ballot at the time of each federal election. The cost would be
minimal, whilst the benefits to the people of Canada would be
enormous. By allowing them to take an active part in important
decision making we would be showing the people of Canada that
we the politicians are prepared to listen to their concerns.
We believe this type of referendum plays an essential part in
the new democracy which is finding its way into our
parliamentary system. Petitions are a form of mini referendum.
Initiated by citizens they are sometimes very localized in nature
with just a few thousand signatures. Sometimes they are of
national importance, carrying as many as a million or more
signatures.
Unfortunately governments, because they are often absorbed
in their own agenda, tend to ignore petitions or these mini
referendums. Ministers are photographed accepting this petition
or that petition, taking the opportunity to be in the news instead
of taking the opportunity to follow the will of the people.
Many petitions specifically seek to change a government
direction or policy. There is a public perception, perhaps
accurate, that instead of seeing this as a way of building voter
confidence and a way of correcting flaws in policy, a
government will shuffle the petition off into a black hole
somewhere and will continue on with what it calls its mandate.
Governments are failing to recognize the key to re-election in
the information age is to be responsive to the will of the people.
Future political stability rather than depending on party unity is
going to depend on being responsive to voter concerns. Failure
to introduce at least some basic forms of participatory
democracy will condemn us to many years of political upheaval
and uncertainty.
One government member has stated that petitions are
acknowledged and do not disappear. That is not the perception
of members of the public. Most adults have probably signed a
<>
1595
petition at one time or another-I know I have-and have
probably been as disappointed as I have that no matter how
many signatures are on a petition there is no real way to turn the
petition into legislation which addresses the concerns of the
petitioners.
Regular open consideration and debate of major petitions
presented to the House would go a long way toward showing
citizens that their concerns are being discussed in Parliament,
that their signatures on a petition really does count, that a major
petition will be discussed here, and that the government may
take notice and act to change or introduce legislation to deal
with the concerns.
If something is worth doing it is worth doing it well. More
credibility would be added to the process if a free vote could
take place at the end of the debate. Instead of being partisan we
would have an opportunity as MPs to work together, to actively
support or reject the direction suggested by a petition.
There is no threat to the government in agreeing to amend the
standing orders in the way our motion suggests. There simply
are not any downsides to this suggestion. What harm can
possibly be done by the occasional debating of petitions?
I urge all members to join me in supporting this motion. I hope
many of them will speak in its favour. I am very disappointed
government speakers so far seem to be taking a negative
position simply because this is a Reform motion. The
opportunity to debate petitions before the House would show
constituents across Canada that we really care about their
concerns.
I would like to relate the discussion today to the red book.
Government speakers regularly imply that because people voted
for a Liberal government every one who voted Liberal supports
every single policy position in the red book.
D (1250 )
Either government members are naive-and I do not believe
that to be true of the majority-or else they are taking an
unreasonable position that can be seen through by every clearly
thinking Canadian. Obviously not every person who voted
Liberal agrees with every policy in the red book. They probably
voted Liberal after feeling that on balance they were making the
best choice, even though some of the policies may have been
unacceptable to them.
Even government members will have to admit there are
probably a few policies in the red book the majority of
Canadians would like to see changed. That is not because the
original research was faulty but because times change and
opinions change. What is wrong with adapting to changing
times? What is wrong with recognizing that a particular policy
has outlived its usefulness and is no longer appropriate? What
better way for voters to indicate this than by starting a major
petition?
If the government acted upon a major petition following an
open debate in the House, its popularity would be enhanced and
it would be more likely to win again in the next election. This is
my free advice to the Liberal Party.
This seems like such a simple principle to me that I do not
understand why governments continue to regularly defy voters.
Why do they force through their mandate and then wonder why
they are defeated at the next election? If all of us here value the
opinions of our families, our neighbours and our friends, by
extension we must value the opinions of all Canadians.
We must work together to give them a greater say in the House
by allowing the debate of petitions on their behalf. Treating
petitions more seriously is one way to gain the confidence of the
Canadian voter, especially on major petitions such as the one
requesting changes to the Young Offenders Act.
The process of debating petitions would be new and would no
doubt need to be modified in the light of experience after the
first few sessions. There would have to be a fair way of selecting
petitions for debate as we could clearly not handle every one that
was presented to the House.
If selection were made on the size of the petition there would
be an automatic built in judgment as to the importance of the
subject to be handled in the House. Clearly a petition with a
million or more signatures will have been well organized and
will probably deal with a matter of national importance, while
petitions with a few thousand signatures are probably in
response to an issue of a localized nature and would be better
dealt with by municipal or provincial governments. Once those
governments see that we are debating major issues developed
from major petitions in the House, they will have much greater
confidence in us as their representatives.
Once again I urge all members of the House to show their
constituents that they are listening to the opinions of
constituents and are conducting themselves accordingly. I urge
them to support the motion.
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): Mr.
Speaker, I listened to the comments of our colleague across the
way. Many of the things he is trying to achieve are certainly not
impossible and are not contrary to some things I believe in.
However, we are dealing with a motion today that asks the
government to amend the standing orders. At last count those
were the standing orders of the House, not of the government.
Apart from all other things that are wrong with the motion, Mr.
Speaker, you would be offended if the government unilaterally
tried to change the standing orders.
<>
1596
All of us in Parliament in the last session were objecting
because the government of that time decided to change the
standing orders pursuant to a recommendation of the
parliamentary committee but chose only to amend some of the
things the parliamentary committee had asked for, thereby
creating an imbalance in the House which was felt to be
objectionable to the opposition; in other words, it could not pick
and choose from the report. I do not know of anything before the
committee that recommends a change of the standing orders. At
least nothing has been proposed by the hon. member's party to
do that which is asked in the motion today.
D (1255)
The Deputy Speaker: I think the question is clear enough.
Would the member wish to reply.
Mr. White (North Vancouver): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon.
member for his comments, but I cannot help feeling that they
were directed well away from the topic of the debate and
certainly the spirit of the debate.
I reiterate that the motion before the House today was placed
there by the Reform Party because we want to help voters of
Canada have a greater say in the running of their government.
For them to see that occasionally major petitions actually get
discussed in the House in front of the television cameras so that
the whole of Canada can see it would be going a long way toward
opening up that process for Canadians.
Miss Grey: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It seems to
me that if the motion were found in order by the Table certainly
we should not be disputing whether or not it is a legitimate
motion. It is as simple as that.
The Deputy Speaker: That is certainly debate.
[Translation]
Is the hon. member for Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup
rising to make a comment? Very briefly please, there are only
two minutes left for both of you.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to say to the hon. member for Vancouver
North that I would probably have preferred to see the Reform
Party introduce a motion proposing ways to modernize the
members' representation role rather than strenghtening direct
democracy. Indeed, I think the implementation of means such as
electronic vote by telecommunications or teleconferences
should be considered more urgent than presenting to the House
petitions immediately after an election during which most of the
issues at stake, at least for the coming year, were dealt with by
the population.
I would like to ask the hon. member to clarify a point: could he
explain what criteria would make a petition more acceptable
than another because we would obviously have to answer
questions such as how many signatures are required, or must a
petition be signed by voters in each and every province? Could
issues such as constitutional amendments be raised on a regular
basis? Otherwise we will be discussing everyday matters.
[English]
Mr. White (North Vancouver): Mr. Speaker, I would take the
hon. member's suggestions under advisement and perhaps
suggest that his party use its opposition days to introduce topics
of its choice.
On the matter of how we would choose petitions, that was a
subject of my speech. I mentioned that perhaps selecting
petitions with the largest number of signatures would
automatically place them in the realm of being a petition of
national importance. That would certainly be one suggestion.
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West): Mr. Speaker, there
is not a lot of difference between Fraser Valley West and Fraser
Valley East; they are both in the Fraser Valley.
It is a little difficult not to duplicate some of the comments
made here by virtue of the subject in itself. It is not as large a
subject as the finances of the country and so on. Nevertheless it
is an important issue. It is quite fundamental to many issues on
which the Reform Party is looking for change.
I am happy to speak to the issue of petitions. It is a petition
that expresses one of the oldest forms of grass roots populace
input of citizens to express their aspirations and their
grievances. Ordinary citizens are provided the opportunity to
bring these issues directly to the House of Commons. Petitions
can also become a vehicle for members to strengthen their own
representations or those of their party on important issues.
I also recognize this particular issue has been referred to the
procedure and House affairs committee. I am a member of that
committee and it is on the agenda. Nevertheless it is important
to express our positions at this time.
Compared with bills, motions and oral and written questions,
petitions appear to rank low in importance. Their greatest
apparent drawback is that after they are presented the House
takes no prompt visible further action, much like the situation
we have in the House when members give a speech. Often it is
not recognized that something happens immediately after the
speech and it takes some prompting to get things done.
D (1300)
We have over 200 new members in the 35th Parliament. It is
my belief that the House will see more basic reforms to its
operation than any of the previous 34 Parliaments. The
existence of the new prayer this morning is one example of that.
I am reminded of a saying: ``If we continue to think the things
we thought we will continue to get the things we've got''.
Basically it says that if we do not start looking at new issues and
pressing
<>
1597
for reforms then we will continue to get those things we have
had over the last 125 years.
With this in mind, the process of petitions is another reform
that is required as much, as was mentioned here today, as free
votes, elections every four years, an elected Senate, recall,
referenda and improved question periods. These are things that
need to be changed and they all deserve a day when we can
discuss them.
To understand the need for change I wish to provide a history
of petitions in Parliament and then an opinion of what is wrong
with the current system. Finally I will provide some
recommendations for change.
We have heard a little bit of that history already this morning
but it bears repeating in some cases. The right to petition the
crown for redress of grievances dates back to the reign of King
Edward I, as my hon. friend from Edmonton Southwest
mentioned this morning. That was in the 13th century. It was
from petitions that legislation by bill was gradually derived.
The practice of putting petitions before the Canadian House
of Commons was adopted from the mother Parliament in Great
Britain. In Great Britain petitions were debated in the House
until 1842 when the practice was discontinued because the
debates left no time for other business. That in itself leads us to
understand that since it was so busy with debates on petitions it
meant that people actually wanted to have some say. At the time
of the discontinuance approximately 33,000 petitions each year
were being submitted for debate. Would it not be nice to have
that kind of interest in this country?
After 1842 in Great Britain, petitions were read and then
could be referred to a committee of petitions, although debate
was not generally permitted on them. If petitions related to
personal grievances they could be designated as urgent and be
debated immediately.
Again in Great Britain, the committee of petitions published a
report of petitions and had similar powers that standing
committees have in this House today. On the other hand, the
committee of petitions in Great Britain had no power to
investigate or report on the merits of a petition or to call
witnesses for investigation.
In 1974 Great Britain discontinued the practice in favour of its
current practice which is that the petition goes to a minister of
the crown who must make a recommendation or an observation
to the House which is tabled and printed.
In the early days of Confederation, public petitions played an
important role in the proceedings of the House. Petitions were
frequently referred to special committees. Orders for return
were made for copies of particularly topical petitions and
debates and divisions sometimes took place on whether
petitions should be received.
Over the years, the number of petitions has dropped
significantly. People began to turn to the courts and other
administrative bodies for redress of grievances. Lobbying took
place at other levels. MPs became more sensitive to public
opinion and began to use other procedures such as oral and
written questions to articulate the needs of their constituents. It
was and continues to be today the fact that the House does not
promptly and visibly act on a petition that causes the most
frustration. From my perspective there is more formality and
bureaucratic red tape put on the front end of a petition process.
We really have to look at the process after the petition is
received. That is where we get into the meat of it. Standing
Order 36 is completely dedicated to format with the exception of
subsection (8), which indicates:
D (1305)
The Ministry shall, within forty-five days, respond to every petition referred
to it.
If you look at the response given it appears to be merely lip
service. Is it any wonder why petitions are seen to be an exercise
in futility when the government's own standing orders do not
acknowledge their importance?
In 1994 just when our citizens most need their voices to be
heard on issues like our failing criminal justice system, the poor
quality of fiscal management of government and change is
desperately needed to the reform of our parliamentary system,
the members of our Canadian Parliament cannot make a speech
to a petition, they can merely make a brief statement. They
cannot present a motion referring to a petition so that action can
be taken. They cannot be assured that the petition will go any
further than the Clerk of the House. They cannot provide
constituents the confidence their concern will be dealt with and
they cannot refer the petition to a committee of the House of
Commons.
I would propose the following changes to the petition process.
The first change is that every petition should be presented to an
all party parliamentary committee which selects a specified
number of petitions each month for debate.
My second recommendation is that each debated petition
shall be presented as a motion to be decided on by the House.
Third, all petitions should be responded to by the minister
showing that the government is not paying lip service to the
issue.
Fourth, the petition committee should have the same authority
as any other parliamentary committee, which is another topic in
itself because they too need to change.
Finally, it is necessary to say that citizens do not lightly
petition government. We are all aware of how difficult it is to
have citizens take a more continued interest in their own affairs
and in their own Parliament.
<>
1598
I sincerely hope this has not just been another speech in the
House of Commons that will be ignored. A note from my
research indicates that many such speeches regarding the
petition process have taken place over the years and next to
nothing has been done to the process.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Gaspé): Mr. Speaker, I would like to
thank the member for Fraser Valley-West for his remarks. I have
listened carefully to the different speakers, and more
specifically the one who just talked about the subject in front of
us this morning.
The first point I would like to stress-and I am going to pay
them a compliment, even though they belong to a different
party-has to do with the fact that the aim of their motion is to
increase democracy and get Canadians interested in what is
going on, in other words, in their own fate. For that, hats off to
them.
But, where I have some reservations, as some of my
colleagues may have, is with the vehicle they want to use. Today,
we are talking about making greater use of petitions in the
House. I am not opposed to the idea, in principle, but as any
theoretician would, I want to know how it is going to work.
For example, on our side, different petitions carry more or
less weight. What I mean is that not everybody has the same
understanding of how to use petitions. Some clever people, good
at manipulating public opinion, might see how to make use of
them for their own purposes and apply financial leverage to that
end. Therefore, in a spirit of fairness for all, it might be
important to define clearly the new framework for petitions and
set limits for financial contributions.
D (1310 )
[English]
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): Mr. Speaker, I am not sure
what the question was but I know the statement I picked up
refers to the importance of a petition and the weight given to it.
After campaigning and talking to as many people as all of us
have in the House, it is surely recognized that people do not feel
they have enough effect on the role of government. For instance,
look at the petitions that poured into this place on the GST and it
went through.
There has to be a way to allow people to express themselves
and the vehicle of a petition is noteworthy. It is the proper way.
The problem is when the petition gets into the House of
Commons and what happens to it. What kind of effect can the
average individual Canadian have on the political agenda of this
House of Commons?
My response to the hon. member's comments is that we
believe in petitions. We think petitions should come to the
House of Commons but we think subsequent to it receiving them
there has to be some teeth in it so that we are made to listen to the
people.
The Deputy Speaker: Will the Parliamentary Secretary to the
Minister of Fisheries and Oceans be mindful of the fact that
there is a minute left for him and the response.
Mr. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Parliamentary Secretary
to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans): Mr. Speaker, I listened
closely to the comments of the hon. member for Fraser Valley
West. I have a couple of questions which have been asked before
but they have not been answered in a clear, concise fashion. I
would like to say that getting greater democracy in the House is
always important for everyone but in a democracy one must
always be pragmatic.
We want a workable government. We want a government
which is practical and can work efficiently. We should always
keep that in mind. I believe the example given earlier where
33,000 petitions were received makes it unworkable to continue
debating petitions.
My first question concerns special interest groups. Does the
hon. member feel special interest groups have an advantage in
that they may have resources, financial and otherwise, to take
advantage of a situation in determining the agenda of
Parliament?
My other question is in terms of priority-
The Deputy Speaker: The member will have to deal with just
the first question because the time is up. Please be very brief.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member touched on my favourite topic, the funding of special
interest groups. The fact is that in special interest groups
everybody has an interest. For those that have an extraordinary
amount of funding it is normally found that the money comes
from this very place.
Time and time again we see where both Liberal and
Conservative governments have funded special interest lobby
groups and quite frankly we are opposed to that. To answer the
question it is exactly that. The difference comes from
eliminating the broad funding levels and trying to get all special
interest groups to act with some relative amount of equality and
then all petitions could be considered equal.
The Deputy Speaker: The time is up. We go back to debate.
[Translation]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Mr. Speaker, I
am very pleased to take part in a debate on such an important
issue. As chairman of the Standing Committee on Procedure and
House Affairs, this matter is of great interest to me, since it has
already been referred to my committee.
<>
1599
I know that the previous speaker, the hon. member for Fraser
Valley West, will want to share his ideas with the committee, as
well as the hon. member for Bellechasse who spoke earlier.
[English]
I welcome their participation in the debate and look forward
to it continuing in the committee. I think it is important the
record show that in fact the rules of the House relating to
petitions are not wholly out of date and are not so
unrepresentative as are suggested by the hon. member for Fraser
Valley West and indeed by his colleague, the hon. member for
Edmonton Southwest, who led off the debate for his party this
morning.
D (1315 )
In my view today's debate on petitions is really part of a larger
debate on the whole parliamentary system that has been
launched by members of the Reform Party. Their agenda
includes more than debate on petitions. It includes proposals for
recall of members of Parliament, referenda among the Canadian
public, consultation on various legislative proposals, vague
proposals for direct democracy that I am sure we are going to
hear more about, and other suggestions they have put forward
for changing the way this place operates in relation to the
general public, particularly in respect of free votes.
I suggest part of the reason the Reform Party has put this
forward is its lack of policy alternatives on other issues. We
have witnessed in the last week or so Reform members dwelling
on this issue in question period to the exclusion of virtually any
other question in the national interest. They are pursuing this
particular agenda for the reform of Parliament as their sole
policy option at this stage. I find that slightly regrettable,
interesting though the proposals are and worthy as they are for
debate.
I am happy to be able to participate in that vigorous public
discussion on each of these issues which is important. However,
it may mean a vigorous defence of a system which has served
Canada extremely well for 125 years and more and which has
served the United Kingdom for hundreds and hundreds of years
and has worked. The system is flexible and allows for change.
That may happen but I do not think it is necessary to change all
the rules of the game in order to make it work that way.
Part of the reason for this concerted attack on our
parliamentary institutions-and I call it that because I think it is
an effort to diminish Parliament in some ways in a broad
characterization-is very well founded. I know it is why many
of the Reform Party members and indeed virtually all members
were elected to this House.
It was because of the strong revulsion to the policies and
proceedings and manner of dealing that characterized the
Conservative government which occupied this side of the House
for the last nine years. I do not need to go into all the reasons for
that revulsion but the people of Canada clearly spoke. The sad
witnesses to that fact are the two remaining Tories who sit as
independents in the back row on the opposite side. Canadians
were sick and tired of the frankly deceitful practices exhibited
by the previous government almost daily in its dealings with
Parliament and with the people of this country by putting
forward policies that said one thing but did another.
Canadians saw through that and instead of accepting it as a
fact of a bad government, they took it as a bad Parliament. They
blamed the failure on the institution and on the way government
worked, rather than on the particular people who occupied the
government benches and got it so mucked up.
If members of the Reform Party had been here in any number
in the last Parliament they would have heard me speak
frequently on the evils of the previous government and pointing
out its deficiencies. I was not alone. There were 80 of us in this
party who did the same thing. Some members who were
obviously less effective were in the New Democratic Party and
some of them have had to leave. However, the fact is we were
faced with the situation of very poor government. Canadians felt
deceived by that government and therefore thought that
Parliament was at fault somehow in not dealing with this
deception.
The majority was there. The majority held throughout the
Parliament and we were unable to secure the defeat of the
government. Had we done so, respect for this institution would
have gone up immeasurably in the eyes of the public but we
could not. Therefore it took an election to clear the House and
get rid of the supporters of that government. We now have them
replaced with a good number of Liberals on this side and a
number of Reform members-I will not mention the Bloc in this
particular context.
However, a group of Reform members decided to join in and
monopolize the public chant that something was wrong with
Parliament when in fact the problem was with the government.
There is a difference. The difference was exhibited by the hon.
member for Fraser Valley West in his speech when he said that
government's rules do not allow for certain things to happen.
The rules he was referring to are the rules of Parliament, not the
government's rules. These are the rules of the House of
Commons.
D (1320 )
There is a difference and I cannot stress that too greatly. This
House is not the government. It may have a large number of
government members in it. Members of the government sit in it.
They participate in it. They debate in it and they may control it
from one day to another. They certainly have to have its
confidence throughout the time they are in office. However, it is
a parliamentary House, not a government House.
<>
1600
It is here for us to debate government policy. Members on the
other side particularly are given ample opportunity to make
criticism of government policy. When members on this side feel
critical they are also given certain opportunities to make
remarks along that line.
The purpose of the Chamber is not to decide government
policy. It is to debate the wisdom of it and to call the government
to account. Those are its primary functions. As members of
Parliament we are given various places where we can exercise
those rights and responsibilities. I believe if the new
government shows the responsiveness Canadians demand of it
Canadians will lose their interest in major sweeping reforms in
the way our system works.
The system worked well for at least 100 years. Only in the last
few years has it come into disrepute. Part of that has been the
enormous swings in public opinion which have resulted in huge
majorities on the parts of government such as we saw in 1984
and I can think back to one similarly disastrous election in 1958.
These massive swings in public opinion are becoming more
pronounced. They were most evidenced in the 1993 election
when three parties were elected, two on a very regional basis and
one on a national basis with a very large number of seats in every
case. It indicates again the electorate's volatility and
unwillingness to stand by traditional party disciplines or to stay
with a party in the belief that a party will do the best thing for
their part of Canada.
That volatility has meant that members of Parliament have to
react differently. However, it does not mean they have to
abandon the principles and their own feelings about how public
policy should be shaped and developed. The purpose of political
parties is to aggregate interests so that members trade off their
various interests for the good of the whole. What we see in the
opposition parties quite frankly is a breakdown in that normal
relationship where the party has become the single policy
vehicle and members are expected to adhere firmly to that
policy vehicle.
That is particularly so with the Reform Party. I have pointed
that out before on various occasions. I am not being critical of
the party in this sense. I am simply stating the obvious that to be
a member of that party one has to believe in the whole policy
platform of the party such as it is and if one does not, then that
person is not in. Naturally, there is a fair bit of unanimity in that
party which is lacking in this party and may be lacking in the
Bloc on issues other than Quebec sovereignty or separation,
whatever it wants to call it.
I know I have to speak to the motion and I turn to that. I want
to deal first with the role of a member of Parliament in a broad
sense. It is important to look at some of the remarks made by
famous people on other occasions dealing with the role of a
member of Parliament.
This morning the hon. member for Edmonton Southwest
referred to Edmund Burke but he did not quote him. I would like
to do so because what Edmund Burke had to say on this subject is
of importance. Of course members will recall that he was a
member of the British House of Commons. In his famous speech
at Bristol in 1774 he said several items that are significant.
Unfortunately I cannot find the words leading up to this quote so
I cannot quote him precisely.
He spoke for the need for a member of Parliament once
elected to speak for the national good and not to be the mere
delegate or representative of his or her community dealing with
narrow community interests. He said it was important that a
member represent a community, but in addition the member
should have some eye and some ear for the national good and
seek to represent that in his or her dealings. He said in the
closing remarks: ``You choose a member indeed, but when you
have chosen him he is not member of Bristol, but he is a member
of Parliament''.
I cannot stress those words too strongly. With respect we were
not sent here to represent just Kingston and the Islands in my
case or just Edmonton Southwest in the case of the member who
spoke earlier, or the riding of Elgin-Norfolk only. We are
required to look at the country as a whole, support Canada as a
whole and look to the national good. Edmund Burke said that. I
agree with that and we all have that obligation.
D (1325)
Of course these words may be a little out of date today, but in
the same speech he said:
Certainly, Gentlemen, it ought to be the happiness and glory of a
representative to live in the strictest union, the closest correspondence, and the
most unreserved communication with his constituents. Their wishes ought to
have great weight with him; their opinions high respect; their business
unremitted attention. It is his duty to sacrifice his repose, his pleasure, his
satisfactions, to theirs,-and above all, ever, and in all cases, to prefer their
interest to his own.
But his unbiased opinion, his mature judgment, his enlightened conscience,
he ought not to sacrifice to you, to any man, or to any set of men living. These he
does not derive from your pleasure,-no, nor from the law and the Constitution.
They are a trust from Providence, for the abuse of which he is deeply
answerable. Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his
judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your
opinion.
The same distinguished gentleman said in the same speech at
Bristol to the electors:
I did not obey your instructions. No. I conformed to the instructions of truth
and Nature, and maintained your interest, against your opinions, with a
constancy that became me. A representative worthy of you ought to be a person
of stability. I am to look, indeed, to your opinions,-but to such opinions as you
and I must have five years hence. I was not to look to the flash of the day. I knew
that you chose me, in my place, along with others, to be a pillar of the state, and
not a weathercock on the top of the edifice, exalted for my levity and versatility,
and of no use but to indicate the shiftings of every fashionable gale.
<>
1601
Those words, said over 200 years ago, still reflect in some
measure the duties and obligations of a member of Parliament. I
would venture to suggest they are not obligations that are taken
lightly by any member of this House. While they may be a little
strong and we may be more cognizant of public opinion today
than Edmund Burke was in 1774, partly because we can measure
it more easily, the fact is members of Parliament do have their
views. They do make their own opinions and they are required to
do so.
We as members are often forced to make decisions on issues
that were not current or discussed and debated during an election
campaign. Issues come up subsequent to a campaign yet we have
to make decisions on those and are obliged to do so. I do not
want to shirk my responsibility in that regard.
I think back to the last Parliament when there were votes on a
declaration of war. No one suspected in the 1988 campaign that
we would be faced with such a decision in that Parliament but we
were. We faced it and we voted on it. It was a tough decision.
Members found it very difficult and very disconcerting to be put
in that position. Yet it was a situation that had to be faced and it
was faced.
The same thing will happen on other issues throughout the
four or five years we serve in this House. I do not suggest as
members of the Reform Party do that every time we get cold feet
on something we should run off and have a referendum or do a
poll and decide how we should vote based on the results. We
were elected to exercise our mature judgment. That is what we
are here for and that is what we will do.
There is one other interesting quote. It is more amusing than
not, but I find it particularly relevant to petitions. In many cases
petitions are signed by organized groups across the country.
They decide to get signatures on a series of petitions and present
them to Parliament to show members of Parliament that their
point of view is particularly important or correct or one that is
shared by a tremendous number of people.
Mr. Nault: Interest groups.
Mr. Milliken: Interest groups certainly arrange these
petitions, as the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River
suggests.
Let me read what Mr. Burke had to say in another writing. I
believe this one is a discourse on the French revolution. It is an
interesting quote:
Because half a dozen grasshoppers under a fern make the field ring with their
importunate chink, whilst thousands of great cattle, reposed beneath the shadow
of the British oak, chew the cud and are silent, pray do not imagine that those
who make the noise are the only inhabitants of the field; that of course, they are
many in number; or that, after all, they are other than the little, shrivelled,
meagre, hopping, through loud and troublesome insects of the hour.
D (1330 )
I would not want to suggest that quotation would apply to all
interest groups, not at all. The fact is it does happen that some
interest groups reflect that kind of difficulty not just for
governments but for oppositions as well. They come to members
of Parliament and demand that members present petitions on
their behalf. The member may not agree with the petition and yet
feels duty bound to make the presentation and does so.
I can assure hon. members on all sides that occasionally a
member will be asked to present a petition with which the
member does not agree and the member will be placed in some
difficulty. There are two ways. One can do it through the back
door, filing it with the clerk, or one can stand up and make a
presentation in the House and have it handed in in the way we
normally do.
That option is there under Standing Order 36. Members can
choose. They can do it whichever way they want.
What happened with petitions in the past? In the last session
of the last Parliament, 5,282 petitions were presented. In the
session before that, the second session of the last Parliament,
14,581 petitions were examined. Of those, 8,631 were presented
in the House.
We had a tremendous number of petitions presented over the
five years during which that Parliament sat, over almost 14,000
petitions presented in Parliament during the two sessions. I do
not think any were presented in the first session. If so, there were
very few.
The bulk of those petitions presented dealt with the goods and
services tax. Are we going to have a debate on every one of these
petitions every time the GST comes up? There is ample
opportunity for debate of petitions. There is room for
improvement, and as the chair of this committee I will be
listening very closely as to how this can be improved.
Look at the opportunities. First of all, many of the petitions
deal with government business and the GST was debated in this
House, although for a very limited time because the government
was closure hungry and used closure at every turn. There was an
opportunity for debate.
On other subjects members can move motions under Private
Members' Business and those motions can not only deal with the
substance of petitions, but the motions can move that the subject
matter be referred to a committee for detailed study. Those
motions are debatable in this House in private members' hour,
admittedly for a limited time but they are debatable and a
reference could be made to a committee by virtue of that motion.
<>
1602
There are opportunities for asking questions about petitions.
There are opportunities after a question has been asked for a
debate on the late show that can concern the subject matter of
petitions.
Government business generally deals with matters that are
subjects of petitions and debates will be held. Many of the
petitions being presented today deal with recall. I think the
members from the Reform Party have been presenting those
items.
We had a debate on that subject the other day. We referred the
matter to the committee I have the honour to chair for detailed
study and we will be looking at it further.
These subjects are debated in Parliament. They may not be
debated the same day the petition is presented but usually if the
matter is important there are thousands of petitions on the same
subject presented over an extended period of time and I hope it is
not being suggested that we have a debate every time one of
these is presented.
In addition, the government is required to respond to
petitions. The hon. member for Fraser Valley West said these
were ignored by the government. That is not true. It is required
to respond within 45 days and I have no doubt that within a few
days I will be tabling government responses to petitions in the
House.
The member says the minister does not respond. These
responses are signed by the minister and are made available in
the House to members who have filed a petition. If others want
copies, they are available. These are not something that are
ignored. These petitions are presented and dealt with.
I am sorry my time has run out. It is hard to believe that it has
gone so quickly and I am sorry I cannot continue.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster): Mr.
Speaker, I listened to my colleague's comments with great
interest and would like to make a few comments and also ask a
question.
First of all, he commented that my party, the Reform Party,
seems to have only one agenda which is illustrated by our
questions in question period. Specifically, we deal quite often
with matters of more direct democracy.
D (1335 )
We think that Canadians' priorities are economic issues and
we have been trying to ask those types of questions but have not
been able to get answers from the government. It keeps saying it
cannot answer those questions until the budget is delivered. In
the meantime we have been asking questions about another issue
Canadians spoke to us about regarding their lack of involvement
and input on the decisions that are made in this House.
I was glad to hear the hon. member say that he feels there
could be some improvements and would be willing to have the
procedure and House affairs committee look at changes to the
way we handle petitions. I think that is the gist of this motion,
and the motion only calls for at least once during a session that
petitions be considered by this House as a whole.
My major concern is that this House has lost its concern and
respect for Canadians as individuals. The member quoted Sir
Edmund Burke and while he was quoting I almost thought I was
listening to a Tory politician from days gone by. It was that type
of attitude that saw them practically eliminated from this House,
saying if we do not like what they are doing, judge them on their
record, come back in a few years and kick them out. That is what
Canadians did.
As it turned out, they gave the Tories two mandates because
they had this lagging memory of what Liberal governments had
done previous to that and they were not prepared to make a
change until that memory because so faint that the Conservative
memory was more direct in their minds and they said we have to
change this government. They were not yet knowledgeable
enough about Reform. We will to do some things to correct that
situation so that the Reform Party could form the government.
The problem is that politicians appear to be far too elitist.
The hon. member also mentioned interest groups. Interest
groups play a vital role in what happens in Canada, the issues of
the day. Would he rather see interest groups use government
funding to lobby, to use paid advertising, oftentimes with that
advertising paid for by taxpayers through their grants by
government?
Would the hon. member rather see those interest groups have
to go out to the public, to individual Canadians, who are really
important, and see if they could get their support by putting their
name on a petition that would be brought to this House with the
potential that it might actually be debated?
Mr. Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member for
Kindersley-Lloydminster in his comments is being perhaps a
little unfair in judging the previous Liberal government. Those
of us who ran in the 1988 election had fond memories of the very
excellent previous Liberal government and we feel that
Canadians were duped into voting for the Conservative Party in
1988 because they seemed to believe that free trade would bring
unbounded prosperity to Canada. We now know that has not
been the case. That was discovered by Canadians, unfortunately,
in the period between 1988 and 1993 and the situation has
therefore been corrected.
In 1988, in my view, there was no recollection of any
disastrous previous Liberal government.
The hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminster, as I say, has
I think altered history a little in his question. Perhaps when he
<>
1603
reads my remarks again tomorrow his memory will be
refreshed, although I can see it is not sinking in at the moment.
With respect to the question he asked, he knows that what he is
trying to do is get me to denounce government funding to
interest groups and say that somehow this government funding
is inherently bad where interest groups use the money to lobby
government. Obviously, some interest groups become a bit of a
thorn under the saddle, as it were, for governments, particularly
so where the government is already funding the group and
paying for it to be such a thorn under the saddle. I am sure he
would agree with me that cutting such funding would be very
worthwhile.
On the other hand, it is very important that interest groups
sometimes be paid, moneyed, in order to represent the interests
of the groups that they are seeking to espouse or advance
because sometimes the groups are unable to fund themselves
and pay for necessary representation. For one reason or another,
they are under-represented in our system.
I can think of examples of that, examples that I will not give to
the House today because it might exclude some others. I think
there are reasons for government to be involved in the funding of
interest groups, even where the interest group is using the
money to lobby government. Governments sometimes need this
kind of lobbying, in part to convince others of the benefits to be
derived from government activity or interest in that particular
area.
D (1340 )
There is an educational role for governments to perform that
governments are aided in by interest groups. While the activity
may be directed at the government, the effect is to educate the
general public on the importance of the subject and sometimes
that happens.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot): Mr. Speaker, the hon member
has made a very eloquent attack upon the reforms of government
that the Reform Party has put forward through this motion. I find
that what he had to say is quite different from when he spoke to
the Reform Party caucus at the time he was presenting himself as
we approached the election of the Speaker. I see the difference
between what he indicated to us at that time with regard to the
reform of this place and some of the reforms that we are
advocating.
Some of the things he said in his speech were very interesting
to me. He quoted Mr. Burke as stating it was the duty of the
member to take into consideration all facets and represent the
national good. During the referendum of 1992 we saw all
members of this place follow the party line set by their
leadership. We saw that of most of them, the vast majority of
them. They were not listening to the people.
Therefore, the national good, if it was a national good that was
decided in that referendum, was not decided by the elected
members of this country. It was decided by the people through a
free vote offered by the referendum of that time.
The member has indicated that the system has served us well
for 125 years and that all is going smoothly. He has failed to
mention the national energy program that was foisted upon the
west and decimated the oil industry, the energy industry in that
part of the country, and our focus upon the need to reform the
Senate, the upper House of Parliament, that could have stopped
that unfair legislation at the time, unless he supports the national
energy program.
I ask him a general question of whether he sees no merit at all
in the attempts that the people of Canada have made through the
election of not only reformers but many new members in this
House to bring about a more democratic change within this
place.
Mr. Milliken: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Crowfoot
seems to be under a slight misapprehension. I want to say very
clearly that I support discussion of some of these proposals and I
am not adverse to all of the proposals being put forward by the
Reform Party.
However, a fundamental change in our system, such as would
happen if recall were adopted for example, I am not a supporter
of. I will hear the arguments on it but I have very grave doubts
that it will enhance our system. In my view it will damage it.
I quoted Mr. Burke because I think it casts an obligation. The
words he used indicate the obligation that is cast on members of
Parliament to vote in accordance with their best judgment and it
did not mean, and I am sure the member knows this, voting as a
block, voting with your party on all occasions. Your best
judgment is what is required. That is what Mr. Burke said. He
did not say one voted with one's party on all occasions and I did
not read any such quote. That is a significant difference. One of
the planks that Reform is pushing here is free votes and I did not
say I disagreed with that.
The government House leader in his speech on the throne
speech debate a few weeks ago indicated that there would be
freer votes in this Chamber. I urge the hon. member to read the
government House leader's very clear speech that elucidated
extensively the government's view on free votes. It was a
masterpiece of clarity.
The hon. member indicated that he thought that in the
referendum campaign somehow I was ignoring the wishes of my
electors. I can only say to the hon. member for Crowfoot that the
electors of Kingston and the Islands voted yes, agreeing with me
fully in my stand in respect of the national referendum. The yes
side won by a narrow margin in Kingston and the Islands and I
was very pleased that it agreed with me in my views on the
referendum. I suspected it would when I took my position on
that whole issue. I supported that cause in the House and as we
<>
1604
went to the people in the referendum campaign. For him to
suggest that somehow members on this side ignored the wishes
of their electors is false. I fully represented the wishes of my
electors then as now.
D (1345)
Finally I note the member went on about the national energy
policy. I was not here when that was devised. I can only say I
think it has been blamed for everything that has gone wrong in
western Canada since it was implemented, and I do not think that
is accurate.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island): Mr. Speaker, when citizens take
the initiative of creating, organizing and collecting a petition I
have observed that they are always highly motivated to do so. A
trivial matter does not normally elicit that kind of response. A
matter which the people hold dear, something that is very
important to them, will result in their coming together,
organizing a petition, getting it circulated, collecting names and
doing so because they believe it is very important.
It takes a great deal of effort and personal sacrifice on the part
of organizers of petitions. The people who sign petitions usually
do so with total sincerity and with a genuine support of the cause
being promoted. I believe it is very seldom a person will sign a
petition without asking very seriously the question: ``What am I
signing?'' I also believe once a petition is started it has another
very desirable effect: it generates a lot of discussion so the issue
being brought forward is debated by a great number of people in
the community. The level of information or the understanding of
the topic is enhanced because of the debate.
Therefore the question should arise of what politicians or
decision makers do with these petitions. I believe it is the
perception of a great number of Canadians that the process by
which a petition is handled is that an MP is given a small amount
of time in the House to make a supporting speech when the
petition is presented. It is recorded in Hansard and other
documents as having been presented. Then it appears that the
petition is trucked off to a warehouse somewhere. It is very
seldom we have any action on the petition. In any case it is
extremely seldom that we have any precipitous action or fast
action.
I think of one example. In the last little while many petitions
have been presented in the House on killer cards. There appear
to be a great number of Canadians like me who are more and
more concerned about the growing element of violence in
society. They say that this is an area where we need to put our
finger in the dike, that we need to stop this.
The petitions are pouring in here, but what is done with them?
At this stage apparently nothing. I emphasize the word
apparently. It is undoubtedly true it has been recognized that the
government will respond. However the fact is there must be an
increased level of communication with Canadians so they have
assurance that when they speak they are heard.
We in Parliament are embarking on a new era. This a new
Parliament. Things are now being done differently. We have
approximately 200 new members in the House who, like me, are
eager to make an impact on the way our country is governed.
I cannot resist quoting from the now famous red book. Some
of the ideas in the red book were found earlier in the Reform
Party's blue book. That ought not to be surprising since the red
book came out during the election period, at a time when
politicians seeking re-election had a great interest in finding out
what people were thinking. They probably conducted polls,
listened to the people at the doors and heard what they were
saying, and as a result those things were included in the red
book.
D (1350)
We were doing the same thing over a number of years. The
process by which our blue book was derived was really quite
similar in the sense that we were listening to the people. We
heard a great number of people say over and over: ``We do not
have a true democracy; we have an elected dictatorship''. That is
a bad word, yet that is the word I kept hearing. They were
saying: ``We elect these people and once they are elected they
have a free hand and they do whatever they want; they do not
listen to us on an ongoing basis''.
As a result the blue book reflected what the Canadian people
were thinking. It came up with these wonderful and much
needed concepts about the way our government works: things
like petitions, citizens' initiative of which the petition is a form,
referendums and recall so that not only at election time but also
between elections the people of the country have a say in how
they are governed.
I quote one very important sentence from the red book that
accurately expresses the feeling of the Canadian people: ``The
people are irritated with governments that do not consult them''.
We must stop to think about the implications. We have had
elections anywhere from six months to five years. That is how
our elections are occurring and when the people are being heard.
If that is satisfactory why are the people irritated with
governments that do not consult them? Clearly it is because they
are not being consulted between elections. That is the crux of the
matter when we think of an efficient way of dealing with
petitions, citizens' initiatives, the subjects of recall and of
referendums.
If the people are irritated when we do not consult them, how
much more irritated they must be when they voluntarily, by
petition, bring an issue to us in the House and we leave the
perception that we are not paying attention. How much more
irritated they are when we ignore the hard work that went into
<>
1605
the collection of a petition with thousands or tens of thousands
of names. We must start listening and acting on what they say.
There is a very important fundamental question. A member
opposite made reference not very long ago to the fact that we in
the Reform Party keep coming up with these reforms to the
parliamentary system. I contend that is really fundamental to
everything else. Unless we have a true representative
democracy, we will probably never be able to solve the other
problems that come to us from time to time. In particular I am
thinking of the question of the national debt and the disaster
being brought on us by its ever increasing size.
The people are clearly saying that government spending must
be brought under control, yet in the context of how the House
operates there seems to be no real mechanism to say we will
have a balanced budget. There is not a final authority in the
House to determine that. The budget is announced to us and we
have no real input into it other than to debate it and hope to
influence the outcome.
In a true democracy who then holds the final or ultimate
authority? We seem quite ready to accede that it is the people. I
find it interesting, being a new member of Parliament and from
talking to many who have been here before and a great number
who are here for the first time, that no one in the House would
question the wisdom of the voters in choosing the person they
sent here.
D (1355 )
The Reform Party and all of us who are members of that party
are thinking the people in the west chose very wisely. I am sure
members opposite are convinced the voters expressed great
wisdom in sending them here. If we can trust the voters to make
a decision on whom to send here, on which party to vote for and
on which leader to support, should we not also be able to trust
them with other issues? This touches on the subject of
referendums as well as on the subject before the House today.
There is a large demand out there among the people for a more
representative government, for representation in a more
democratic style. The people are beginning to insist that they be
heard. Their willingness to be governed by legislatures will be
withdrawn if we act like dictators.
Furthermore, if we listen more to our people and the message
they give through referenda and through petitions, I am
convinced we will have wiser decisions. There are many
examples where the people in the broad context make better
decisions for the country than do those who sit in little islands of
isolation.
I look forward to questions or debate of other members.
[Translation]
Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Carleton-Gloucester): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member for Elk Island talked about the motion
making petitions the subject matter of debate, which I find
totally ridiculous, especially the part where it says that petitions
will be brought to a vote at the end of the debate.
If Reform members had sat here for the last five years, as I
have done, they would realize all the problems this would
create. Reform members keep saying that this government and
this Parliament spend too much. Does he not recall that the last
referendum cost more than a quarter of a billion dollars and does
he not realize that holding referendums on almost everything,
year in and year out, will cost billions of dollars?
[English]
The Reform Party is suggesting that for every petition there
be a major debate and major vote. That kind of law or rule could
be absolutely divisive. We have heard the Reform Party contest
the official languages, for example. It is trying to divide the
country further? That is the intent of the Reform Party.
If any of you have ever sat on municipal council, you would
probably remember that homeowners on a single street-
The Speaker: I know the hon. member would want to address
the Chair in his question.
Mr. Bellemare: Mr. Speaker, they would experience, sitting
on a city council or municipal council, that often when
petitioning a street people are divided on the same topic. They
could get 100 people signing the petition, signing yes. Yet on the
same street people would be signing on the no side.
How do we verify the correctness of the signature or the age of
the people? Who does all of that? What kinds of expenses would
we get involved in trying to make sure that every signature was
bona fide, that every person signing was of age, that every
person signing was not half drunk, or that we are not getting a
bunch of loonies or bigots constantly signing petitions who do
not believe in the proper process?
We have seen in the case of the member from Markham that
people are banding together like lynch mobs in a village trying
to hang someone without due process.
D (1400 )
Maybe lynching was good in the thirties or sixties of the 19th
century in Alabama. In Canada this is not what we want. We are
not made up of bigots.
Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, I would simply comment that if the
member for Carleton-Gloucester insists on demeaning his
<>
1606
electors and saying they are bigots when they present their
petitions or when they vote on a referendum, that is his choice.
I would choose rather to listen to my constituents, to take very
seriously what they say in terms of a referendum or a petition
which they present. There may be some difficulties
administratively but they can certainly be overcome in our
modern technological age and there is great gain to be made by
listening more and more to the people who sent us here.
[Translation]
The Speaker: It being two o'clock, pursuant to Standing
Order 30(5), the House will now proceed to statements by
members pursuant to Standing Order 31.
_____________________________________________
<>
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
Mr. John Murphy (Annapolis Valley-Hants): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to extend my congratulations and support
for the Acadia Centre for Small Business and Entrepreneurship.
Today this centre kicks off a week-long conference at Acadia
University for people considering a career in self-employment.
The conference, entitled ``Exploring Your Future: Learning
About Entrepreneurship'', will allow participants to determine
if self-employment is right for them and if so how they go about
starting a business.
Following this conference, 35 participants will be selected for
a 14-week employment training program.
Not only does such a conference play an important role in
promoting the local community network but it also provides
valuable services and information for those wishing to get their
new ventures off the ground.
I fully support the efforts of the Acadia Centre for Small
Business and Entrepreneurship and ask that the members of this
House join me in congratulating the organizers of this important
conference.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans): Mr. Speaker, for the
second year in a row, the Parc du Mont-Sainte-Anne in the
magnificent riding of Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans will
play host to the Snow Surfing World Cup from March 9 to March
13, 1994.
The 1993 world cup drew more than 10,000 spectators to the
site and the event received extensive media coverage.
Millions of television viewers in Europe, Asia and America
watched the competition and in the process, they became better
acquainted with Quebec, and in particular with
Côte-de-Beaupré and the Parc du Mont-Sainte-Anne.
[English]
The second Snow Surfing World Cup at the Parc du
Mont-Ste-Anne should once again focus world-wide attention
on Quebec as a region, highlighting its distinctive character and
the extent of its sports and tourism facilities.
From March 9 to March 13, 1994 the whole world will be
watching the Parc du Mont-Ste-Anne.
* * *
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt): Mr.
Speaker, my constituents have overwhelmingly opposed any
reduction in the RRSP contribution limits. Reducing these
limits is increasing taxes for those ordinary Canadians such as
small business owners and employees who use RRSPs as their
sole means of preparing for retirement.
I have also received literally hundreds of letters of support for
the home buyers plan which is due to expire at the end of this
month. This plan utilizes the RRSP program to make home
ownership a viable option for many Canadians and has been that
rare bird, a successful government program that does not cost
the treasury a cent.
I hope that the finance minister has considered these voices of
ordinary Canadians as he prepares his upcoming budget.
On behalf of my constituents in
Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, I ask the finance minister
to stop speaking in code. Broadening the tax base means raising
taxes.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos (Saint-Denis): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to address my colleagues in the House on the occasion of
National Heritage Day.
The diversity of our country and of its people is expressed in
many ways and makes us unique within the community of
nations.
Our wealth of cultures, languages and traditions enrich the
everyday lives of all Canadians.
<>
1607
D (1405)
National Heritage Day is an opportunity for all Canadians to
reflect upon the meaning and richness of their heritage.
[English]
On this Heritage Day Canadians should take this opportunity
to remember with pride the contributions of those who have
helped to form this great land, appreciate and share the diversity
in which our heritage is expressed, strengthen and celebrate the
multicultural fabric of Canada.
We in this House have much to celebrate since we are very
much an example of that multicultural fabric.
* * *
Mr. John Cannis (Scarborough Centre): Mr. Speaker, last
Friday evening the Girl Guides of Canada in the city of
Scarborough awarded the Canada Cord to five young women
from Scarborough Centre.
The Girl Guides' Canada Cord recognizes an individual's
dedication and contribution to the Guiding movement, their
community and our country.
The five young women are Jennifer Barnes, Analese
Campbell, Jandy Morrow, Kristi Tumbling and Jennifer Wright.
They have committed their time and efforts over the past three
years to earning this award. As valued members of our
community, they can be regarded as fine examples of what every
young Canadian can aspire to be and I congratulate them.
* * *
Mr. Bob Wood (Nipissing): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of all
Canadians and in particular on behalf of the people of Nipissing
I would like to congratulate Kate Pace of North Bay, Ontario for
her outstanding performance in the women's Olympic downhill
race this past Saturday.
As the reigning world champion, Kate once again finished
among the best downhillers in the world and is looking forward
to competing in the remaining World Cup races to defend her
world championship title.
A capacity crowd of over 1,000 people jammed the North Bay
Art Centre at four o'clock in the morning in order to watch Kate
compete in her race. This show of support for Kate Pace by the
people of North Bay and area is due to Kate's commitment to her
sport and to her community and to her country, Canada.
I am very proud to congratulate Kate today after a terrific
performance at the Olympic Games and I wish her all the best as
she defends her World Cup downhill title later this year.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières): Mr. Speaker, it is with
great pride that I inform the House that owing to an investment
from the Fonds de solidarité des travailleurs du Québec, the
Trois-Rivières plant of Canadian Pacific Forest Products
Limited will reopen on February 23 under the name of TRIPAP
after having been closed for two years and will start producing
paper again, thus giving jobs back to 300 workers.
Over the past few years, the Fonds de solidarité has made it
possible to create or maintain more than 700 jobs, in particular
at FABRON of Trois-Rivières, Cadorette Marine of
Grand-Mère, in the Prime Minister's riding, and Nova Quintech
of Pierreville, a total investment in excess of $41 million.
On the 10th anniversary of its setting up the extremely useful
role the Fonds de solidarité des travailleurs du Québec has
played in the Mauricie-Bois-Francs region had to be brought
to the attention of this House.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island): Mr. Speaker, I am very excited
about an initiative being taken by several women in my Elk
Island riding. Maralyn Benay and her colleagues are
undertaking the formation of an organization which will receive
voluntary donations by citizens to be applied directly to the
national debt. They are receiving a great deal of positive
publicity and the momentum for the plan is growing by leaps and
bounds.
While warning her about the magnitude of Canada's debt and
over-spending problem, I compared the efforts with spooning
water into a rain barrel while ignoring the fact that the bottom is
out of the barrel.
We have citizens who are ready to tackle our huge debt
problem with the same fervour as we accepted the emergency
situation of our country during World War II. How wonderful it
would be if we here in Ottawa could do our part by stemming the
flow out of the bottom of the barrel.
Mrs. Benay and her group deserve all the encouragement they
can get and all the people who are ready to donate, whether a
small amount or a large, are to be commended as Canadian
heroes.
<>
1608
[Translation]
Mr. David Berger (Saint-Henri-Westmount): Mr.
Speaker, last Friday, it was very amusing to hear the statements
made by two members of the Bloc Quebecois.
The member for Richmond-Wolfe condemned those who
oppose official bilingualism. I am very happy to hear that the
Bloc supports official bilingualism.
For his part, the member for Louis-Hébert congratulated
Isabelle Brasseur on winning a bronze medal. But he did not
even mention the name of her partner, Lloyd Eisler, who comes
from Ontario. Does he think that Ms. Brasseur would have won
in pairs skating by herself?
This reminds me of the Canada Cup tournament held a few
years ago when we won with Wayne Gretzky and Mario
Lemieux. Many people said that we could not have won without
both of them, for is it not true that unity is strength?
These statements by two members of the Bloc Quebecois
show the contradictions and weaknesses in that party's
positions.
* * *
D (1410 )
[English]
Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi (Bramalea-Gore-Malton): Mr.
Speaker, today is Heritage Day.
It comes as no surprise that Canada would choose to celebrate
diversity among its peoples. This is a country where cultural
differences are considered a strength rather than a weakness. It
is just one of the reasons Canada has acquired a sterling
international reputation for fairness to all people.
While some Canadians may take their freedom for granted,
those who worked hard to emigrate here will never do so.
Canada is secure enough in its own virtues that it allows and
encourages new Canadians to retain their own culture.
We should remember that most countries force immigrants to
purge themselves of their heritage. Canada, however, sees the
value of heritage and celebrates it from coast to coast.
Happy Heritage Day, one and all.
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North): Mr. Speaker,
Heritage Day holds great significance for our country. Today we
reflect on the many faces of Canada and celebrate diversity and
unity.
I am reminded of my own immigration and of how my wife
and I have been blessed with four sons born and raised in this
great nation. I am privileged to live in Canada, honoured to
serve the constituents of Winnipeg North and proud to be part of
the beautiful diversity that is the Canadian mosaic.
Heritage Day is also about our national institutions, our
railways, schools, parks and system of government. It is about
the building of our nation which touched generations of
Canadians' lives in numerous ways, politically, economically
and socially.
It is also about governments playing a major role in
preserving our cultural landscape, fostering closer relationships
with our First Nations peoples and sustaining official
bilingualism in a multicultural framework.
The sum of all defines our national values-democracy,
freedom, social justice and peace.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec-Est): Mr. Speaker, I
want to denounce an inhuman situation experienced by a
Romanian family from my constituency, Mr. and Mrs. Maraloï
and their two sons, who have been in Canada for three years. As
soon as they arrived here, they started the procedures with the
department of immigration to straighten out their situation in
Canada. These people made a lot of effort to integrate
themselves to the Quebec community. They never asked for any
form of government assistance. The academic successes of the
children illustrate how well integrated they are. This is a model
family.
Yet, the applications made by that family have been rejected
because authorities feel that there is no proven risk of
persecution if they return to Romania. So, after three years in
Canada, they are told they must go back. This is inhuman. Are
we going to celebrate the International Year of the Family by
uprooting these people from the community in which they have
settled and are appreciated, and by deporting them to a country
where they no longer have anything and where they have every
reason to believe they will be in danger?
<>
1609
[English]
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East): Mr. Speaker, last week I
had the privilege of taking part in a series of meetings in
Vancouver with the Canadian European Parliamentary
Association. We had an extensive field trip in the air and on the
ground at Clayoquot Sound.
As the House may know, the Europeans had brought forward a
resolution to the European Parliament which would have seen a
boycott of up to $2 billion worth of Canadians softwood lumber
products. They had based their tentative decision to boycott on
the basis of information and representations made by certain
B.C. protectionist forces and they are to be applauded for taking
the time to view first hand the practices which are so soundly
denounced by those certain protectionist groups.
I am pleased to report that after thorough discussion and
observation we have arrived at a reasonable approach to the
resolution of their concerns. The environmentalists should
consider the progress that has been made in sustainable forestry
management practices. I suggest they consider compromise
instead of confrontation and co-operation instead of
controversy.
* * *
Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil): Mr. Speaker, I rise in the
House today to express my total disagreement with the proposed
electoral redistribution and ask that steps be initiated to halt the
process immediately.
Last Friday over 30 municipal leaders of my riding, as well as
the West Island of Montreal, were consulted. They agreed
unanimously that the proposal does not reflect the reality of our
region. In these difficult economic times, when tomorrow once
again in this very House Canadians are going to be asked to
make difficult sacrifices, can we really afford the millions of
dollars that this reform will cost, let alone ask ourselves what it
will accomplish?
D (1415)
I have consulted with many of my colleagues from Ontario,
Quebec, the west and the Atlantic provinces, and we all agree it
is our duty to be frugal with the taxpayers' hard-earned money.
We can save millions of dollars by simply passing a bill to delay
electoral reform until the next census.
I do not believe Canadians are under represented by the
current 295 MPs. Allow me to conclude by reminding the House
that it is quality, not quantity that should be the focus here.
[Translation]
Mr. Patrick Gagnon
(Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine): Mr. Speaker, allow
me to express in this House my most sincere congratulations to
eight young students in Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine
who received scholarships from the Canadian government to
maintain their academic excellence in post-secondary science,
engineering and mathematics.
These fields of learning are important to the economic future
of the region and of Canada and I count greatly on the
professional contribution of these scholarship students from
Gaspé and the Magdalen Islands for our economic future. I offer
my sincere congratulations to Frédéric Aspirot, Nadia
Bouchard, Julie Cummings, Anik Henry, Pascal Poirier, Steve
Renaud, Stéphane Thériault and Serge Vigneau.
With this Canada Scholarship worth up to $10,000 at the
university level and $7,500 at the college level, these young
people will be able to excel in their studies.
These scholarship recipients will help maintain Canada's
scientific excellence and I am very proud of that.
The Speaker: Dear colleagues, for several weeks, some of
you have been asking me about Standing Order 31.
[English]
You have addressed the Chair and asked if I could give some
kind of indication as to the length of Standing Order 31s. I am
happy to report to you that after five weeks, if the statements are
about 150 to 160 words, everyone seems to be able to get them
in. So I report to you that this seems to be going well.
I would like to thank again those of you who have prepared
statements and sent them to the interpreters. It does help in the
translation and I do thank you on behalf of all colleagues.
_____________________________________________
<>
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): My
question is directed to the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Yesterday, NATO and UN leaders decided against authorizing
air strikes at Sarajevo. It seems that UN peacekeepers are taking
control of Serb positions and that at last peace will come to
Sarajevo.
<>
1610
I want to ask the minister whether he could report to the
House on the situation today in Sarajevo and give us assurances
that the withdrawal of Serb heavy artillery was sufficient to
justify cancelling the air strikes.
Hon. André Ouellet (Minister of Foreign Affairs): Mr.
Speaker the withdrawal of heavy artillery or its transfer to UN
control has improved the situation very substantially, and the
process is definitely producing the results expected by UN and
NATO members.
The demilitarization of Sarajevo will continue, and that is
why we felt it was important to maintain the threat of air strikes
for the use in cases where either the Serbs or the Muslims would
be inclined to bring back and use this heavy artillery.
However, we think the diplomatic initiatives produced results
and the peace process has definitely been started and we hope
that no air strikes will be necessary under the circumstances.
D (1420)
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, I must agree that this is good news and that the
government was right to join its partners in order to produce the
results we see today.
However, the war goes on in other parts of Bosnia. I would
like to ask the minister whether he could tell us what strategies
are being considered by Canada and its partners to end the
fighting in Bosnia and thus prevent the Serbs from taking the
heavy artillery withdrawn from Sarajevo and using it to fight
elsewhere in Bosnia?
Hon. André Ouellet (Minister of Foreign Affairs): Mr.
Speaker, we feel that diplomatic initiatives by the Americans
and the Russians helped to create a climate that is far more
promising than has been the case so far. We feel that these
diplomatic initiatives must continue and should be pursued in
order to get the three parties involved in this conflict-Serbs,
croats and Muslims-to agree to a peace process that would
extend to all of former Yugoslavia. Meetings will be held in
Europe tomorrow and at some time during the next few days in
order to put in place, at the highest levels, a mechanism that will
bring a durable peace to the region.
[English]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, given the fact that the ultimatum for the lifting of the
siege in Sarajevo has expired, can the minister indicate what the
new timetable will be for the withdrawal of Canadian troops
from Srebrenica? Can we now expect a rapid withdrawal under
conditions that guarantee the safety of the troops?
Hon. André Ouellet (Minister of Foreign Affairs): Mr.
Speaker, I am happy to report that the decision made in regard to
the changing of the guard in Srebrenica is implemented. It is in
the process of being totally implemented.
Unfortunately because of the weather conditions and the
numerous points of control that the Dutch troops have to go
through in order to arrive there, they are not there yet. However
they are en route and I am optimistic that this will take place in
the coming weeks.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval): Mr. Speaker, last Friday,
the grand chief of the band council of Akwesasne, Mr. Mike
Mitchell, handed in his resignation saying, and I quote: ``I have
put plans forward to initiate collaboration between Mohawks
and the government, but the infighting has worn me out''.
Would the Solicitor General not agree that the sudden
resignation of Mr. Mitchell is proof that Mohawk authorities are
powerless when it comes to enforcing the law on their territory?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada): Mr. Speaker,
my colleague should ask Chief Mitchell, if he wants to know the
reasons for his resignation. I can say that the RCMP has tried to
enforce the law everywhere, and continues to do so, but I see no
link between the resignation of Chief Mitchell and the work of
police forces, including the Sûreté du Québec.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval): Mr. Speaker, should we
conclude from the resignation of Mr. Mitchell and the assurance
given by the Solicitor General that there would be no police
action on Mohawk territory, that the government has given up
enforcing the law on these territories and leaves a small band of
armed men the opportunity to pursue, with total impunity, their
criminal acts and illegal activities?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada): Mr. Speaker, I
never gave the assurance that there would be no police action on
Mohawk reserves. I said exactly the opposite. I said that it was
in the hands of the RCMP and that they would make their own
decisions regarding inquiries and action if warranted. I never
promised anyone that there would be no such action.
* * *
D (1425 )
[English]
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
<>
1611
Whatever proposals the budget contains for deficit reduction,
most members agree that their effectiveness would be
strengthened if Parliament had more and better tools to control
overspending.
Can the Deputy Prime Minister tell us whether the
government has any specific plans and proposals for giving
Parliament such tools and, if so, what those plans might be?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, the government House
leader has already laid out his plans for making Parliament not
only more accountable but more responsible to the needs of the
taxpayers.
When the estimates are tabled, as they will be this week, I am
sure the hon. member and his friends in the Reform Party will be
as scrupulous and as active as are members of the government in
ensuring that the taxpayers' dollars are well spent in every
department.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest): A
supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The Lambert commission
recommended the introduction of sunset clauses whereby
statutory authority to spend on certain programs would cease
after five years unless Parliament voted specifically to renew.
Could the Deputy Prime Minister tell the House whether the
government agrees in principle with sunset clauses as a tool to
control government spending?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada
is not waiting for sunsets to control spending. We are constantly
reviewing the necessity for every program because we realize
that the responsibility we have received from the taxpayers is to
spend their dollars wisely every day, every month and every
year.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest): Mr. Speaker, a
further supplementary for the Deputy Prime Minister. The last
Parliament, as some members will remember, considered a
spending control act which provided that program spending
would not exceed certain specified limits.
Could the Deputy Prime Minister tell the House whether the
government agrees in principle with legislated spending
controls as yet another tool for getting spending under control?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, the best legislated spending
control that we are going to have is the budget that will be tabled
tomorrow.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot): Mr. Speaker,
in the last stretch before the budget, all the signs are there that
this government, which listens to the people, or so it says, will
ignore the interests of Canadians and increase the tax burden on
middle income families.
My question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. Would
she agree that the direction her government appears to be taking
goes against the very principles of fiscal fairness and economic
recovery it apparently wants to defend?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, the government is not being
hypocritical, but speaking of hypocrisy, on the weekend I heard
the opposition's finance critic say we had to deal with our
financial problems and do our best to take care of Canadian
taxpayers, but we could not touch any programs that benefit the
middle class or the government's tax programs or RRSPs. I have
a question for the finance critic: How would he meet his
commitment to balance Canada's budget?
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot): Mr. Speaker,
I am delighted with the Deputy Prime Minister's question,
because it happens to be the same question we have been asking
her government and the Minister of Finance since January 17.
Does the government intend to get the money where it is to be
found, in other words, from Canada's big corporations which
have not paid a penny in taxes since 1987, even when their
profits are sky-high, and from the wealthiest Canadian families
that use family trusts to avoid paying taxes? That is where the
billions to cover the shortfall in the government's annual budget
could be found.
Does her government intend to cut in those areas and spare
middle income Canadians?
D (1430)
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, I am sure the finance critic
for the Bloc Quebecois would not, for instance, want us to touch
the tax shelters available to the Fonds de solidarité. I believe
there are a number of government instruments that are very
important for economic development.
The member says we should review these tax shelters to deal
with the problem, and of course we all agree that the tax burden
should be shared. We cannot put the whole burden on only 2 per
cent of the population because that is not going to solve the
problem. We must all be prepared to do our share. I would like to
see the opposition be part of this process, which will not be easy
<>
1612
but which is necessary to guarantee our fiscal health and jobs for
Canadians.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. This matter was
brought to my attention by members of the Somali community
and the media.
It appears that an alleged human rights abuser from the brutal
Barre regime of Somalia now resides in the Ottawa area. When
will the Deputy Prime Minister see to it that this individual is
investigated and that these allegations of brutality are
substantiated? If they are substantiated will deportation
proceedings begin immediately?
Ms. Mary Clancy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon.
member for his question and tell him that as we speak
departmental officials are investigating these allegations.
There are provisions in the Immigration Act to remove
persons who are senior officials of a government engaged in
gross human rights violations. Should it be confirmed that this
subject was a senior official of the Barre government, the
Minister of Citizenship and Immigration will ensure, as he has
done in the past, that removal action is taken.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast): Mr. Speaker, a
supplemental to the Deputy Prime Minister.
Last week I asked the minister of immigration how many
more examples of abuse Canadians should have to tolerate.
Stories of criminals and human rights abusers entering Canada
surface regularly in the media despite the minister's assurances
to the contrary.
When does the Deputy Prime Minister, or the Prime Minister
for that matter, expect the immigration minister to start doing
his job rather than leaving it to the media?
Ms. Mary Clancy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration): Mr. Speaker, we can say the
immigration minister is doing a superb job under due process of
law.
This country has long been an open one and one that is
delighted to receive immigrants and refugees from those
countries not as fortunate as Canada and this process will
continue.
There are laws in place and occasionally those laws are
broken. When they are broken there is due process to ensure that
offenders are punished to the fullest extent of the law. If this
turns out to be the situation in the present case, then that will be
the end result.
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
On Friday, February 18 last, the minister announced the
make-up of the expert committee which will have slightly less
than two months to advise him on the ambitious proposed
reform of Canada's income security system and labour market.
However, the House committee will have only 12 days to hear
testimony from individuals and groups and to advise the
minister on the concerns and priorities of Canadians.
Considering this unrealistic timetable, my question is will the
minister concede that in fact, his action plan is already in place,
that it is the same as the Conservatives and that he prefers to
consult a committee of experts at $500 per day rather than allow
enough time for public consultations?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): Mr. Speaker, I have far more confidence in the
abilities of members of Parliament and the committee than the
hon. member seems to have.
D (1435 )
The hon member should not underestimate the capacity of this
Parliament to provide an open forum for Canadians to be heard,
making sure there is broad consultation and to perform the
valuable task of ensuring that a range of opinions from one coast
to the other is clearly brought forward as the first stage in
consultation. Then the committee can get on with a longer
review of an action plan so there can be something specific.
The attempt by the hon. member to try to subvert or short
change the work of this committee does not do much credit to
her role as opposition critic. It is very important that Parliament
get down to work and give Canadians an opportunity to be heard
so that we can come together with the reform all Canadians
want.
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier): Mr. Speaker, first of all, I
want the minister to know that my role as a parliamentarian on
this committee cannot be questioned. I pushed for more time,
but despite everything, we will still have only twelve days to
conduct hearings.
I would also like to quote, if I may, from an article which
appeared in this morning's edition of The Globe and Mail:
<>
1613
[English]
``Finance Minister Paul Martin has indicated that reducing
Canada's $45 billion deficit will have to wait while the
government deals with fundamental issues such as reforming
the social safety net''.
[Translation]
My supplementary question is as follows: Will the minister
concede that if he is in such a rush, it is because he wants to give
the Minister of Finance the opportunity to make cuts in social
programs next year?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): Mr. Speaker, I say in response to the hon.
member that may have been the agenda of the previous
government. She could ask the leader of her own party about that
because he was a member of that government.
However, that is certainly not the agenda of this government.
Our agenda is to provide a more fair, just and equitable way to
allow Canadians to get back to work, to have the opportunity to
be properly supported and to make sure there is an up to date
system, one that gives Canadians a real platform to fully
participate in the life of this country.
* * *
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley):
Mr. Speaker, my question today is for the Minister of Indian
Affairs and Northern Development.
Canadian Press yesterday reported that the minister walked
out of a meeting between the representatives of the Lesser Slave
Lake band council and the Sawridge Indian band. Apparently the
minister found the Sawridge band's approach to aboriginal
self-government unacceptable. As I understand it, the Sawridge
proposals call for a municipal government approach and an
opting out of the Indian Act.
Could the minister please tell the House today what he finds
so objectionable about this approach?
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development): Mr. Speaker, the Sawridge bill does not address
the issue of Bill C-31, returnees now before the court.
When the Sawridge bill came before the former government,
probably aided and abetted by the former minister, it was not
accepted by cabinet. It was not accepted by the Department of
Justice which said that it did not respect the crown's obligations
to a band as a whole.
This was rejected by me, by my leader and by this
government. We are looking at Bill C-31, the Cree nation as a
whole when we say that the inherent right of self-government
exists and we will work within that framework.
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley):
Mr. Speaker, the Sawridge band has put forward a practical
approach to self-government, one that meets the needs of the
Sawridge community.
Is the minister looking to impose a single model of aboriginal
self-government on Canada's native people, or is he open to
negotiating agreements on a band by band basis?
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development): Mr. Speaker, we are looking at all the cultural
aspects of self-government.
It is very serious. For instance, further north the elders pick
the chiefs and sometimes when the chiefs get back to their
villages they are no longer chiefs. With the Ojibways, the elders
sit as advisers. With the Mohawks it is a longhouse culture.
There is no one set model of self-government in this nation.
However, I will say that the Sawridge band is probably one of
the richest bands in this country. It is sitting on tens of millions
of dollars. That band is saying to its people that it will not share.
That is not the way this government or Canadians should
operate.
* * *
D (1440)
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean): Mr. Speaker, in
La
Presse this morning, Mr. Jerry Peltier was reported to have
received various federal subsidies both before and after
becoming Grand Chief of Kanesatake. Apparently, in 1991, Mr.
Peltier received in excess of $58,000 over a period of just six
months.
Could the Minister of Indian Affairs confirm these allegations
to the effect that Mr. Peltier has been paid retroactively $25,600
in fees for services rendered to the government during the Oka
crisis?
[English]
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development): Mr. Speaker, if my hon. friend is going to ask
that question he should ask his own leader. If the funds were paid
inappropriately, they were paid during the tenure of a former
government.
We have inherited this problem of overpayments. The
accounting firm of Raymond, Chabot, Martin and Paré are in
there addressing a problem we have inherited. It is developing a
special relationship with the manager to address this problem.
If that particular leader was not there at that particular time,
he was certainly there during the period the money was paid to
that band. If the money was spent inappropriately the question
<>
1614
by this hon. member should be why did his leader not address the
problem when he was there and had the chance?
An accounting firm is addressing the problem. We are
working on a management agreement. I am prepared to share the
problems of the management agreement with the hon. member
because we certainly do not want the problem or the
overpayments to continue.
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean): Mr. Speaker, I think that
the minister has his dates wrong, because our leader was not a
minister when those events took place; he had resigned before
1990. He could not have authorized that particular payment.
Could the minister tell us in what capacity Mr. Jerry Peltier
worked for the Minister of Indian Affairs before the Oka crisis?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, they can claim all they want
that the leader of the Leader of the Opposition was not in office
exactly at the time of the Oka crisis, but in an article from the
Saturday edition of Le Soleil, the president of the police
association, Mr. Jocelyn Turcotte, is reported as stating that the
smuggling problem on native reserves started in 1988, when the
Leader of the Opposition was a member of the Mulroney
cabinet.
If we go back as we did 100 days from today, it is obvious that
this government is addressing a problem that has gone
unaddressed for four years by our friend the Leader of the
Opposition.
[English]
The Speaker: I know that all hon. members will be interested
in things which have gone on before. However, I would ask that
we restrict ourselves as much as possible to questions and
answers for which this government is responsible. To the extent
that we could do that, I am sure we could get questions and
answers which would be acceptable to all participants.
* * *
Mr. Roger Gallaway (Sarnia-Lambton): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Natural Resources.
During January of this year the National Energy Board held
lengthy meetings in southern Ontario as a result of an
application made by Interprovincial Pipeline and Intercoastal
Pipeline to extend a line from the U.S. to Canada.
Hundreds of landowners had legitimate concerns and wanted
to intervene. The federal energy act has no provision for
intervener funding. As a result of this line crossing the
Canada-U.S. border the applicant corporations did not have to
payintervener funding which amounted to millions of dollars.
The farmers, school boards and other landowners were required
to pay this out of their own pockets.
What will the minister do to persuade Interprovincial and
Intercoastal Pipelines to pay reasonable costs of interveners?
Does the minister have any plans to amend the legislation to
ensure that this does not occur again?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Natural Resources): Mr.
Speaker, I thank the hon. member from Sarnia for his question.
As the hon. member has pointed out, under the present National
Energy Board Act there is no authorization for the National
Energy Board to provide for reimbursement of expenses to
interveners in these particular circumstances.
D (1445)
Let me say, however, that the National Energy Board is very
sensitive to the cost implications of these hearings and attempts
to hold hearings in affected communities, as it did in this case, to
ensure that costs are minimized and that we can maximize local
community participation.
Let me also say that it is not possible for me to order the two
pipeline companies the member has mentioned to pay or
reimburse intervener expenses as there is no legal requirement
for them to do so.
In conclusion, however, let me reassure the hon. member that
I am very concerned about the issue he has raised. I have
instructed my department to consider all feasible
reimbursement mechanisms that we might look to in the future.
* * *
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of National Revenue.
A growing number of Canadians are joining the underground
economy and evading taxes. The chairman of the finance
committee suggests that it is the fault of the GST. On the other
hand, the Minister of National Revenue suggests that chartered
accountants and lawyers are somehow responsible.
Is the government looking for scapegoats or does it really
know why the underground economy is exploding?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of National Revenue): Mr.
Speaker, I thank the hon. lady for her question, particularly as
my wife who has two law degrees is sitting in the gallery today.
I would point out that the underground economy has many
facets. We are attempting to deal with them as best we can on a
number of fronts, including the smuggling we have talked about
before, including increased enforcement, and including efforts
to make sure the tax system is fairer.
<>
1615
I point out to her that the remarks I made with respect to the
specific questions she asked me concerning lawyers and
chartered accountants were simply that all people who cheat, no
matter what their profession, are subject to investigations by
Revenue Canada and to prosecution.
I assure her a distinction that was not made in some of the
CBC reports on this interview was that there is no effort made to
target any particular profession; only those people within
professions who cheat and who cheat their fellow citizens by
failing to pay their fair share of taxes.
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast): I have a
supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the Minister of National Revenue. I appreciate his
lengthy response. However, I have to ask again does the revenue
department have a real plan to reduce taxes in order to solve the
problem of the underground economy?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of National Revenue): Mr.
Speaker, I apologize to the hon. member for the length of my
reply, but the subject is a very important one involving many
billions of dollars.
With respect to the supplementary question as to whether my
department has a plan to reduce taxes, I can assure her we have
many proposals which would make the tax system fairer.
However issues as to a reduction of taxes and policies that might
lead to reduction of taxes are the responsibility of the Minister
of Finance who will be speaking on this very subject tomorrow
afternoon.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs. Can
he tell us what Jerry Peltier's responsibilities and status in the
Department of Indian Affairs were during the Oka crisis in the
fall of 1990?
[English]
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development): Mr. Speaker, the question is about what was his
response at that time. We were not here at that time. I believe
there are two members on the other side of the House who were.
If my learned friend wants to ask them that question he might do
it at the recess.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie): Mr.
Speaker, again, this is for the Minister of Indian Affairs. I would
like to know what he has to hide. What is he trying to avoid? Was
this government elected to carry out its duties? Does this
government not have all the information in hand? Does the
minister not read the newspapers, does he not prepare to answer
questions? What is this minister trying to hide from us?
D (1450 )
[English]
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development): Mr. Speaker, no matter how much yelling and
how much clapping occurs over there, in no way, shape or form
will they ever explain or rationalize that their leader was sitting
here doing what he was complaining about at that time.
* * *
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
A distinguished Canadian war hero and later head of the civil
aviation department died in 1990 at age 75. Six months prior to
his retirement Mervyn Mathew Fleming and his wife of 29 years
were divorced but shortly thereafter were reunited and
remarried.
Despite 37 years of marriage, because they were technically
divorced when he retired Mrs. Fleming has been denied a
widow's pension. In 1992 as leader of the opposition the Prime
Minister agreed that this was wrong and promised to pursue the
situation with Treasury Board.
Will the Deputy Prime Minister assure us the government will
now take action to see justice done?
Hon. David Michael Collenette (Minister of National
Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs): Mr. Speaker, we
are well aware of the problem. As the hon. member mentioned
our leader has shown great concern about it.
I have had some discussions with the President of the
Treasury Board because we are trying to see if there is a legal
way that we can remedy what is a very unfortunate situation.
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands): I have a
supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
At age 77 Mrs. Fleming has recently been admitted to hospital
with cancer. Will the hon. minister admit there is a sense of
urgency to this matter?
Hon. David Michael Collenette (Minister of National
Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs): Yes, Mr. Speaker.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
<>
1616
We have been informed that the hasty departure of the
National Arts Centre's director general, Mr. DesRochers, has
cost taxpayers over $350,000. On January 14, the board of
directors decided to spend this staggering amount to fire Mr.
DesRochers before his term had expired.
Does the Deputy Prime Minister not think that this $350,000
pay-off is a shameful waste of public funds?
Ms. Albina Guarnieri (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Canadian Heritage): Mr. Speaker, as the hon.
member is aware, Mr. DesRochers was appointed by the
National Arts Centre's board of directors during the previous
government's mandate, and the decision to fire him was made
within the powers granted to the board of directors.
The details of his contract are confidential. As the hon.
member knows, it is inappropriate to comment on an internal
management decision since the National Arts Centre is, as she
knows very well, an independent crown corporation.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata): Mr.
Speaker, I am a little surprised to hear about the confidentiality
because, although the director general is appointed by the board
of directors, his salary is determined by the governor in council.
So I am a little surprised about the confidentiality.
Does the Deputy Prime Minister not agree that this kind of
waste could further undermine Canadians' trust in government
institutions?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, it is obviously the
government that determines salaries by order in council. It is
also obvious that the Prime Minister has already ordered a
review of all salary levels set by order in council to ensure that
Canadian taxpayers' money is not wasted. It has already been
done.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Benoît Serré (Timiskaming-French River): Mr.
Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Natural
Resources.
On February 10 the bodies of the two miners who had been
trapped underground at the Macassa Mine in Kirkland Lake
were recovered. These men died as a result of a severe rockburst
that occurred on November 26, 1993. Unfortunately such
occurrences happen all too frequently and are extremely
difficult to predict and to prevent.
D (1455)
Is the minister prepared to allocate funding toward research
and study of rockburst occurrences in order to reduce or prevent
such tragedies in the future?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Natural Resources): Mr.
Speaker, let me thank my colleague for his very important
question and let me take the opportunity publicly in the House to
express my deepest sympathies to the families of those who lost
loved ones in the unfortunate rockburst at the Macassa Mine in
Kirkland Lake.
Since 1984 my department has been actively involved in
rockburst research. In 1990 funding for that program was
extended for another five years in the amount of approximately
$10 million.
Let me say to the hon. member that my department and I
understand the importance of this research to the safe future of
mining in the country. Therefore I have every reason to believe
my department will continue to be involved in this important
area and continue to fund research in relation to rockbursts.
* * *
Mr. John Cummins (Delta): Mr. Speaker, my question is for
the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
The Peat Marwick audit requested by Treasury Board of the
expense accounts of the deputy minister of fisheries and oceans
and his assistant deputy minister of policy absolves them of any
wrongdoing. Yet, as the report acknowledges, they could not
seem to manage their expense accounts in a careful and prudent
manner.
Would the minister tell the House if the manner in which the
deputy and his assistant have managed their expense accounts
and have in fact managed taxpayers' dollars is consistent with
his expectations for the management of his ministry?
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans): Mr.
Speaker, I know the hon. member would want me to be
absolutely crystal clear in the major findings of the report which
was conducted entirely outside government, not by the
department of fisheries, not by Treasury Board, but as the
member pointed out by Peat Marwick Thorne and by the chief
forensic auditor of that firm.
The major findings were two: first, that all of the travel in
question had been authorized by the minister of the day and,
second, that all expenses claimed were in compliance with
Treasury Board guidelines.
Mr. John Cummins (Delta): Mr. Speaker, the terms of
reference in the Peat Marwick report were: ``The goal of the
review was to determine whether the deputy minister and the
assistant deputy minister had respected government travel and
hospitality policies, not to excuse their conduct''.
<>
1617
Would the minister not agree that to offer an opinion as to
the appropriateness of the deputy minister and the assistant
deputy minister's conduct goes beyond the terms of reference
of the audit and beyond the capabilities of the auditor?
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans): Mr.
Speaker, I would say to the hon. member that it is quite
extraordinary to have an audit conducted by an outside auditor,
by a chief forensic auditor, and to have such a straightforward
conclusion arrived at.
It is my view that once the conclusion is arrived at-and we
are dealing with senior public officials-it is then the
responsibility of members of Parliament and the responsibility
of those who made allegations which caused this investigation
to occur in the first place either to accept the advice of an
independent auditor or to bring new evidence forward.
We ought not to call into question the reputations of long
serving public servants for our own political advantage at any
given point in time.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Bernard Deshaies (Abitibi): Mr. Speaker, the mining
sector, one of the most important in terms of jobs and economic
benefits, is currently in a very serious situation. In 1987 the
federal government decided to reduce its fiscal effort regarding
flow-through shares, which were designed to boost mining
exploration. This unfortunate decision, which was denounced
among others by the Quebec government, is a major cause of the
serious problems experienced by this sector.
My question is for the Minister of Natural Resources. Does
the minister agree that a recovery of the mining exploration
sector can only occur by increasing flow-through shares to 133
per cent?
D (1500 )
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Natural Resources): Mr.
Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. Let me say
that ours was the only party in the last election that produced a
mining policy. In that policy we are committed in the coming
years to review a number of options which we hope will once
again make the mining industry a viable and profitable one.
* * *
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo-Chilcotin): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Finance and is inspired by Mr.
Earl Christenson of Oshawa, Ontario.
Many Canadians are suspicious that senior bureaucrats and
politicians favour eliminating the lifetime $100,000 capital
gains exemption because they have already taken advantage of
it.
Will the minister quell this public cynicism by committing to
preserve this one-time $100,000 exemption.
An hon. member: You should talk to your leader.
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions)): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance
will bring down the budget tomorrow at five o'clock, just 26
hours from now. Any comment on it will be reserved for that
time.
* * *
Hon. Roger Simmons (Burin-St. George's): Mr. Speaker, I
have a question for my friend and compatriot who has freshly
arrived from his success in Brussels with the Northwest Atlantic
Fisheries Organization, for which I congratulate him and the
government.
The point is that there were three abstentions, the European
Union, Norway and Denmark. I wonder if the minister would
take a moment to tell us what is going to happen. What are he
and the government going to do to see that those three comply?
Failing that, what is plan B? What happens if they do not
comply?
The Speaker: The hon. minister of fisheries.
Mr. Simmons: Mr. Speaker, do not forget the oceans. They
are kind of short of fish but they are still there.
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans): Mr.
Speaker, I want to thank my colleague and friend for his
question. I want to assure him because I know of his particular
interest in this matter, having one of the largest fishing
constituencies in Canada, that we have received assurances from
the European Union, Denmark and Norway, even though they
abstained on the vote which put in place a moratorium on 3NO
cod stocks, it is their intention to abide by the decision of NAFO
not to use the objection procedure. It means that the
government, as was committed by the Prime Minister, has
achieved a beginning in the battle against overfishing.
It is not the end of the battle but it is a first important victory
because of the tough and determined new position of this
government with respect to the resources of the ocean.
_____________________________________________
<>
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
Hon. Douglas Peters (for the Minister of Finance) moved
for leave to introduce Bill C-13, an act to amend the Excise Tax
Act and a related act.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
<>
1618
D (1505)
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec-Est): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to table a petition signed by more than 2,000
people from my riding of Québec-Est and from several regions
of Quebec.
The petitioners want to draw Parliament's attention to the
situation of the Maraloï family, now living in Vanier. This
family has been in Canada for three years, is fully integrated to
the Quebec community, and is self-supporting. That family was
denied the right to remain in Canada, and it is believed that its
members will be in serious danger if they return to Romania.
Therefore, the petitioners ask Parliament to convince the
Minister of Immigration to reconsider his department's decision
to deport the Maraloï family and allow that family to remain in
Canada. I give my full support to that petition and I urge the
government to act on it.
[English]
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of
30,000 and more residents of the constituency of
Markham-Whitchurch-Stouffville, I present the following
petition with an estimated 30,000 names affixed.
This petition reads as follows: ``To the House of Commons
and Parliament assembled, we the undersigned residents of the
electoral district of Markham-Whitchurch-Stouffville draw
the attention of the House to the following: that our elected
member of Parliament was given a mandate by his constituents
to sit as a member of the Liberal caucus and, effective January
28, 1994, resigned his membership in the Liberal caucus as a
result of a request by the Prime Minister of Canada to do so; that
our member has admitted to inexcusable behaviour involving
former employees and that this information was withheld from
the electorate before his election; that our member intentionally
misrepresented his credentials to the electorate and to the
Liberal Party of Canada; that our member has stated that he will
continue to sit in the House as an independent member despite
requests for his resignation by an overwhelming majority of his
constituents including the undersigned; and that we the
petitioners have absolutely lost all respect and confidence in our
member to represent us-
The Deputy Speaker: The member perhaps does not realize
that he is not to read the whole petition. Would he please sum up
in one sentence.
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre): Mr. Speaker, I am assured that
many thousands more names will be sent along shortly on this
matter. I present 30,000 petitioners.
Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie): Mr. Speaker, I have another
850 to 900 names affixed to a petition noting that the Senate is
unelected, unaccountable and home for recipients of Liberal and
Tory patronage.
The petitioners note that sections 41 and 42 of the
Constitution Act provides that an amendment to the
Constitution of Canada in relation to these matters may be
initiated by the House of Commons. Therefore they call on the
House to initiate a resolution to abolish the Senate.
[Translation]
Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse): Mr. Speaker, pursuant
to Standing Order 36, I have the pleasure of submitting a
petition signed by the postmaster of my parish of
Sainte-Claire-de-Dorchester, and by residents of that parish.
The petitioners ask not for an indefinite moratorium on postal
services in rural areas, but for a permanent policy regarding
postal services. They also ask that postal services be reinstated
in rural parishes where it was eliminated because of the previous
government's ineptitude.
* * *
D (1510 )
[English]
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions)): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing
Order 83(1) I wish to table a notice of a ways and means motion
to amend the Excise Tax Act and I ask that an order of the day be
designated for consideration of the motion.
* * *
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Today, Mr.
Speaker, marks the beginning of answers. Question No. Q-3 will
be answered.
[Text]
Question No. 3-Mr. Taylor (The Battleford-Meadow Lake):
<>
1619
What is the government's intention with regard to the Environmental assessment act
(1992 statutes, c. 37), and what steps have been taken, since October 26, 1993, to deal
with the regulations and the proclamation of this act?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and minister
of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, as noted in the speech from
the throne, the government is committed to proclaiming the
Canadian environmental assessment act as soon as possible.
Further, in the red book, ``Creating Opportunity-The Liberal
Plan for Canada'' and its accompanying backgrounder on
environmental issues, a commitment was made to strengthen
and enhance the act after proclamation. The government intends
to keep its commitments.
The four regulations essential to the implementation of the act
were published in part 1 of the Canada Gazette on September 17,
1993. The period for public comment was to expire on
November 17, 1993, but, noting concerns expressed by
Canadians, the government extended the comment period to
December 17, 1993. The comments received have been
compiled by the Federal Environmental Assessment Review
Office (FEARO) and changes to the regulations based on these
comments and the government's commitments are currently
being prepared. These changes as well as the amendments
promised will be examined by the government shortly.
The act must be proclaimed quickly in order to reduce the
uncertainty associated with the application of the guidelines
order now in force.
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: The question as enumerated by the
parliamentary secretary has been answered.
Mr. Milliken: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining
questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Shall the remaining questions stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
<>
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to take part in the debate today on our supply motion. I
will be speaking specifically to paragraph (c):
a petition which will be presented requesting the government to bring
forward a bill which would make recall of members of the House of Commons a
part of the law.
Parliamentary reform has been a subject of intense interest in
the House for many years. Our party, in response to the views of
the Canadian public, has proposed several measures and several
reforms designed to restore powers to Parliament and improve
the state of representative democracy.
Representative democracy is improved when citizens are both
willing and able to express their views to us as their
representatives. I say willing in the sense that Canadians must
believe that their views will be received by us, their views will
be listened to by us, and their views will be seriously considered
by us.
Regrettably many Canadians do not participate in the political
process. Too many have become disillusioned, alienated and
cynical about the entire political process. Those who actively
participate in the political process, who still believed that an
aroused and informed citizenry can make a difference, should be
given every encouragement, should be given every reasonable
means to express their views. That is why we chose this topic
today.
A citizens' petition is an ancient, traditional and sensible way
for ordinary citizens to put their views before their government.
We should encourage its use. One form of citizens' petition that
the House can and should adopt as soon as possible is a citizens'
petition for recall. It is my firm belief that recall legislation
would provide voters with a greater sense of control over their
representatives between elections. Recall would provide a
means to counter the feelings of cynicism and alienation
expressed by many Canadian voters about politicians, political
parties and government.
Recall would provide a disillusioned electorate with an
instrument and a public process for some sort of practical
action. Recall would enhance the role of constituents between
elections and hence would improve dialogue between
constituents and their representatives. Both parliamentarians
and their constituents would be winners. Recall legislation
would improve representative democracy.
Members of Parliament should have nothing to fear from the
introduction of recall legislation. Sensible provisions would be
included in the legislation to prevent superfluous or
mischievous use of this democratic reform. For example, a
petition must be signed by a sufficiently high number of electors
in a constituency to prevent mischief. Second, there would be a
grace period after the general election before a recall petition
would kick in. Third, a recall measure could only be used once
per constituency, per term of an elected Parliament. Fourth, the
recall process would be subject to strict regulation, verified by
the Chief Electoral Officer, for example, procedures for
verifying that all signatures are genuine and obtained through
legitimate means. If that did not happen, a fairly severe fine
would be in place.
<>
1620
D (1515 )
When talking about recall we need to say this is not something
radical we are just thinking about doing now in Canada's
Parliament. The citizens of ancient Athens had a democratic
process to ostracize wayward politicians through banishment
from Athens for a period of 10 years.
Think of the number of members in this place. If our
constituents were displeased with us they would banish us, or
shun us to use a cultural term from my area, for 10 years. That
certainly would make us consider strongly what kind of
representatives we were.
Some writers say this ancient process is the foundation for
recall legislation we are discussing today. Recall has been a
facet of the Swiss system of direct democracy for a long period
of time. Fifteen U.S. states employ recall for elected state
officials; 36 provide for recall of locally elected officials. No
American state has ever repealed recall legislation once it was
established. Recall has only been used successfully nine or ten
times in that entire history. Obviously the system is not abused.
The recall mechanism utilized in Alberta in 1936 was
incorporated into a public law, but it had its defects. The Alberta
recall bill was mentioned earlier, but in this case the law was too
easily open to abuse by opposition parties and interest groups,
and we have heard lots about them today.
For example, the bill contained no provision prohibiting the
purchase of signatures for a recall petition. Its first use was
marred by this abuse when a group of Calgary lawyers
reportedly offered the good citizens of High River up to $5 a
signature to sign a recall petition against the premier. It is for
that reason among many others whereby we believe very sound
safeguards should be in place.
When the Alberta recall bill was repealed by the Alberta
legislature, it was done by a free vote. The premier at the time,
William Aberhart, voted against that repeal, as did Ernest C.
Manning, who was a cabinet minister at the time. The repeal was
carried by a majority of the backbenchers who considered the
bill to be defective.
Some opponents of recall claim that members are elected
primarily to carry out a mandate as detailed in their party's
election platform and must often sacrifice the good of their
constituents for the good of the whole. Recall, they claim, would
encourage short term or parochial thinking to the detriment of
the whole.
Reformers agree that members must consider factors solely
beyond the wishes of their constituents, but stress that a
member's primary duty should not be to the party but to the
constituents, to represent their concerns, their needs and their
interests.
Thomas E. Cronin, in his discussion of the pros and cons of
recall in his book entitled Direct Democracy: The Politics of
Initiative, Referendum and Recall, published by Harvard
University Press, 1989, states:
Today's critics of the recall device continue to view it as an invitation to unruly,
impatient action and as a potential hazard to representative government. They
also say it is another media age factor that could weaken the party system. No
evidence exists to support either contention.
That bears repeating. Thomas Cronin said that no evidence
exists to support either contention.
Power may not always corrupt, yet it does have this tendency. Recall strikes at
incumbent arrogance.
All of us in this place must pay attention to that. We must perk
up our ears when we hear a sentence like that. It touches all of us
because we are elected officials. Recall strikes at incumbent
arrogance.
I stand here in this Chamber today talking about MP recall not
as an outsider, but as someone who has been elected once, in fact
re-elected once also in the general election of October 1993. I
am subject to MP recall as is every other member in this House.
Therefore it cannot be said this is someone who is criticizing the
process from the outside.
In summary, as parliamentarians we should encourage
citizens to express their views at all times and by all legitimate
means. The citizens petition remains a valid and legitimate
means. Its use should be respected and encouraged. The petition
for recall would enable our citizens to rid themselves of those
who violate their trust. It would encourage members to be more
responsive to the views of their constituents and enhance the
role of ordinary parliamentarians. It would promote
representative democracy in this nation.
D (1520)
Let me conclude with a couple of comments from the Globe
and Mail, February 19, 1994. Kenneth Whyte in his article
entitled ``The West'' says that the real problem with the
government's response to all the questions we have asked in the
last several weeks about representative democracy, member of
Parliament recall, whether the government would allow a
referendum on the issue of physician assisted suicide, is that it
demonstrates the government has not a clue about what it is
dealing with. He says that the issues of referenda and recall are
of enormous symbolic importance. Nothing could be more true.
He went on to say: ``The bottom line is that traditional political
institutions will either open themselves to greater public
participation or lose still more credibility''.
Mr. Speaker, I lay it before you that MP recall is something we
will need before the life of this Parliament is out.
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Industry): Mr. Speaker, I begin by acknowledging the
member as someone who has always been a strong advocate of
<>
1621
reform and works very aggressively in this House and not just
during the last Parliament.
Let me be specific. Does the hon. member not believe when a
member of Parliament is accused of something not suitable for
this House that he or she should be subject to due process? What
criteria would the hon. member use to put the recall process into
motion?
Miss Grey: Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from
Broadview-Greenwood. We have agreed on many things and I
suspect on this issue probably we are not totally in
disagreement.
We had a chat earlier about the whole idea of what due process
is. If we were to look at a particular example-we would be
naive if we did not address it-there is a situation in front of us
in which we are looking at a member's credentials.
When talking about the due process of law, I am all in favour
of that. I am sure both sides of this House are. The question
would be what I asked my hon. friend this morning. I will ask
him again. I know he cannot respond but I am sure many others
will talk about this as the day goes on.
Why was due process not followed initially in the case of the
member for Markham-Whitchurch-Stouffville? If this had
gone through due process we would have seen that. If the issue
of credentials was the only thing in question perhaps it would
have been short circuited had the Prime Minister gone through
due process by looking at the credentials and saying he would
hold off on a decision until he had reviewed the situation.
It is a pretty big step to throw someone out of caucus. We
witnessed it in the last Parliament. We have witnessed it here
again.
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood): He resigned.
Miss Grey: Let us make sure that due process is followed on
both sides of the issue and not just from one.
In terms of the criteria for the process of recall, we would
need 50 per cent plus one of the number of voters who cast their
ballots in the last election and there would be a waiting time, a
period of grace as mentioned in my Bill C-210. It talks about a
waiting period of 18 months. I will add an amendment which
says that unless blatant misrepresentation has happened it could
be triggered earlier. It would only happen once in the life of a
Parliament so we would not be able to gang up on people over
and over again.
Mr. John Bryden (Hamilton-Wentworth): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to move the debate away from individuals and into
the theoretical if I may do so. I am a historian by avocation. One
of the things I have observed in my reading is that dictatorships
as in the cases of Hitler and Mussolini are always founded in
support from the people, usually massive support. Once
dictatorships have captured the imagination of the people that
tremendous support is used to implement things that are
contrary to democracy.
D (1525)
When it comes to something like this petition I see a danger
when there is a very popular government. Would the hon.
member for Beaver River be afraid that a government could take
advantage of its popularity, get a petition and get rid of the
dissenters thereby getting rid of the very people we would want
to have in a democracy.
Miss Grey: Mr. Speaker, I must confess I am not a historian.
It seems to me that my entire speech was theoretical and it was
only in response to a question from the hon. member for
Broadview-Greenwood that we got into any specifics.
Maybe it is a weakness in this Parliament in always talking
about things theoretically, who knows. Let us be very clear
about this danger to which the hon. member refers. If there is
such a thing as a popular government, certainly maybe in the
first 100 days it might be popular until it starts making demands
on the public purse for instance. That is obviously what hurts
people the most.
Let us look at this specifically. The referendum a year ago
indicated the specific mood of the people. They want power in
their hands. I was asked if I see a danger in that. No, I do not. I do
not think there is any danger whatsoever in being able to
relinquish power, saying that this is what we think is important
but we turn it over to the common sense of the people right
across the country. The only thing that would be dangerous
would be not to do that.
I am always asked what the cost would be to check names and
signatures on recall. I fire back the rhetorical question what is
the cost if we do not do it? We see what is happening in this
country from sea to sea. The people think their elected
representatives are floating away.
I do believe there is a real danger and a real cost of not
instituting these essential parliamentary reforms which should
be instituted in the life of this Parliament.
Mr. Dan McTeague (Ontario): Mr. Speaker, I wish to
commend the hon. member for Beaver River on her insights in
terms of recall, but we do come back to this issue again and
again.
Earlier the hon. member's colleagues made reference to the
citings of the great parliamentarian Edmund Burke. The
suggestion was that Edmund Burke lost his election after he
made the famous statements about judgment versus rubber
stamp.
That is what members are elected to do. In my riding over
45,000 people elected me. I was a candidate who wished to stand
on the principle of judgment, that my best principles and my
<>
1622
best ideas are put forward and to the extent possible I am able to
represent majority as well as minority interests.
Since the hon. member has spent a considerable amount of
time on this issue, given that Edmund Burke was never defeated,
given that two members of her caucus have suggested that Mr.
Burke was defeated, and that he ran consecutively from 1765
until 1794 for all ridings of Wendover, Bristol,
Malton-Yorkshire in that period of time would she not agree
that the system proposed under recall is one that smacks-
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Beaver River.
Miss Grey: Thank you again, Mr. Speaker. To my friend from
Ontario, I appreciate his comments but I think we are just about
out of time.
Edmund Burke probably has been mentioned more today than,
who knows, when he was in the House. Maybe he was in for a
long period of time. We are looking at many years ago in
England. Certainly with the advent of television if nothing else,
politics now goes into people's homes and they need to talk
about it.
Although I am sure Edmund Burke was a wonderful fellow, he
believed firmly in the mandate theory: You have given me a
mandate; I have come to serve you. We are not just mandated or
delegated. We need a fine balance saying: ``If in my judgment
this carries the weight of the people, yes I will give my
judgment, but if in fact there could be a clear consensus that my
constituents are instructing me in a particular way I must do that
or I will go the road of Edmund Burke''.
D (1530)
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to participate this afternoon in the debate
on an opposition motion. The opposition, at least the third party
in this Parliament, starts off with the premise that Parliament, as
an institution, is broken. Parliament is not broken.
Yes, the previous government lost the trust of the Canadian
people. Yes, it was defeated because it lost that trust. However,
that is not to say the institution itself is wrong. I say that to both
parties across the way. I see that in their speeches, in their
comments and elsewhere.
When I hear from members of the Reform Party that
Parliament as an institution needs to be turned completely
upside down and changed because it does not work, I say they
are wrong. When members of the Bloc Quebecois say that they
think the country should separate because people disliked the
previous government, I say they too are wrong. What was wrong
was not Parliament. What was wrong was not this great
institution. What was wrong was the public office holders of the
last Parliament and that is not the same. It is high time we started
to think on those terms.
I read this motion today. Listen to it, Mr. Speaker, you who are
so knowledgeable in all our rules. It states:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the
advisability of amending the Standing Orders-
Whoever heard of anything so preposterous. The government
does not have standing orders, the House has standing orders. I
say to my colleagues across the way, many of whom have not
been members very long, surely they could learn that the rules of
the House are the rules of the House and not the rules of the
government. Changing the rules is not done by the government.
If the government decided to change the rules arbitrarily they
would be the first to criticize.
[Translation]
The standing orders of this House are amended by and on the
advice of a parliamentary committee which usually presents a
unanimous report to the House. This committee report is tabled
in the House and adopted by the House and then the rules of
procedure are changed.
[English]
Some members will remember in the last Parliament when the
then government took a report from a standing committee on
amending the rules and chose to adopt only some of the rule
changes. It was condemned by everyone, not because it had
changed rules unilaterally but because it had not changed all of
the rules at once as recommended in the unanimous report. It
had upset the balance which is so vital to ensuring that the
government can govern and that the opposition can hold the
government to account. That was seen as wrong.
The member across the way and her colleagues are proposing
that the government on its own change the standing orders of the
House. With due respect, it is absurd. It is completely absurd
that a government would try to do that.
The member wants the government, in changing the rules
unilaterally, perhaps even against the wishes of the oppositions,
to produce some sort of a formula to debate and to vote on
petitions.
I bring members' attention to today's Order Paper of the
House of Commons. I highly recommend it to members of
Parliament. It is a very useful document. It tells how this place
works.
D (1535)
Like many other members, I have Motion M-218 on today's
Order Paper.
[Translation]
I can see for instance that the hon. member for
Laurier-Sainte-Marie has one, and so does the hon. member
for Anjou--
<>
1623
Rivière-des-Prairies. It is unusual that not one member from
the Reform Party has a motion on the Order Paper of the House.
None, not one member from the Reform Party.
An hon. member: It is impossible.
Mr. Boudria: Yes, yes, it is true. None of them does.
[English]
Does the member realize that she and her colleagues can take
the contents of a petition and put it up for debate through this
mechanism? It is at page IV of the Order Paper. The process
already exists. We can put a motion on any subject and ask that it
be debated in the House, including the subject of a petition.
I have put a motion on the Order Paper that reads:
That this House affirm its support for Section 241 of the Criminal Code of
Canada which forbids the counselling, procuring, aiding, or abetting of a person
to commit suicide-
I do not think we should change that provision. The member
and I can disagree on that point when we can debate it. We can
debate whether the point originated in a petition or elsewhere
and we will vote on it in the House. That provision exists right
now pursuant to our rules.
Why are we offered this suggestion today? We already have
the means to do it.
[Translation]
The hon. member tells us that she wants the Young Offenders
Act changed, but did she put a bill on the Order Paper asking for
such a change? As you know, all the members of this House can
put forward private members' bills, bills which will then be
debated and voted on by this House. Is there a need to create
some new mechanism? Not at all. Mechanisms already exist and
all these tools are already available to this House.
[English]
No, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps our rules need to be changed and
modified. I sit on the committee that deals with such matters,
along with my colleague from Kingston and the Island, our
colleague across the way and others. Many of them have done
good work. However, some people are sucking and blowing at
the same time.
On Friday we proposed to change the prayer that we say in this
House. Who was the first to complain? A member of the Reform
Party said we should not touch it. It was a unanimous report of
the committee voted on by the House. Even that was seen as
being inappropriate even though it had the consent of virtually
everyone.
When members across the way talk about changing our
institution, we agree. We have made it part of our red book.
However, we want those changes to occur based on the consent
of members of the House for the betterment of this institution,
not just in a way to sell the doctrine to the people back in the
riding that some have come here to Ottawa to turn this place
upside down.
The right to petition Parliament that has been talked about
today existed in British parliamentary democracy since 1669. It
has been a very important tool. I have used it. I have tabled
petitions in this House. On Thursday I will be tabling 100,000
signatures on petitions asking for the banning the importation of
the serial killer board game.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Boudria: What did I do? I put a bill on the Order Paper
asking to do just that, Bill C-203 if members will read their
Order Paper again. Bill C-203 proposes to ban the importation
of that product by modifying the Criminal Code. Those 150,000
signatures I will be tabling plus the 50,000 I have tabled already
are a testimony to the kind of support that initiative has.
Therefore, I can ask my colleagues to vote on this. I will be
using the mechanisms of petition to demonstrate that which I am
proposing is worth while.
D (1540 )
What is the motion we are debating today supposed to do? It is
supposed to give us an opportunity to vote on such things as the
Young Offenders Act. That act requires no royal
recommendation, so any private member can have a bill to
change it. Any member can introduce a private member's
motion to deal with a petition. Finally, on the issue of the serial
killer cards, I have a parallel initiative right now on the Order
Paper of this House.
[Translation]
So, as you can see Mr. Speaker, it is not all to present motions
because someone who perhaps was not too familiar with the
procedure of this House could be led to believe that Parliament
presently has none of the tools mentioned in this particular
motion, while in fact it is quite the contrary. All these tools that
the hon. member form the Reform Party for Edmonton
Southwest is requesting are already available to the House. All
of them without any exception already exist as described in his
motion.
[English]
Today the member for Beaver River introduced something
new. She said: we should have recall mechanisms. That has
nothing to do with this motion of course, although I profoundly
disagree with it.
Miss Grey: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I hate to be
rude and interrupt, but our motion, first of all if it had been out
of order, as this member has stated, would have been ruled out of
order and inappropriate by the Table.
Second, the hon. member has now had a few seconds to read
it, my speech was entirely on paragraph (c) in the motion.
<>
1624
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member has made her point. I
think we all appreciate that is a matter of debate rather than a
point of order.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I rest my case about people
learning about the rules of this place. When members purport to
claim a point of order because they disagree with the content of
the speech of another member it is not a point of order. In most
cases-
The Deputy Speaker: Perhaps the member for
Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, rather than trying to rub it into
somebody, might get on with debate rather than go back to the
point of order.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, as I was saying before I was so
rudely interrupted by the member across the way, the motion
today proposes to give to the House the possibility of voting on
petitions. All of that too exists now.
I say to the hon. member, read Beauchesne, read the standing
orders, read the Order Paper and then members who propose
initiatives like this will know that those tools exist already.
Finally, it is wrong for us to pretend in a motion or otherwise
that the standing orders of the House are the standing orders of
the government. That is wrong. The standing orders of the
House belong to the House.
I sat in opposition for a very long time and defended the
privileges of this House on numerous occasions. When it was
the government trying to run roughshod over the rights of MPs
never in my wildest dreams would I have thought that an
opposition member would be asking for those things that
normally government members do not even dare to ask.
Members of the House should vote against this motion. They
should soundly defeat a motion that pretends that the standing
orders of the House are the orders of the government and not the
standing orders of Parliament. Members should vote to change
the rules pursuant to reports from the Standing Committee on
Procedure and House Affairs. A member of the Reform Party
sits on that committee.
We have just started our work. We have done good work as a
committee.
D (1545 )
If a report from such a committee proposes to change the rules
of the House and the report of the committee is not even
unanimous, we will see, mark my words, that the same members
who are now proposing that the government change the standing
orders would rise in their seats in defiance if the government
even tried to do that with all members of the committee except
one who was perhaps dissident on a report.
That is the irony of what we see today.
[Translation]
The motion before us today should not be adopted.
I conclude by reiterating that it is not the same thing, and all
the members of this House should be aware of the difference, to
say that the previous government had lost the confidence of the
Canadian people as to say that Parliament, as an institution, does
not work.
[English]
This is one of the greatest freedoms that we have, to have an
institution like this which has evolved from time immemorial,
from the days prior to the Norman invasion of Britain. As my
colleague the historian will know, there was even a form of
representative institution in the days of the Witan, prior to the
Norman invasion of Britain. This institution has evolved for
perhaps 1,500 years.
Just like when I sat across the way, as I now sit in government
I want the changes to the rules to be changes that are acceptable
to the House, to make us respond better to the wishes of our
constituents, and to make us as well better equipped to make
wise and sound decisions for those who have sent us here to
speak on their behalf.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to make this short. We are not demanding that the
government change the standing orders. If the motion is read
carefully, I will state that the government should consider the
advisability; in other words, seek unanimous consent
throughout the House if this is something wise.
Again I say, not on a point of order but as a comment, that if
this were out of order it would have been ruled out of order by
the table.
Second, my hon. friend said in concluding his remarks that he
encourages his colleagues to vote against this. Is he aware that
this is a non-votable motion, as it says so clearly at the bottom
line?
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I am perfectly aware of the fact
that no vote was sought, although the opposition has the right to
seek votes on any opposition motion. Such a vote would be a
vote of confidence.
Second, it is not a matter of whether the motion itself is out of
order. Of course it is not out of order. As a matter of fact, placing
the words ``consider the advisability'' in any motion makes it
virtually always in order. As one who has proposed a number of
motions when I sat across the way, whenever in doubt include
the words ``consider the advisability'' and one will be pretty
well always safe, as the Speaker will know.
By including words like that it is obviously not out of order.
That does not mean that the motion is worthy of support or that
its contents are appropriate or that they are those which should
be adopted by the government or by the House or anyone else.
<>
1625
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver): Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member started his speech by stating that the Reform Party
thinks Parliament is broken. I would just like to inform him that
we do not really think it is broken, we just think it needs a little
refurbishing.
We want more openness in this Parliament and we want more
opportunity to allow the people of Canada in this information
age to have more input into this House and to be able to see that
we are actively debating issues that are of importance to them.
The hon. member knows that the rules are changed by the
government, in effect, because it has the voting power in this
House. The standing order will be changed only with the
approval of the government. The member also knows that
motions on the Order Paper are extremely unlikely, by sheer
volume, to ever come up for debate.
The hon. member consistently refuses to agree to a new
system that would bring better representation for his
constituents. I would like to ask the member why he is afraid to
debate petitions in this House in front of television cameras. Is
he afraid that his constituents might see that he does not
represent them properly in this House?
An hon. member: What was your last majority, Don?
D (1550 )
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, my colleague reminds me that the
electors of Glengarry-Prescott-Russell were kind enough to
send me here with a substantial majority. We are equal as
members, whether elected by one vote or two votes or whether
the majority was larger, as I was fortunate enough to have
received in the last election. Once we are here we are all equal
and I recognize that.
I made the case to the House and to the member that there
exists a procedure right now through which the content of any
petition can become votable through a motion. There is not one
motion on the Order Paper in the name of any Reform Party MP.
I have a copy of the Order Paper in front of me. It has six motions
by the member for Richelieu who is a Bloc Quebecois member,
one from the member for Winnipeg North, one from your
humble servant from Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, two from
the member for Kamloops, one from the member for
Laurier-Sainte-Marie, one from the member for
Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing, and one from the member for
Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies. None of those ridings is
represented by the Reform Party.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island): Mr. Speaker, I would like to say
that I listened with great intent to the member opposite and I
understand that the Liberals during the last campaign as shown
in the red book were very eager to turn around this
misconception or mistrust that the Canadian people have in
government./
They included things which I referred to earlier today
regarding the fact that people are irritated with governments that
do not consult them.
My question is if the member is so opposed to the proposals
we are putting forward in terms of referendum, recall, and today
we are talking about the question of petitions, what does he
propose as an alternative to open up government to the Canadian
people as they seem to be demanding and as the red book
acknowledges?
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I hate to put it this way but I am
going to repeat this slowly.
The motion today asked the government to change the rule of
the House-this is the first thing that is wrong with it-in order
for us to have a vote on petitions. There is already such a
mechanism and many members have availed themselves of the
privilege of putting motions before the House-everyone except
Reform Party MPs.
If they need any help with drafting those motions I will gladly
go across and give them a hand.
The Deputy Speaker: I think the time has expired. I would
hope that members would understand that the member for
Glengarry-Prescott-Russell and I were in the last House and,
with respect, the kind of comment he just made a moment ago is
one reason we got into trouble in the last House.
I hope that members would avoid that sort of comment in the
future.
[Translation]
Mr. Maurice Godin (Châteauguay): Mr. Speaker, the first
provision of the standing orders of the House of Commons that
we should deplore is of course the one that allows a political
party to table around two o'clock on Friday afternoon a motion
to be debated the following Monday morning.
Standing Order 43, which allows such little notice, should be
the subject of today's debate because it shows the weakness
when some groups in Parliament are not guided by a sense of fair
play. But let that pass. This motion gives us an opportunity to
dwell on our role as members of Parliament. We do not intend to
deal with specific cases that were presented as examples in
support of the motion today.
What I want to do today is to deal with the nature of a petition,
its meaning, the origin of such a form of representation to
Parliament and the attitude we should have toward such means
of communication which more often than not show that
considerable effort was made to reach us as elected members.
When the parliamentary system began in Canada with the
Constitution Act, 1791, citizens' groups clearly understood that
they could express their grievances and demands by appending
their signatures to a joint declaration. Petitions are an integral
part of the political system, whereas the actions of members and
<>
1626
their respective parties are not influenced either by the
electronic media or by laws governing lobbyists.
D (1555)
In the purest sense, a petition is a mechanism employed by a
group of citizens who agree on a problem and on how it should
be resolved. Quite often, sound ideas translate into co-operative
efforts. In many cases, petitions have reflected a good deal of
common sense and quite aside from broad expert analyses, they
have often brought to light alternatives that legislative
assemblies had not thought of or had not dared contemplate.
We must, however, consider the flip side of this issue. We are
not fools and each one of us has seen petitions supported by
organizations with significant resources, and capable therefore
of producing a disproportionate number of petitions, more than
could be processed.
In today's highly technological, computerized and mediatized
society, it is more important than ever to distinguish public
interest from personal interest, and actions taken in good faith
from those taken with a personal goal in mind. The whole issue
of petitions opens the door to a much broader issue, namely that
of representations made to those who wield legislative power.
Last week, a documentary called ``Les chemins de
l'influence'' was shown on Radio-Canada's Le Point. This
program clearly showed how lobbyists are organized and how
they go about influencing decision-makers. When compared to
such specialized lobbying techniques, petitions come across as
the poor relation, to say the least. Yet, lobbyists are never
directly quoted in the House of Commons, even though we know
full well what kind of influence they have on those in power. The
program I just mentioned gave the example of the
pharmaceutical industry which succeeded in securing
commitments from the Mulroney government and from the
Minister of National Health and Welfare, Benoît Bouchard, by
dangling before their eyes the promise of job spinoffs and major
investments.
Would a petition have been as effective in this instance?
Would it have produced the hoped-for results? Certainly not!
Why then do people persist in using petitions to make requests
of the government? No doubt they do so for two reasons. First,
for lack of an alternative, because this is the only means
available to them to get the government's attention. Then, since
it is probably preferable, from a moral standpoint, to act openly
through a very public request instead of going through the
corridors of power.
A petition, however visible, remains in current practice
something that is merely tabled. Since the opening of this
Parliament, 84 petitions have been presented in this House, but
there has not been a single response yet. Everything is there. The
credibility of this provision in the Standing Orders depends in
large part on the response provided. Standing Order 36(8) now
gives the government 45 calendar days to examine a petition and
respond to it. The government should not evade this obligation.
Any member has the right to table a petition. This act of
tabling, which is not currently open to debate on the form or
content of the petition, enables the member to freely fulfil his or
her responsibilities as a representative of the people without
having to endorse the petitioners' claims. It would be against my
principles to table a petition without endorsing it, but the
Standing Orders give some flexibility to members whose top
priority is to speak for the people they represent.
D (1600)
Beyond the tabling as such, the possibility of debating and
voting on petitions, as suggested by the Reform Party's motion,
creates many difficulties. First, the main difficulty would be to
decide whether we should debate all petitions. If yes, it would
probably be by grouping them, but if some groupings are
obvious, depending on the form and origin of the petition, others
are not so obvious.
On the other hand, if we wanted to sort or select petitions to be
debated and disposed of, what criteria should be used? Should
there be a random draw, as provided for in Standing Order 87
regarding private members' business? Should the number of
signatures be a factor? What about the purpose of the petitions?
Whatever the method favoured, it is clear in my opinion that it
would be criticized as a form of discrimination.
Most important today's motion would open the door to a new
practice that would put into question our role as defenders of the
common interests. Many governments have been accused of
governing by polls. This criticism could be extended to any
government or Parliament governing by petitions.
The members of this House and the political parties to which
they belong have all campaigned by openly promoting various
policies and solutions to solve our modern problems. Mr.
Speaker, these members have been elected and their first
obligation now is to do everything they can to respect their
commitments.
How would they always be able to reconcile the commitments
they made to get elected with the petitions giving them
directions on what to do and even how to vote? If this were
possible, what would prevail in case of a divergence of views?
Would it be the party line? Would it be the personal beliefs of the
member? Would it be the commitments made during the election
campaign? Would it be the petitions, and if so based on what:
their content, their volume or their origin?
We must make a distinction between our role and that which
innumerable sources want us to take on. Being the elected
representative of a constituency, as well as a member of a
parliamentary group sharing the same political views and a
member of the first deliberative assembly of the country, each
<>
1627
member of Parliament must face all kinds of representations and
limitations.
It would be a useless constraint to add to the already existing
resources in the Standing Orders of the House of Commons and
allow debates on petitions. There are numerous other
possibilities to review issues, including those resulting from the
tabling of petitions. Indeed, petitions are sometimes grouped
together in a motion, then in a bill which is reviewed by a
committee before finally being passed by the House. This
avenue exists, regardless of all its limitations.
In conclusion, I would appreciate it if the sponsors of the
motion could answer our questions and propose some solutions
to the problems which I underlined.
[English]
Mr. John Bryden (Hamilton-Wentworth): Mr. Speaker, I
congratulate the hon. member for Châteauguay on his very
thoughtful comments. I share many of them. I want to share
some of my concerns with him and get his response. One of my
problems with the petition concept is the thought that the people
who are signing the petition may be acting on the basis of bad
information.
We are hearing from the Reform Party about a petition being
used as a means to recall a member. My concern is about a
situation in wich the information being supplied to the people is
incomplete and the people who are going to sign the petition are
reading it in their local media. They may be signing a petition
that is calling for recall when they do not have the full story.
D (1605)
I will take that analogy further with due respect to Bloc
members. I hope they will not feel it is partisan when I say as a
former journalist I have always been concerned the information
French speaking Quebecers are receiving has been coloured by
French speaking media.
In that context, when a regional group is restricted in the type
of information it is receiving I would question, if Quebecers
were undertaking a petition of similar import to recall, whether
the information they were receiving was based on only one
viewpoint and whether the petition, no matter how it came out,
would be valid.
I will extend that one step further and suggest that the same
flaw exists in a referendum. If people who are to vote on a
subject of great import like sovereignty association, the
separation of the country or any kind of referendum for that
matter or a referendum such that the Reform would put forward,
are receiving information with only one slant, would the hon.
member for Châteauguay tell me whether he feels a referendum
or a petition under such circumstances would be legitimate?
[Translation]
Mr. Godin: Mr. Speaker, no, but I appreciate the hon.
member's question. To me, a referendum and a petition are two
entirely different things. We should realize that a petition more
often involves a small group of constituents, unlike a
referendum. For instance, the referendum on Charlottetown
involved the whole country, not just a small group. At the time,
millions and millions of dollars were spent, and if these people
did not get the yes they wanted, it was not because people were
not informed. It was simply because an attempt was made to
impose a solution people did not want.
To me, there is quite a difference between a petition and a
referendum, but I am afraid pressure groups are using petitions
to force the government to consider their real issues, their real
demands.
[English]
Mr. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, I say to the hon. member for
Châteauguay that my analogy is a petition and a regional
referendum such as there might be in Quebec where one group of
people is being asked to decide on one specific issue.
I am not trying to prejudge that vote or what Quebecers should
do in that instance. The nature of the question is how does the
hon. member feel if the people coming to that vote, be it a
regional petition or a regional referendum, have very narrow
and restricted sources of information and are not getting the full
story?
[Translation]
Mr. Godin: No, Mr. Speaker, I do not think so. I do not think
people were poorly informed, because there was certainly no
lack of resources during the referendum. In fact, people were so
well informed that in places where there was no money, people
voted no just the same. I think there is a tremendous difference.
A petition is a request. Constituents ask for something, and a
petition is a way to get that request to the government. In a
referendum people make a decision, and the majority decides.
D (1610)
Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse): I would like to know
the position of the hon. member for Châteauguay on Quebec's
referendum legislation. Would he agree that this legislation,
which provides for creating umbrella committees during
referendums, for the yes side and the no side, and gives the same
amount of money to both and prohibits corporations, unions,
and other corporate entities from contributing to the campaign
funds of the yes committee or the no committee, is, in a
democratic society, the most sensible and practical approach we
have in Quebec for settling a matter that concerns the entire
population?
<>
1628
Mr. Godin: I think the hon. member is absolutely right. And I
think that once again, Quebec, as it has done in so many other
areas, has led the way in seeking truly democratic solutions.
I remember the last referendum on the Charlottetown accord,
where money was being spent left, right and centre. If only, and I
think the hon. member answered the question I was asked
earlier, if only this policy had existed across Canada instead of
letting people be inundated with all this advertising, because
sometimes, getting too much information is just as bad as not
getting enough. I think this policy ensures that people really get
the information they need, and I am convinced this will get the
desired result in Quebec.
[English]
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada): Mr.
Speaker, on reading this motion I have some difficulty with it,
quite frankly. It seems we are trying to structure members of
Parliament to the extent that they do not have the leeway to do
the job they must do.
Petitions are a very important part of the democratic
procedure. There is no question about it. They are the voice of
the people through their members of Parliament. They are
asking members of Parliament to put a particular point across.
Through the petition they are stating how they want this
advocacy in Parliament to take place.
That is fine and that is as it should be. There is time allotted in
the daily procedure of the House of Commons to put forward
petitions. The petitions are accepted by the House of Commons
and a reply is sent to the petitioners.
If we take that further and say that instead of doing that or in
addition to doing that we should take the subject matter of each
petition and debate it in each session, we are in effect structuring
the actual work of the House of Commons. We are dictating what
the House of Commons determines as the most important
subject matter with which it will deal.
That is not the actual form of democracy that most people in
the country want to see in the Chamber. They want to see their
concerns put forward. They are instructing members of
Parliament to deal with their concerns. Through petitions they
are saying they want these matters brought before the House of
Commons as they are under the proper procedure dealing with
petitions at the present time.
If we start getting into the question of debating each subject
matter, how do we determine what subject matter we are going
to debate? If we are debating all subject matters how long do we
debate each point? How long do we give to each question? If we
are saying we are going to choose certain areas of subject matter
to debate which ones do we choose? Certainly we can pick
private members' bills that are coming before the House, but
those bills are put forward by individual members of
Parliament. Here we are talking about the people of Canada
giving us feedback on their concerns. How can we say that some
motions or some subject matter will be debated and others will
not?
D (1615)
I do not think this is going to work. I say to the people of
Canada, through your petitions your concerns are reaching all
members of the House of Commons. I also want to say there has
been very good work on behalf of Canadians in getting these
petitions together. A tremendous amount of work has been done
in bringing these concerns to the House of Commons.
I want to deal with the point made by the member for
Edmonton Southwest with respect to serial killer cards. He says
that the subject matter of the petition prohibiting the
importation, distribution, sale and manufacture of serial killer
cards is an example of such petitions.
We have heard a good deal on this subject. There have been
many petitions on this subject. I am certain the Department of
Justice is studying this area very carefully in the hope of
bringing forward some legislation to deal with this. However,
this is not an easy subject because of the charter representation
section 2 of the charter deals with freedom of speech and this is a
question here. We must however deal with the concerns with
respect to the importation, distribution, sale and manufacture of
such materials and that is being examined now. It is offensive to
think people are making money from that sort of material.
We are aware of petitions such as the ones of Mrs. Debbie
Mahaffy. She was able to get together 500,000 signatures on a
petition. Léna Cléroux of Rockland, Ontario presented a petition
with 14,000 signatures. The hon. member for
Glengarry-Prescott-Russell who spoke just a few minutes
ago collected 50,000 signatures on a petition to ban serial killer
board games. He has introduced a private member's bill on this
subject.
The matter is being dealt with. The petitions have worked.
The advocacy of the citizens of this country to their members of
Parliament has worked. If this subject matter is debated again,
what are we going to achieve? The government knows this is a
concern. All members of the House of Commons know it is a
concern. What is needed now is to ask questions from time to
time during question period and before the Standing Committee
on Justice as to how this matter is proceeding and how the
Minister of Justice and the government are dealing with it. That
is how we must deal with it.
Another matter is the Young Offenders Act. There are
concerns about the Young Offenders Act. The Liberal Party
recognized that during the election campaign and mentioned it
in the red book. It was given a prominent place in our position
paper on justice released on April 22, 1993 which indicated that
changes are needed to the Young Offenders Act, that there have
to be tougher sentences for violent crime and that we have to
recog-
<>
1629
nize that there were violent offences with which we had to deal
more strongly. We have to look into that whole question.
The Minister of Justice has stated he will be dealing with the
recommendations of the red book and of the position paper. As a
second part he has stated that the whole subject of the Young
Offenders Act will be studied carefully with the full intention of
bringing forward a more comprehensive bill before the House to
deal with the concerns.
D (1620)
Once again the concerns of the Canadians through their
petitions and through their members of Parliament have been
brought to the attention of the government, regardless of
whether it is this government or the former one. The subject
matter is being studied.
What remains is the government's determination to act upon
the information and the concerns brought forward by the people
of Canada. The government is doing just that. It is doing it very
quickly and intensively. This is a serious question as are the
serial killer cards. These two problems must be dealt with and
the government is dealing with them.
There are other concerns which are not mentioned in the
motion. What do we do with these? Certainly the third one is one
which the member's party has taken a great interest in. That is
the recall of members of Parliament. Certainly there are going to
be petitions on this. There are petitions on a great many subjects,
but how do we deal with those? How do we deal with a
government that is mindful of that concern?
Members of the Reform Party have stated they want the
capacity to be able to recall members of Parliament. The
government has said it does not think that is advisable. Does
anyone think that if we were to debate this question that the
answer would be any different because it was the subject matter
of a petition?
What has happened is that through petitions, through the
advocacy of the Reform Party questions, this matter has been
transposed to the consideration of the government, just as with
the other two cases. However, it is different from the cases of
serial board games and serial killer cards and amendments to the
Young Offenders Act. The government takes those issues very
seriously and recognizes the concerns of Canadians. It is going
to deal with those two issues, but on the third issue the
government has said no. That is it, no. The fact of the matter is
that the consideration has been given.
This House has to be able to deal with the concerns of
Canadians who are not sending in petitions. We have to be able
to look to what we as members of Parliament envision this
country is going to need and the urgent matters which come up.
We must also be able to anticipate how we as members of
Parliament can make this a better country in the days ahead.
We have to have the freedom to bring forward bills and
concerns which this country must have addressed. These
concerns are brought forward in committees represented by all
parties of the House giving them due consideration. Certainly
the government has the majority to be able to finally determine
what is to be brought forward and this is the way it should be.
There has to be a mechanism to break a deadlock as far as this is
concerned. This is why it is the government and why it was
elected to govern.
I want all members to know that the concerns of Canadians are
being addressed by this House. Three of the concerns which the
hon. member has mentioned are being dealt with. One has
already been dealt with and two are being given very important
consideration.
We have a tremendous concern about the country's financial
situation. With the deficit as it presently stands and the debt as it
is, are we to debate that issue with equal time along with all the
other subject matter because it is the subject of a petition? It
takes away the scope of government and members of this House
to determine what needs the most attention at any particular
time.
People elect members of Parliament to do the job. If we are
going to say as some members evidently are that the people do
not trust their members of Parliament to make the right
decisions and therefore they are going to shackle them any way
they possibly can to follow a narrow structured course then we
are only compounding the problem.
D (1625 )
The problem may be that members of Parliament and
politicians are not as highly thought of as we in this House and
those in other legislative bodies would like. The fact of the
matter is it is up to us to change that and only through our actions
can we change that. If we do not the results will be derogatory
for those who do not convince the electorate that we want to
change it and that we are actually moving to change it.
It really comes down to members of Parliament acting in the
interests of Canadians, acting as they see fit, as they have heard
their constituents telling them they should act. Members of
Parliament are the voice of the people. That voice must remain
with members of Parliament to do as they see fit.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South): Mr. Speaker, I
congratulate the member on a very fine intervention in this
debate on the opposition motion. His constituents would be very
proud of the way he spoke. His speech was presented in a very
informed and logical fashion. That is part of what Canadians are
looking for in their members. It has to do with appearance and
optics.
<>
1630
One of the last points the member raised really goes to the
heart of the issue. The hon. member said that members of
Parliament should be representing the interests of Canadians.
The member said Canadians. He did not say members of his own
constituency. This is a very important point because we come
here as members of Parliament to reflect the best interests of our
constituents but in the context of Canada as a whole and of all
Canadians. Some very important regional and local differences
must be balances.
Thinking of the election campaign, there were 30,000 homes
in my riding to be visited. I could not possibly get to all of them.
There were over 67,000 voters. How could I possibly presume I
would get to know them all and get to know exactly what they
were thinking on every issue and be able to come here and
represent that interest? I have no mechanism other than using
my best efforts and presenting and availing myself to use my
best judgment. That is what the Prime Minister has been saying.
I thank the member for raising the issue that we are here to
represent Canadians. It is an important distinction which the
opposition motion has not taken into account.
Mr. MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his
comments. It is significant that we as members of Parliament
represent constituents. We are the voice of the constituents in
our particular ridings. We cannot assume that anyone else is
going to speak for them because we are the people they have
chosen.
While there are individual concerns, Canadians from coast to
coast to coast realize their individual concerns must blend with
the concerns of all Canadians. The number of constituencies
really develops and relates to a larger whole which is the country
itself. The strength of Canada is the people of Canada acting
together.
There are individual concerns and national concerns. By
looking at each member for whom they have voted in this light,
the people have chosen the members they feel will represent
these concerns nationally and locally. The idea, of course, is
when we get here we should honour the commitment and honour
the reasons constituents have voted for us. We should do as they
had assumed we would do and not fall back into a position of
disinterest or cronyism, and continue to relate as we stated in the
campaign when we looked for their votes.
D (1630)
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Public Works and Government Services): Mr.
Speaker, I too want to thank my colleague for reminding us all
that we are here not only for our constituents but for all
Canadians.
In a previous presentation some reference was made to the
fact that had the party which proposed this particular debate
known of the mechanisms existing so certain issues could be
brought forward, that they could represent constituents fairly,
perhaps it would not have been done. It had crossed my mind as
well because of the references to serial killer cards, to the
Young Offenders Act, to the whole notion of recall, that the
particular party may be trying to use this to its political
advantage.
We know these are issues that concern Canadians. We have
heard petitions on each of those issues and many more. I wonder
if my colleague, who has been in the House for a number of years
and who has a reputation for fairness, would care to comment on
what the motivation might have been. I would be very much
interested in his insights.
Mr. MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, I think this is an attempt to
structure members of Parliament to the extent that there will
remain a very narrow scope with which we can use our
objectivity and our determination as to what we should do in this
House of Commons.
What bothers me about this motion is the cynicism, that
members of Parliament are not capable of determining how they
should work to govern the people of Canada. The more structure
in what we do, the less we are going to deviate from what they
feel the people of Canada want.
What the people of Canada want is good representation,
members of Parliament acting on behalf of Canadians, whether
it be in their local interests or their national interests, but being
objective and fair and dealing in a straightforward manner with
their concerns.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilbert Fillion (Chicoutimi): Mr. Speaker, I must first
thank the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice for
his speech. He dealt in particular with the priority of petitions to
be debated in the House, but I notice that all the motions, and the
three examples given by the Reform Party, could become bills or
motions discussed here in the House.
I would like the parliamentary secretary to add a little to what
the previous speaker said when my colleague was questioned
about referendums and petitions. I would like to know either his
view as parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Justice or the
distinction he makes between referendums and petitions.
Mr. MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, this is a good question, because
those are two ways to obtain information from Canadians. A
petition is a document provided by Canadians.
[English]
It is a document we receive from the people of Canada stating
their concerns. A referendum is a document in which we say we
are aware of a concern on a particular question and we are going
to the people of Canada to tell us how they feel. The petition tells
us that the people are concerned and they want us to know they
<>
1631
are concerned. The referendum says that they are concerned. We
know of their concern. Do they think this is going to be suitable?
D (1635)
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island): Mr. Speaker, the member who
just spoke indicated he feels there is no need to change to the
way we presently handle petitions.
I get that message quite strongly. I wish he would confirm if it
is correct. Then I would ask simply for his response to this. First
of all I do not think those of us on this side are doing this for
political gain. We really do want to provide the people of Canada
the kind of government they are telling us they want. They want
a representative, a member of Parliament who listens, hears and
acts on what it hears.
The perception is that these petitions sort of hit a wall. My
question is this. Should we abandon the ability of citizens to
give us petitions since we can find out by other means what it is
they are thinking if we are not going to use the petition method
directly in making our decisions in this House.
Mr. MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, I do not feel exactly the way the
hon. member does.
Petitions have a very real purpose. They make an impact in the
House of Commons on all members of Parliament. We cannot
help but hear the petitions read without feeling that the subject
matter in the petitions is of concern to the people of Canada. We
have to believe that in order to sign a petition.
The fact is that we then reply to them and tell them that we are
concerned. The subject matter of two of the areas brought
forward in the motion have been dealt with and are being dealt
with. The serial killer cards and the Young Offenders Act are
getting a great deal of consideration and work in the Department
of Justice.
As I mentioned regarding the recall of members of
Parliament, the Prime Minister has said this is not something we
feel is justified. All three points have been considered or are
being considered.
I am not saying we should not change the way we handle
petitions. All I am saying is the method put forward in the
motion is not the way to go. If there are other suggestions,
certainly they should be considered. I do not think we should be
rigid and unbending in the way we deal with the business of the
House.
Ms. Margaret Bridgman (Surrey North): Mr. Speaker, I
appreciate the opportunity to speak in favour of the motion. The
motion itself is basically an administrative one as it requires a
change to the standing orders to allow petitions to be debated in
the House.
One member suggested that petitions could be presented to
the House for debate through a private member's bill. We are
suggesting that is one mechanism but we would like to see
petitions also have a mechanism or vehicle of their own and not
be dependent on a member presenting them as a private bill.
As we know, petitions arrive and are either tabled or verbally
presented to the House in a statement and then tabled for a
recording procedure. From there they go to a ministry to be
answered within a set period of time.
This brings a couple of general points to mind for reasons for
putting petitions on the table for debate. Petitions can be seen as
a symptom of a weakness or a problem in existing legislation or
petition topics in many cases can involve the mandates of more
than one ministry. These two points would provide good reason
to debate the subject matter of petitions.
Petition topics in many cases address specific or single issues.
These issues tend to be an end result or an outcome of a policy or
law. It is a cause and effect kind of thing. The end result can be
seen as a problem to the Canadians bringing it to our attention
but it is not necessarily the main problem or the underlying
cause. It is an outcome suggesting there is a weakness in the
process or in the law itself. It can be seen as a symptom or a
warning of a problem somewhere within the policy or the law.
This concept, cause and effect, raises a few options to examine
also. One could be that there is a deficiency in some aspect of the
content of the legislation; another could be there is an actual
omission to the content; still another could be that possibly a
different set of circumstances in some areas of our country are
causing different outcomes from the policy or law that are not
necessarily occurring in other areas. Of course there could be a
combination of the various options already mentioned.
D (1640)
Considering all the possible options available to us if we do
address petitions as a symptom of an underlying problem, it
seems a logical step that we would present this subject matter to
the House for debate in order to identify the cause and the
possible solutions to resolving these associated problems.
We could treat the symptom and not worry about the cause of
it, but it would eventually return either as a larger or a more
serious problem or both. At some point we would have to do a
full investigation and identify the cause and correct it.
The second point offering rationale for debating of petition
subject matter is that of the possible involvement of more than
one ministry's mandate. This is important possibly for several
reasons, but the one that comes to mind first is the advancements
in our knowledge base which may shed new or a different light
on a policy or law than when it was originally debated.
This new information may involve mandates of ministries not
previously involved in the original decision making process or
possibly not involved to the degree necessary at the time. The
classic example of this today would the Department of the
Environment. Its present day role in the outcome or effect of
<>
1632
many decisions made in the past by other ministries is quite
obvious.
I submit that health care is in a similar position today. The end
result or effect of many policies or laws in the past today are
producing health hazards or concerns to some degree that are
basically unacceptable to today's standards. The concerns about
health may not be the main thrust or objective of the petition but
the health care issues are usually involved to some degree, be it
direct or indirect.
For example, any petition regarding the use of pesticides on
crops or antibiotic drugs or other drugs used in livestock, could
be sent perhaps to the ministry of agriculture but it definitely has
a health care concern and that should be addressed as well.
Another example would be a factory dumping contaminated
waste into a nearby lake or stream. This could be sent to either
the Ministry of Industry or the Ministry of the Environment for a
response. Yet again, there are great health concerns and issues
apparent in this that may not have been addressed at the time of
the original debate.
Also sentencing for assault has an indirect impact on health. If
the sentence is reduced and that happens to be the complaint of
the petition, then possibly it is because the assault rate has
increased, more people are getting injured and consequently
requiring treatment.
Most petitions today have some bearing on health issues.
These issues need to be addressed and resolved in such a manner
so that we can continue to promote a healthy environment for us
to live and grow in.
Identifying and resolving health care problems found in the
subject matter brought to our attention by petitions is essential if
we want to help reduce our health care costs and promote good
health through a wellness approach versus an illness approach.
We must proact and not react to health care issue concerns
regardless of how they are being brought to our attention.
Petitions can be an excellent resource, especially if one views
them from a feedback point of view.
D (1645)
Specific issues raised in petitions may be described as
isolated situations, exceptions to the rule or extremely small
percentages of the whole and may not be seen as being very
significant in relation to the overall effects of the law or policy.
However, there are still signs and symptoms of a bigger problem
if we do not do something about it. It is like a cancer. It starts out
small and insignificant but slowly grows to consume the whole.
At some point along the way it must be treated and the sooner it
is treated the better chance we have to save the whole.
In closing, I remind us all that petitions are calling cards.
They are calling us to re-examine the various past decisions and
all the ramifications of them both direct and indirect in a more
in-depth approach than maybe previously or in light of new
information that has come up over the years.
To provide for the review or revision and updating of the
various laws and policies the opportunity to debate the subject
matter of petitions in the House should be available.
Mr. John Bryden (Hamilton-Wentworth): Mr. Speaker, I
will thank the hon. member for Surrey North. Those were very
well thought out remarks which I enjoyed very much.
I wonder if the member could help me with one aspect of this
which has been touched upon by other speakers but it touches me
very deeply, I have to say. She was saying that the whole thrust
of this motion is for petitions to be debated.
I will give the member an example. We are talking about
debating and bringing to a vote a petition, for example, on the
subject matter involving prohibiting the importation,
distribution, sale and manufacture of serial killer cards. My
difficulty is that when one debates a motion like that and it is
brought to a vote I am afraid that one may be setting the agenda
of this Parliament on an important issue that is much broader
than just simply saying yes or no, we agree that killer cards
should be prohibited.
The issue of prohibiting something like killer cards is a
freedom of speech issue. It is a very large issue. It involves
wider areas. My fear is that if we do as this motion suggests will
we not be setting the agenda for legislation that will require a
much vaster debate?
Ms. Bridgman: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his
question.
I think what the member is saying is possibly what I was
suggesting in my remarks. The actual topic of a petition could be
seen as an outcome of a process or some such law of policy. To
debate that specific topic would be a narrow point of view
because it is a symptom or a sign of something major that is
happening within the whole process.
I am saying that should come back to this House and we
should look at this whole process and find the cause somewhere
within this process that is generating that kind of result.
I would think that it would require some of our time for an
extensive debate.
[Translation]
Mr. Maurice Godin (Châteauguay): Mr. Speaker, I thank
my colleague for her comments. I would like to make some very
brief remarks on an example just given of a petition to recall
members. I find this extremely dangerous. I agree with the hon.
member opposite who just said that it would be possible for a
<>
1633
party to put pressure on a member who did not agree on a certain
subject and force him to resign. That is the first point.
D (1650)
The second point, also extremely important, would be to limit
a member's foresight. In this House, around 1990, we saw five
or six Conservative members leave that party to sit as
independents; later, they formed the Bloc Quebecois. If the
members had had to be recalled by law, I think that we would
have simply prevented those people from exercising their
foresight, because it was not just five or six members who saw
that things were no longer working; in the last election, all of
Canada voted that way and eliminated the Conservatives from
this House.
For these two reasons I think that it would be rather dangerous
to put that position into law.
[English]
Ms. Bridgman: Mr. Speaker, I am not exactly sure what the
question was. The member is addressing recall and the concerns
that we as parliamentarians may have, seeing that as being a
threat over our heads.
My response to that is I do not think we should feel limited or
restricted in our actions. Possibly what we should do is take a
more positive approach versus the negative and put more faith in
our constituents and Canadians in assessing our position here in
the House and realizing that there are times when we cannot
please all the people all the time on everything. We have to have
faith in the people to judge and evaluate our performance
honestly.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North): Mr. Speaker, this is
a very interesting debate today which is near and dear to the
hearts of Reformers.
During the election campaign just a few months ago the
candidates' forums that I attended were very interesting. The
Liberal candidate, a very fine individual, had a line in her speech
that went over very well with the crowd until I got at it. It was:
``In a few days time you people will be the boss. For those three
or four minutes when you are in the ballot booth you are going to
be the ones who decide what happens for this country for the
next four years''. That is true.
My response to that was Canadians in a democracy should be
in charge a whole lot more than three or four minutes every four
or five years.
This debate is important because it goes to a very
fundamental, philosophical definition of democracy. It is, do
what the people think and want count between elections? I
would submit, and I think it is borne out by what happens in our
country that right now it does not count for very much. We have
heard a number of members argue vehemently that it should not
either. To me that is fundamentally wrong.
I believe that many Canadians would like to sit where we sit,
would like to have the time and the opportunity to examine the
issues before our country and to make decisions based on that
evidence. However, not all of us as Canadians can do that, given
the time and constraints of our other duties and responsibilities
and perhaps other factors. Therefore, on the democratic
principle of one person, one vote we elect our own
representatives.
We should underline the word representative. In the past
representation has been a minuscule element in what happens
here in Parliament. In the past it was not what the people we
represented thought that counted so much as what the party we
represented thought. If that had worked well we would all be
happy with it. It really has not worked well.
D (1655)
When we get down to a style of representation that is
dependent on what the party thinks, then it is the people who
decide for the party who decide for parliamentarians and decide
for the whole country. We get to the point at which a very small
group of people decides everything because what it decides is
supported by the other people in its party who dominate
Parliament which decides things for the country.
That is really the problem we are trying to fix. If this small
group of people had consistently made wise decisions,
respecting our opinions, that carried the judgment of Canadians
I think we would all be happy with that system. All of us have a
life. We would be happy to live our lives, to pay attention to our
business or professional interests or family interests and let this
wise small group of people run everything, if it was doing it
well. It has not.
The fact of the matter is that this group has buried us in debt. It
has not listened to what we want. It has not respected our
viewpoints. This has been shown over and over again in the last
Parliament in which we had members of Parliament standing up
and actually saying bare faced to people in public meetings: ``I
do not care if 90 per cent of my constituents oppose this
legislation, I am supporting it because it is right for Canada''.
With respect to some of our representatives in the past, it is
our money that is being spent as Canadians, it is our future that
is being shaped by these people who seem to know so much
better than we do what is right for our country. I do not feel in a
democracy it is appropriate or even acceptable for a small group
of people to say it knows best for everybody.
What wisdom is invested in people simply by walking into
these hallowed halls? We do not know any more than most
Canadians in spite of our breadth of background and the
education that most of us have. We are simply here to do a job
and that job has three elements. It has an element of a mandate
because we campaigned on certain things. If we campaigned to
balance a budget then we had better balance the budget. If we
campaigned
<>
1634
to listen to people and be open to people's viewpoints, then we
had better follow through on that. If we campaigned on
anything, then people expect us to keep those promises and they
have given us a mandate to do that.
There are many things that come up in Parliament about
which we have not specifically stood up in a campaign in those
50 days and said we are going to do this in this circumstance.
Then we have to follow our own judgment in some cases because
we cannot go back to our thousands of constituents and take a
poll asking what they want us to do.
There are numerous occasions when the person elected has to
use their best judgment. In that I agree with members opposite.
There are also a large number of instances in which the issues
are so big and so far reaching in consequence and so national in
scope that it is only right and proper in a democracy that every
citizen, after having an opportunity to make a full and fair
examination of that issue, should be able to have input in it.
Otherwise we get into a situation we had in the Meech Lake
debates and the Charlottetown accord in which a few people in
this House think they know best for the country. It turns out that
their wisdom, the wisdom of every single party in the House, is
totally disconnected from what Canadians really want.
It is up to us as people who have been given a great deal of
trust to fix that situation. In my view the way to do it is through
these democratic reforms that we have been talking about. Other
democracies use them. They work well. They connect what we
do in this House as decision makers with the judgment of
ordinary Canadians.
We have ample opportunity to use our wonderful and exalted
judgment on any number of issues. We need checks and balances
on that discretion, on that judgment, and that is all we are
asking.
We have picked the issue of petitions to talk about today.
Thousands and thousands of Canadians spend untold time, effort
and trouble because they believe so strongly that something
should be done and they appeal to us in a petition to do
something. What happens? Things drop into the black hole.
They are not debated. They are not voted on. They are rarely
looked at. Many times people do not even know they were
introduced because they were not introduced when the House
was full. That is wrong. Canadians need to be able to feel that
what they say to us counts for something. Nowhere is it more
evident than in the petition making process.
D (1700)
This is only one aspect of where we as parliamentarians must
start recognizing that we only represent people. We must be
connected and accountable to those people whom we represent.
We must truly respond to their wishes, desires and concerns.
I would submit to the House for the consideration of members
that these changes are coming. I would ask that they be
supported and that we work together to reconnect Canadians
with the decision making process on their behalf.
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York-Simcoe): Mr. Speaker,
once again members across the floor in the Reform Party have
set up yet another false straw dog concerning the Canadian
people.
It has been suggested that Parliament is not a democratic
place. I support what the member for
Glengarry-Prescott-Russell originally said. There exists a
mechanism to deal with petitions. It is up to individual members
who bring these petitions forward to ensure they do the work for
their constituents and on behalf of their constituents. As the hon.
member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell pointed out, where
are the Reform Party members in terms of their motions
regarding petitions?
I sit on this side of the House. As a brand new member I am
learning a lot about the traditions of Parliament. The very first
day I sat over here on orientation day was most significant. I
listened to the previous speaker talk about the fine tradition of
Parliament which has existed and developed over hundreds of
years.
When we take a tradition like Parliament and decide to throw
it on its head, upside down, we cannot control the kinds of things
that might happen and the injustices to the democratic process
that occur out of naivety. It is not without passion on the hon.
members' part on the other side of the House, but I would
suggest this is yet again a false straw dog set before the
Canadian people. There exists in Parliament a mechanism to do
the very things they are suggesting on the other side of the
House. If they were serving their constituents well they would
be doing just that.
Mrs. Ablonczy: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite for
her comments. With respect, however, it is an insult to
Canadians to suggest that their thousands of signatures are a
false straw dog. They should count for something.
Yes, members can introduce private members' bills based on
petitions, but what happens to them? They go into a lottery.
Quite often they are not even debated or voted on.
Yes, we can work for these things in committee. But should
not petitions signed by thousands of Canadians have more
significance and not just go into the mill? Should they not be
treated with some sort of acknowledgement and respect by the
people they are presented to?
<>
1635
If we go to someone with a request we expect a response.
We expect them to say whether they agree or whether they will
to support us. The petitions come to us as members of the
House. They deserve more than just to be tucked away and
perhaps to be the basis of a private member's bill or maybe
raised in committee some day.
D (1705)
These kinds of initiatives on the part of the citizens deserve a
better response. That is what I am saying. I think Canadians
would agree with that. Otherwise why would they bother
wasting their time with them?
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain (Guelph-Wellington): Mr.
Speaker, I am concerned. The hon. member for Calgary North
said that we do not do what people think and want during
elections and asked whether what they think and what they want
count. I take great exception to that. I was elected to do exactly
that. Most Liberals were elected this time around because we
offered a balanced perspective.
The Reform Party, as popular as it may seem to be in the
western part of Canada, has not taken a great surge in the rest of
Canada. As we know it is not a true party of Canada. It truly is a
regional party.
Mr. White (North Vancouver): Wait until the next election.
Mrs. Chamberlain: We will see. The people have spoken
very loudly and clearly on our platform. It is important for
members of the Reform Party to recognize that those are the
wishes of the people.
The hon. member for Calgary Southwest the other day spoke
on this same point. I really feel we are elected to learn and to
seek out information to which perhaps people at large do not
have access. When the Reform leader spoke he said that they
would educate them, that they could institute an educational
process. I worry about that. I worry about an educational process
that a certain party would institute to educate Canada in
referendums.
I really feel strongly. The question I want to put to the member
is: Does she not feel comfortable in making decisions with the
information she gets from her constituents by phone, by meeting
with them in public meetings, or by any of the ways that are
available? Is she is not comfortable with that information-
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I think the question is
clear.
Mrs. Ablonczy: Mr. Speaker, it concerns me when we are
talking about a fundamental issue of democratic rights and
freedoms and it is turned into a sort of partisan attack. It is like
saying that since a six-year old party did not sweep the country
it has no legitimacy. That is not helpful.
The member says that the wishes of the people are taken into
account and the fact that a government is elected is sort of a carte
blanche for whatever it decides to do because, after all, it got the
mandate. Recent history shows that is not the case. The past
government was elected and put in place the GST over the
violent objections of Canadians. This government recognized it
to the point at which it is prepared to withdraw that tax.
The Charlottetown accord was supposedly put forward by the
past government with a great mandate. That was rejected by the
people. Just because a government is elected does not mean that
whatever it does for the next four years somehow has
legitimacy. There have to be checks and balances on the decision
making process over the next four years. That is what we are
saying.
Why would anybody worry about an educational process?
Surely that is exactly what we need to do in the country. We need
to let people know the issues, to let them know the pros and the
cons of the issues so they can make judgments themselves
through us as representatives on the issues of the day.
I hope the hon. member is not saying that Canadians are not
capable of receiving education and making good decisions.
Surely that would be undemocratic. There must be an
educational process. That happened again during the
Charlottetown referendum debate. In fact the educational
process was very disproportionately weighted on one side of the
issue, yet people still made a decision based on the evidence
they had. We should not be afraid.
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Time is up.
D (1710 )
Hon. Roger Simmons (Burin-St. George's): Mr. Speaker,
in another life I used to be a superintendent of education. I
remember well-and I will document it chapter and verse-the
town was Springdale on the northeast coast of Newfoundland
and the issue was whether to amalgamate the school services.
As members will realize, under the Constitution,
Newfoundland has a denominational system of education. At the
moment in 1994 it has in effect three systems: a Roman Catholic
system, a Pentecostal system and an integrated system, that
being the integration of several of the religious denominations
which formerly had their separate services. I am talking now
about a point in time just before that integration. We had in a
given community a number of individual school systems.
The proposal was that they be integrated, so somebody had a
petition. On the petition in that community of 3,000, fully 85 per
cent of the petitioners-I do not have the numbers but it
represented the overwhelming adult population of that
particular community-wanted what we called amalgamation, a
bringing together of the separate services, an integration.
However, within two weeks somebody else produced a petition
with the overwhelming adult population having signed it in
which about 58 per cent did not want the amalgamation. Clearly
many of the
<>
1636
same names showed up on both petitions within a period of 10 or
12 days.
My point is that petitions serve a very worthwhile purpose but
they can be abused. One of the reasons they can be abused is that
it is difficult when a neighbour comes to the door to say no to
him when all he is looking for is a signature.
Members of the House will acknowledge that very often
petitions get signed without due thought. They ought not to be
taken as gospel. They ought to be taken as an indicator though. If
someone comes to me with a petition on a subject that states 85
per cent of the community is of this particular mind, I take that
to be a very strong message.
Do members know what is even better than petitions? A ballot
box because there they cannot vote both ways. There they vote
one way or the other and they are obliged to stick with it.
Let us understand where I am coming from on petitions.
Petitions are a very important instrument, a very important
mechanism. That is why we as legislators or parliamentarians
have always given petitions-and by we I mean the many people
who have gone before us in this Parliament and the British
Parliament-petitions a place of pre-eminence in the Chamber.
It is the grievance of the people. It is the people saying
collectively that they are for something or they are against
something or are concerned about a particular issue. Members
of Parliament who make light of that instrument are making
light of a lot of people. They are making light of an instrument
that has served Parliament and the people of the country very
well for a long time.
Having said that, the danger is that we make the illogical
transition from petitions as a means of sending a signal,
petitions as a means of recording a grievance, to government by
petition.
I believe I illustrated the problem with government by
petition with my example. Had we followed both petitions back
then in the community of Springdale several years ago we would
have had two schools. We would have had the amalgamated one
because that is what 85 per cent of the people wanted. We also
would have had all the separate schools because that is what 58
per cent of the people wanted within the same 10 or 12 day
period.
That is the difficulty.
D (1715 )
That is the conundrum with petitions. Very often they would
have you do things which are mutually exclusive. I put it to any
member of this House that if they go out and get a petition on any
issue, in the same week I will get a petition with as many names
on the other side of that issue. The beauty of petitions is that they
send a signal. The weakness of petitions is that they send mixed
signals.
The weakness is what happens at that door, as I mentioned a
moment ago. It is difficult unless you have a very well thought
out position on an issue. If you are publicly known to be, for
example, against abortion it is easy to say to the individual who
comes to the door: ``You know my position on that and I cannot
sign your petition which is for abortion''. However, with the
exception of three or four conscience issues such as abortion,
capital punishment and euthanasia, people have to live together
in small communities and when a neighbour comes to the door
with that petition, often it is easier. I am not saying it is right. I
am not justifying it. I am characterizing what happens thousands
of times with petitions. Thousands of times people sign a
petition and are known in many cases to have signed petitions on
opposite sides of the issue.
That is why I started with an example, not a generalization, a
specific example in which I was involved in a situation in which
people within eight or ten or twelve days had signed opposite
sides of two mutually exclusive petitions.
That is why it is dangerous. It is ill advised to make the jump
from petitions as a form of grievance, petitions as a way of
testing the water, petitions as a way of knowing what people
think on an issue, to government by petitions.
Let us look at the essence of this particular motion. It says in
effect that petitions are an important vehicle. It says in effect
that petitions ought to have more of a role in this Chamber.
I say to my friend from Edmonton Southwest, if that is his real
motivation here, and I would suspect that it is, there are ways to
do that. His colleague from Calgary North dismisses the idea of
private members' bills. A lot of private members bills go down
the drain, a lot because they should. However, a lot of others
have gone down the drain because the member did not do his or
her homework. Very often if a member is seized with an issue,
seized with the importance of an issue, that member can stick
handle his or her way through the maze here and get a private
members' bill passed in this House. I have seen it happen many
times.
Before people start denigrating the private members' bill,
they ought to check the record in this House and they will find
that many private members' bills have made it past the post in
this particular Chamber.
Mr. Young: We cannot smoke here because of a private
members' bill.
Mr. Simmons: The old anti-smoking stance on the Hill right
now, my colleague, the Minister of Transport, reminds us is the
direct result of a private members' bill, just by way of example.
There are many others we could mention.
<>
1637
If petitions bring to the public eye an issue which is
sufficiently important and if the petitioners have a sufficiently
energetic and informed member of Parliament, that issue will
find its way to the floor of this House in a way that will be
productive. That is my first point.
I have already stated my second point a couple of times. Let us
not rush to have government by mail. If we think this through,
there is no need to come here at all. We just need little buttons in
27 million homes-if you are for this, push that button; if you
are against that, push that button. That is not what government is
about. That is not what this House is about. This is a forum for
debate. I have had members of all parties say to me since they
have come here in one form or another that they did not quite
realize how it was, the implications of this.
D (1720)
I have had to say to myself and to others many times that is
why I am here. I have not come here with a closed mind. I have
not been sent here as a proxy by the people of Burin-St.
George's. Twenty-five thousand people put their x after my
name last fall, October 25. Many of them had done it on
occasions before. They have had nine occasions to cast their
votes for or against me, as the case may be. There is a method of
recall. If that is the concern, then I have difficulty.
I have written down what the member for Calgary North said:
``Representation has been a minuscule element here''. I have to
say to her that she might want to look at those words because she
might have said them in the heat of debate.
What an insult.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Simmons: What was I doing when I was out beating my
gums for the last aeons of years about the fishery problems on
the south coast of Newfoundland? What was that?
How about the times I got up here and talked about the need
for better student aid programs? How about the times I got up
here and talked about some fairness, some balance in the way
that we have transfer payments to the various provinces? How
about the time I got up here and asked for tougher laws in terms
of gun control?
Was I just pushing my own agenda at those times? Was I
maybe representing somebody once in a while? Or, in her words,
was it just a minuscule number of times-I was doing it by
accident, I came here to push my own agenda. I do not think she
believes that for a moment. I do not know her well but what I
know of her tells me that she does not believe that kind of
nonsense. That is absolute, unadulterated nonsense, I have to
say to her.
She might want to retract it because if she does not retract it
she has insulted not just me. I have had a few insults. I can take
them. There are a few other members of Parliament around here.
Even if we exclude all the members of her party who have just
come here, let us go back and put them in a special category that
they would not dare to do anything but represent. Let us buy that
line for the moment. It is the same for my friends in the Bloc
who, with the exception of six or seven of them, are here for the
first time. It is the same for a number on this side and those who
would like to be on this side, those over in the Siberian section
over there. We plan to have those numbers for a long time to
come.
A lot of us have been here before and a lot of members of other
parties have come here. I just had the feeling, perhaps I was
completely duped by all this, when I watched them when they
got up and presented petitions and raised issues that they were
actually representing people. Now I have to accept that all the
time they were here they were just flogging their own words,
just doing their own thing.
I do not want to make light of the member's comment because
she also used an example that I wanted to use so I will use it as
well. She used the example of the GST in the last Parliament.
There was a clear case in which despite the petitions, the
objections of 85 per cent of the Canadian people, the
government rammed it through. There is a case in which the
system broke down. It broke down temporarily. People dealt
with it in spades when the election came. The party that did that
has only two members in this House right now.
The system broke down temporarily but it is basically the
exception. I can give another example. Around 1983 the
government of then Prime Minister Trudeau was contemplating
some changes in old age pensions. Then petitions came in. Then
the will of the people was heard. We very quickly abandoned any
plans we had on old age pension reform at that particular time.
D (1725)
We cannot have an election every day. Is four years not
enough? Let us make it three years. If the time between elections
is the issue, if we cannot be trusted to come down here for four
years at a time, let us haul us back as they do in Congress in the
United States every two years or whatever. Let us change the
time period.
Let us not dupe the people into thinking that all will be happy
and hunky dory if they can mail in their decision on today's
problem, push the button today, send in the petition tomorrow
morning.
The problem, as I illustrated in my opening example, with
petitions and with the will of the people is that it is not always
black and white. Sometimes 30 per cent want one thing and 35
per cent want another and the other 35 want something else.
What do we do, have three policies?
We cannot beg the essential question that a government is
elected to govern. If it does it in accordance with its mandate it
can face the people squarely next time around. If it betrays that
<>
1638
mandate, we have a very recent example of what happens to that
kind of a government.
There is a notion that somehow we can undermine the
electorate all the time. I mentioned 25,000 voted for me, others
can quote even more impressive figures. My friend from North
York could tell us, I suppose, that over 100,000 people voted for
him. Were all those people a bunch of dupes? Were they all
absolutely stupid? Every member sitting in this House had
either a majority or a plurality. They came here with the direct
blessings of many thousands of people in each case.
Now I am being told today that these people did not mean that.
What they would rather do instead of all those xs is have a lot of
petitions. God bless them. Send us the petitions, lots of them.
Send us all the petitions they want. If some of the people in
Burin-St. George's are signing those petitions I have to say to
them, each one of those 25,000 darlings who voted for me, that I
will respect their petition, I will hear their grievance but I will
not let it cancel out my basic mandate here which is to represent
all the people of Burin-St. George's, not just the people who
can hustle petitions best. That is my mandate here. That is a
mandate I intend to serve to the very best of my ability.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot): Mr. Speaker, I certainly do
not have to ask the hon. member any questions because I know
where he stands. That is pretty well for the status quo.
I would like to make a couple of comments that he might want
to respond to. He took exception to our member from Calgary
when she indicated that she felt the representation has been
minuscule. The member's former leader, Mr. Trudeau, made the
statement that when backbenchers get 50 feet from the House of
Commons they are nobodies.
Perhaps he could take that into consideration and perhaps he
could take into consideration what the people think about that
kind of representation where a small group of people within a
party and within a government decides the direction that the
government is going to take on important issues that impact
upon individuals so severely.
I have had people say that those who oppose these populace
principles of referendum, recall, citizens' initiative, the reform
of the Senate, a triple-E senate, are afraid of their own people.
They do not trust them. They are saying to them at election time:
``Trust us with the authority you will invest in us by way of
sending us to Ottawa, but we do not want to have to trust you to
hold us accountable for the way that we conduct your affairs on a
daily basis''.
D (1730 )
The hon. member mentioned this whole huge mistake that the
former government made with regard to the GST. Look at the
damage that was done and has been done and will continue to be
done. We are saying that if we had a mechanism in place through
which the people could have stopped that damage, that
ill-conceived piece of legislation would not have been passed
into legislation; and the enormous economic damage that has
been done and that has been recognized by the Liberal
government would not have been done. This is what we are
saying. The people need these checks and balances. This is to
what the member for Calgary was alluding.
We are not saying we want to run government by push buttons,
as the hon. member stated. We want to place reasonable checks
and balances in place whereby when the people are aroused over
an issue they have some means of stopping ill-conceived
legislation from coming forward that will have such a
detrimental impact on their lives and the lives of their children.
Mr. Simmons: I would like to thank the hon. member for
Crowfoot. He mentions the status quo. No, I am not very big on
the status quo, not very big on change either. If something is
worth changing, let us change it. Let us not change it for the sake
of changing it.
The hon. member might be surprised to hear this, but I liked
most of what he said. I thought his example of Mr. Trudeau was a
bit outdated, but that is beside the point. But at the end, the
member for Crowfoot particularly talks about checks and
balances.
In 1992 in 52 weeks I travelled 49 times from Ottawa to
Burin-St. George's. Two weekends ago I was absent from this
Chamber on Friday and Monday and between Friday and
Monday I flew to Newfoundland and back, which means eight
hours on the plane, four hours each way. I spent 26 hours in a car,
and I attended 29 meetings of fishermen's committees, town
councils, et cetera.
I say to my good friend from Crowfoot there is the check and
balance he is looking for. If the member stays in touch with his
constituents he cannot really come back here and ignore the
advice he has heard. I have to say to you, sir, as faithfully as I can
that I reflect the wishes of my constituents here.
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver): Mr. Speaker, our motion
seems to have been a burr under the saddle of the members
opposite today.
The hon. member decries a government by petition, as if we
had proposed government by petition. Debating the occasional
major petition is hardly government by petition. It is certainly
sad the members opposite are afraid of reforms that would show
Canadians we really care about their opinions between
elections.
Would the hon. member consider a petition with one million
signatures on it worth debating. I am asking the hon. member the
same question I asked earlier of another member: Why is he
afraid to debate a major petition? Is he afraid that in front of the
television cameras his constituents will see that he does not
actually represent them?
<>
1639
Mr. Simmons: The member for North Vancouver, as is the
case most of the time, is in a fairly feisty mood. But in the
process he should not attribute motives about people who are
scared. The degree of scare or fear is not measured by the side of
the aisle on which you sit. I sat on that side of the aisle a fair
number of years as well.
D (1735 )
Actually I will check it out because that is the one my good
friend from Kindersley-Lloydminster has as a matter of fact.
His question gets lost in the rhetoric which implies that all the
people over here somehow are bad guys and bad girls because
they sit over here and they are all scared of everything.
No is the answer to his question. Bring in the petition with the
million signatures and I will be glad to debate it any day at all.
The issue I was talking about was a bit more than that. I was
getting concerned because if I am hearing too much on this
issue, the member for North Vancouver can correct me. I am
hearing that if we had all the petitions debated here and we had
referendums on what to put on our toast every morning, the
world would be hunky dory. Everything would be happy, happy.
I say to him and to other members of the House that until we
change the system, the government is elected to govern. When it
governs badly, as the last one did, it reaps its reward during
elections.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South): Mr. Speaker, let me be
brief.
The question has come up whether a petition with a million
signatures on it should be debated in the House. Maybe we
should consider something like that. What if a petition came
before the House with a million signatures saying that official
bilingualism should be discontinued in Canada.
I believe there are questions the government could deal with
without having to debate them. It is a matter of policy. Possibly
the member could comment on this issue. If a petition comes
forward for debate, if we follow what the Reform Party is
suggesting, how would other members get prepared to debate
that petition without themselves going back and somehow doing
some sort of work to determine the position of their
constituents? It is totally impractical. Maybe the member for
Burin-St. George's could comment.
The Deputy Speaker: A colleague wants a quick question as
well. The shorter his answer the better his chance.
Mr. Simmons: Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from
Mississauga South. The fact that it is complicated does not rule
it out. Most things we do here are confusing and complicated.
If members would look at the Order Paper and the motion put
down by my friend from Edmonton Southwest, the one we are
now debating, the answer to his question and the question put
previously by the gentleman from North Vancouver is answered.
They are both answered in the convention we are using here
right now. On opposition days, for example, even if we had a big
bad government, members can put down for debate whatever
they want to. I would suspect that if the Reform Party, or any
other party in this Chamber, received a petition from a million
people it would be awfully stupid not to make it the subject of an
opposition day motion.
Mr. Benoît Serré (Timiskaming-French River): Mr.
Speaker, I want to make a comment in support of what my
colleague from Burin-St. George's has been saying for the past
10 or 15 minutes. Let me relate a little experience I had during
the campaign.
Repeatedly the polls in my riding said that people were in
favour of capital punishment by 80 or 85 per cent. Throughout
the campaign I was asked about 50 times whether if I was elected
to Parliament, would I support my constituents and vote
according to the majority and for capital punishment. My
answer was no, that I was against capital punishment on a matter
of principle and I would not vote for capital punishment. I said
that if they felt strongly enough about this issue, they had one
choice, not to vote for me.
Lo and behold when the ballot box came in, I had 60 per cent
of the votes. If my arithmetic is right, even if I had the whole 20
per cent of the people who are against capital punishment voting
for me-I doubt that because a lot of them are NDP-I still had
40 per cent of the people who are for capital punishment.
I feel I have a mandate to come in the House and make my own
decision and vote against capital punishment. This is real
democracy.
Mr. Simmons: Mr. Speaker, my friend from
Timiskaming-French River makes the very important point
that if one governs and makes decisions, and if members are
elected on the basis of one issue, the conundrum arises when one
has, for example, a healthy majority for capital punishment in
the member's riding but on another issue many of that healthy
majority are on the other side, and on a third issue it is on a
different side. If he pleases the 65 per cent or 85 per cent on that
issue, what does he do on the next issue and the next when they
are in different camps? That is why the member is elected, I
submit, not so much on the basis of his positions on each of
1,015 items, but rather on the basis of his ability to make the
right judgment when the time arrives.
D (1740)
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster): Mr.
Speaker, it is a privilege to address the House on the motion
before us today with regard to debate of petitions.
<>
1640
I must confess I am a bit disappointed in the response we have
had from the other side. This motion was a request asking the
government to consider opening up the House for debate on
major petitions. I am quite surprised that in its response it seems
to be quite strongly opposed to even considering, debating or
discussing what we can do to improve this important facet that
Canadians have of dialoguing with us here.
I was a bit disappointed by the hon. member for Kingston and
the Islands who spoke quite strongly against considering a time
during the session when we could debate petitions. I was also
quite saddened by the hon. member for
Glengarry-Prescott-Russell for his rather vociferous and
fierce presentation in opposition to even considering our
motion. He suggested that it was improper for Reform MPs to
bring this forward for debate. I found it quite interesting that he
would quote Edmund Burke, the father of Tories. It may mean
that we will have to change the title of Grits to Tories in the
future, but perhaps that is who they look up to and thought they
would try to receive their inspiration from that source in the
future.
Our motion was put forward in good faith to try to open up
some dialogue on the matter of petitions. As members are no
doubt aware almost daily petitions are brought to the House,
certainly often at great effort on the part of Canadians who have
issues they feel are important enough that they would actually
petition those of us who are elected representatives to in some
way deal with them.
Perhaps it is because I am new here. I know the hon. member
for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell said we can introduce
motions through private members' bills and so on to bring those
petitions to the floor, but it is a difficult and slow process. I do
not think it gives proper recognition for the time and effort that
many Canadians put into trying to bring the issues that are of
vital importance to them to the floor of the House.
I know it is not possible to address every petition brought
forward by Canadians and our motion does not purport to do
that. It states that there should be a time when the House would
deal with serious petitions that are brought to the House, such as
the one of 2.5 million signatures brought in the other day. We
have heard several separate petitions concerning serial killer
cards brought from both sides of the House and there is
unanimous agreement that this should be stopped. It is
important that legislation be introduced and that this issue be
dealt with. These are the types of things that Reform is
suggesting should be debated.
I really believe the hesitance of the other side to want to do
this is a lack of confidence in rank and file Canadians. Often
times all rank and file Canadians see of this House is what they
see on their television, usually during Question Period, which I
do not think is a totally accurate reflection, at least I hope it is
not, of what goes on here.
I want to talk for just a couple of minutes about why I became
involved in politics. I believe it relates to the motion before us
today. As a young adult my government was a Liberal
government. I felt quite alienated from that government. They
introduced legislation that in no way, shape or form was
beneficial to my industry, to my family or to those matters that
concerned me. However, in my area almost all of the members of
the House did not sit on the government side. A Liberal was a
rare species in western Canada in the 1960s and the 1970s.
During that period the Prime Minister told me, a farmer, that I
should sell my own wheat, and he said it in rather unflattering
terms. He gave me no means by which I could actually sell that
wheat. Then his government introduced the national energy
program which devastated an industry in my part of Canada. We
are still suffering some of the results of the national energy
program which so financially and economically crippled my
part of the country.
D (1745)
Then the insult to injury was the tax and spend of the last few
years of the Liberal government before it was replaced by the
Conservatives which began bringing us down the dangerous
slope of increased debts by uncontrolled annual federal
spending. Western Canada kept voting for the members who
stayed on this side of the Chamber, whether they be Progressive
Conservatives or New Democrats.
Finally, the Liberals had infuriated enough Canadians that
they lost their support in Ontario and Quebec as well. Then there
was a government and my member was on the government side
and there was strong representation in the House from western
Canada, in fact across all of Canada. There was a massive
victory for the Progressive Conservative government. There
were very few Liberals in the House. If ever there was a mandate
to govern, the Conservatives had it. They had 208 seats if I
remember correctly. However, they did not maintain any
accountability to Canadians. We saw no difference in my part of
Canada in the type of government we had under the new
administration in comparison to what we had under the old
administration.
The light began to go on in a number of our heads. We thought
perhaps the people we were sending to Ottawa were not the
problem. Perhaps it was the system.
The new Conservative administration followed on the same
course as the Trudeau administration had. The Conservatives
introduced the GST against the wishes of a majority of
Canadians. They said: ``We have a mandate to do this. If you do
not think we have done the right thing you can talk to us about it
at election time''.
<>
1641
Adding insult to injury, the Conservatives introduced the
Meech Lake accord. I might add they had the support of the
Liberal and New Democratic members in this House. They said:
``We speak on behalf of Canadians. You can trust our wisdom.
We have thought this through very carefully. What we are doing
is in the best interests of all Canadians''.
Thank goodness not only Reformers but a number of
Canadians have demanded more input in the decisions made in
this Chamber because it is getting out of control. They have no
input, no means by which to redirect the politicians, leaders or
members in the House of Commons if they get going in the
wrong direction.
Fortunately, the Charlottetown accord was the time for testing
the wisdom of this Chamber. Remember there nearly was
unanimous agreement in this Chamber in support of the
Charlottetown accord. Of course the member for Beaver River
vociferously opposed the accord and a few other members were
also opposed to it. It turned out that this body had lost total
contact with what was happening outside of this place. I have
talked to people who were very much involved in the
Charlottetown accord who said: ``We had no idea they were
supporting it. We had no idea that Canadians saw this issue so
differently from what we did''. They had lost touch.
Perhaps we could begin, and I emphasize begin, to turn the
tables, to bring back accountability, to bring back
communication between members in this House and their
constituents. We start by looking at the little things we could do
to keep us in touch with those who sent us here. We are not sent
with a mandate to do whatever we pleased. Every time the
governing party has changed it has been to kick the other guys
out. When are we going to wake up and realize that? We cannot
say we have a mandate to govern when Canadians are merely
replacing one group of members with another because they
cannot tolerate what the first group has been doing. They have
lost touch with Canadians. We have to reverse our thinking.
I am disappointed that members on the opposite side who
have been arguing against this motion would be satisfied with a
substandard form of parliamentary government. They are
prepared to bury their heads in the sand to maintain our form of
government exactly as it has been for the last 127 years.
We are entering the 21st century and for the most part we are
still operating in a 19th century mode. It is truly unfortunate that
we do not elect members to the other place. It is unfortunate that
we handle petitions merely as a formality and very seldom deal
with them in the significant way they deserve because of the
effort Canadians have made in bringing them to our attention.
D (1750 )
In closing, it all boils down to whether we as members of
Parliament want to consider the importance of individual
Canadians or whether we want to be merely attentive to the
highly efficient lobby groups and special interest groups that are
able to bend our ears. Those groups can afford to send their
representatives with their glossy brochures to our offices to try
to twist our arms to present their views in this Chamber.
A petition is a very inexpensive way for hard working
Canadians who love their country and are concerned about a
number of issues, some with which we agree and others with
which we are opposed, to bring their issues before us. To just
summarily dismiss them is not showing the deserved respect to
the people who are responsible for our being here. They have
entrusted us to make wise decisions and to keep the lines of
communication open with them, so that we will act on their
behalf and on their stead.
Therefore I would hardly speak for reform of this place just
because it has not totally collapsed in the past. Just because it
effectively serves us in some areas does not mean the status quo
is what is good for us in the future.
The fact that Canadians are sweeping out one administration
to replace it by another again speaks to the fact that we have to
look at reform of this Chamber if we are going to give Canadians
the type of government and the strength in their leaders they
expect and deserve.
Mr. Morris Bodnar (Saskatoon-Dundurn): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminster and other
members have referred to consultation and discussions with
their constituents to get their thoughts and the matter of checks
and balances in determining what to do throughout.
Is the hon. member suggesting a consultative process or is it a
means of trying to avoid responsibility for important decisions
that have to be made in this House from time to time on
extremely important matters? Therefore, when the time comes
they do not have to blame themselves for the decision made.
Mr. Hermanson: I thank the hon. member for his very good
question which deserves a good answer.
The fact that we consult with Canadians and hear their point
of view is not shirking responsibility. I am not suggesting the
hon. member is saying that and I trust that he is not saying that.
The fact of the matter is if we are not prepared to listen and
consult with constituents we can get so far off base that they will
remove us from office. In the process we not only lose our
position here which really is not the important issue, but the
country is led in the wrong direction and often damaging
decisions are made.
<>
1642
For instance, our national debt which is now over $.5 trillion,
is a heritage we are giving to our children that they have had no
part in making. Because we have not been listening to parents
and grandparents concerned about the welfare of future
generations of Canadians, we may have a very black mark in the
history of this country.
Canadians are responsible. If we include them in the decision
making process we might be surprised by the wisdom of their
decisions. It strikes me very odd that hon. members laud their
electors for their good judgment in sending them to this House.
Then all of a sudden once they get here their electors have lost
all that good judgment. They are not capable of making any
sound decision based on the good of Canada. They are only
concerned about their own narrow interest.
I do not accept that. I believe if Canadians know they would
actually have some impact on the decisions made in this House
we would find that the quality of those decisions, if they are
provided with the necessary information would be equal or
better than the quality of the decisions made by us.
D (1755 )
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Public Works and Government Services): Mr.
Speaker, I have two questions.
I wonder if my hon. colleague would define what a major
petition and a serious motion are. Those are two terms he used in
his comments. Is it numbers? Is it the issue itself? Is it
something else?
I am also wondering whether my hon. colleague is not being
somewhat, or perhaps quite a lot, mischievous. He has turned it
around to talk about consultation. Let me say that all of us
consult and consult a whole lot. It may be some of us have
selective understanding of what is being said but this is not a
question about consulting. This is a question about petitions but
he has cleverly managed to massage it and swing it around.
I want people to note the buttons he touched. The
Constitution. Why? Because he knows full well that it is very
delicate in the riding he represents. The national energy program
was part of his remarks. What has that got to do with this
particular motion?
I am wondering whether the hon. member is not being rather
mischievous.
The Deputy Speaker: Before the reply, I think there is an
understanding in the House that we do not impute motives to
other members in the House, particularly in a new Parliament.
Mr. Hermanson: Mr. Speaker, I have no idea what the
Constitution has to do with the national energy program so I will
pass on that one.
We mentioned three areas where we believe that debate of
petitions would be relevant in this House. The first one was
based on the serial killer cards. In my short tenure in this House
there have been a dozen or perhaps two dozen petitions relating
to that issue certainly from all across Canada. That is definitely
an important issue to Canadians because it is coming from both
sides of the House and a number of fairly large petitions are
being presented.
The other petition we mentioned was the one which I believe
had 2.5 million signatures and speaks to the importance
Canadians place on it.
The third petition we mentioned was the one tabled in the
House today on recall. There were 30,000 signatures directly
dealing with matters in this House and in fact with a member
who sits in our midst.
These are three very good examples I would give to the hon.
member as the types of petitions that may deserve some special
consideration by this House at least once during a session or
once a year.
I do not perceive that as being mischievous at all. I believe it
is in the spirit of reform and goodwill and in consultation in
respect of Canadians.
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge): Mr. Speaker, this resolution
before us concerns debating petitions before this House.
We should recognize first it is a very basic principle in this
institution that any means by which the ideas and the influence
of the general public can enter this assembly should be
welcomed. We should not try to deter it or stop it in any way, but
our job as legislators or people who set the rules by which this
House operates is to make sure those rules are as open and
functional as possible. I say that in opening to set out a principle
by which I would like to design the rest of my remarks.
Since coming to this House I have noted some very good
differences from the Alberta legislative assembly in which I
served.
The first is members' statements. This event does not exist in
that assembly. The 15 minutes just prior to question period is the
most informative part of this assembly. I hear ideas from all
across this nation, from the maritimes, Ontario, Quebec, the
prairies, British Columbia. They are presented in a minute and I
am able to grasp very quickly a concern or a problem or an
attitude in a particular region. That is significant and is a good
change. I certainly commend those who were sitting in this
assembly when that change to the House rules was made.
There is a second difference that I recognize as important. The
moment after a person has made a presentation in debate we are
allowed a period of time, either five minutes or ten minutes,
during which we can question the speaker on a subject. We can
ferret out more material, more attitude or more information with
<>
1643
regard to the respective person's presentation. It is an excellent
innovation.
D (1800)
That was not an innovation in the legislative assembly of
Alberta. I mention those two items because I have been
impressed by them. There are others in this assembly I have
noted that have opened the door so the democratic process can
work.
We can look at the concept of petitions and their presentation.
I want to say the following about petitions. In my many years in
the legislative assembly of Alberta numerous petitions came to
the floor and were tabled. Often a member was committed to the
petition and believed that something should happen or the
petition was an added piece of information that could influence
the legislative assembly. That very same thing happens in the
House of Commons.
Another thing I noted, though, was that many petitions
presented by members were often presented without
commitment, without the objective of bringing about change or
representing a group of people. They were often brought to the
assembly with political expediency. They were laid upon the
table. They would table them but they would run away from
them. They really said to the group: ``I have tabled your
petition'' and the people felt that maybe members represented
them or maybe not. There was an expediency about it. There was
not sincerity at all.
The hon. member for Burin-St. George's referenced
somewhat in his remarks this afternoon that anybody would sign
a petition. We could go up and down the street and anybody
would sign it, no matter. We could take it to the pro side or the
con side and anybody would sign it. The inference was that the
petition did not have credibility.
Why is there no real credibility in petitions? Why do we look
at them as documents that do not have the credibility they should
have? Maybe one of the reasons, and it is not the only reason, is
that we as legislators or parliamentarians have not given them
the credibility they should have. People often sign a petition
thinking they will just present it and nothing will happen; that it
will just gather dust somewhere in the back rooms of the
parliamentary system; that it will just be there and nothing will
really happen; that it does not matter, nobody will ever look at
the names on it anyhow.
If we were to give petitions some credibility in the House, if
there were an item on the agenda so that when they were
presented and, as the Reform Party is suggesting, were debated
then they would have some credibility. Certainly they should
have some substance so that they create a certain action or
reaction as such. What about a petition, if we were to debate it or
it some special status on our orders of the day or on our agenda
before us? What should it have? What are some of those criteria?
A petition would be debated. As I see it a member must be
committed to or responsible for the petition. We could look at it
or examine it. Maybe a certain number of members could
indicate by signing some form that they are prepared to bring the
petition to the floor of the House. That could be one of the
criteria. It could not be a petition that is a loose cannon on the
floor for which nobody is really taking responsibility.
The group that initiates the petition should have the
responsibility of convincing some members of either side of the
Parliament of Canada that it is a good petition and that it should
be debated. They should be able to give the reasons and in turn
get those respective members of Parliament to take it forward
for them. That would be the first criterion.
D (1805)
Second would be the numbers and the regional representation
of the petition. If it were a petition to keep open the post office in
a little town in my constituency, it would be a very personal kind
of petition. The issue to be debated should be of some concern to
the majority of constituencies across the nation, not just one
constituency as such.
Those are a couple of criteria we could look at in order to
bring it up on the agenda. Possibly there are others that we could
design.
We have referred to other requests for parliamentary reform
to come about and to be brought before this assembly. This is
another item that could be referred to the procedure and House
affairs committee for consideration as an innovation. It would
indicate to the people of the nation that we are not just following
the old rules and saying that is the way it has to be done.
We are willing to change as we have done in some excellent
ways so far. We want to look at and try new things. This idea
would certainly be new. I do not know of any other house that
would treat petitions in the way we are suggesting here as the
Reform Party. It would be very different as such.
This is where I was going to note some of my sources. The
member for Kingston and the Islands informed me informally
that the House received anywhere from 1,000 to 1,500 petitions
each session. There is no way we are saying as the Reform Party
that we should discuss all those petitions. Of course not. Most
likely there are some of major significance that meet some
criteria we could establish. They could be brought before us
under an agenda item called petitions for debate and dealt with
in that manner. I am sure that would involve more people in
trying to change the laws for the betterment of our citizens.
<>
1644
There was some reference made in earlier comments that we
could use the format of a private member's bill or of a resolution
in the House. That is most likely true. That would be another
way by which we as private members could get the issue on the
table and debated before this assembly. I am sure we will use
that format in the Parliament of Canada.
Those are two items on the agenda. What would it hurt to give
some prominence on the agenda to petitions? Maybe the
consequence of that would be to add a little more credibility to
the concept of a petition. Before they were brought to the House
they would be signed by people, knowing that they would be
debated, that their names would be raised in this assembly and
that change could take place. They would think ahead a little
more about their responsibility before they signed the petition.
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York-Simcoe): Mr. Speaker, I am
really having a great deal of difficulty here. I thought the
purpose of the motion was to increase democracy in Canada, to
increase the opportunity for democratic debate and to further the
goals of populism.
During the election I sat with people who were soon to
become members of my constituency and had different ideas for
example on the abortion debate. I gave them a very strong
commitment that even though my feeling was very different
from theirs I would bring it forward in the House.
I have a great deal of difficulty with the suggestion that a
member of Parliament should decide what petitions are coming
forward. If there are only 25 people in my riding of
York-Simcoe who have signed a petition, their petition is
coming to the House and their issue is coming to the House.
D (1810 )
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for
York-Simcoe has made a very emotional plea for her
constituents in terms of making presentations to the House.
There is no way that the Reform Party is going to interfere with
the presentation of petitions in the format in which they are now
presented. We can still received 1,000 to 1,500 petitions and her
constituents can be heard in this assembly.
The point we are trying to make is that some petitions need
special consideration. All we are saying is let us set up a
mechanism by which two, three, four, five or even ten out of
1,000 to 1,500 could find their place in major debate in the
House.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South): Mr. Speaker, I heard
what the Reform members have been saying. I have been sitting
here for hours listening to the debate. However when I look at
the Order Paper I have to ask why these particular examples are
there.
The first is with respect to serial killer cards. We know they
have been discussed and that there have been petitions and
members' statements. Members of the Reform Party must
understand that the Minister of Justice stood in the House and
said that they are working on it now. They are looking at the
charter provisions to make sure that legislation can come
through and be effective. That is being handled as a result of the
petitioning process. We do not have to debate it any more. It is a
very bad example.
The second is with respect to young offenders. This
government was elected and one of its main planks was to
reform the Young Offenders Act. Many people brought in
petitions in that regard. Is it necessary to debate in the House
what the government is already committed to doing?
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge): Mr. Speaker, the intent of the
government is to make changes in terms of the killer cards and in
terms of the Young Offenders Act. However, often legislation is
brought in and it is senior levels of government, the consultants,
the minister and the caucus of the respective minister that put
the ideas together. Then they are presented on the floor of the
House. Often there are major weaknesses in the legislation
presented here.
My hon. colleague from Wild Rose last week made a
tremendous speech with respect to the deficiencies in one piece
of criminal justice legislation. A petition to the House could
have added to that legislation. I think we are missing an
opportunity.
The Deputy Speaker: Unfortunately my friend from
Waterloo has a stopwatch and he reminds me that the time is up.
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Waterloo): Mr. Speaker, let it not be
said that there are no reformers in this place. In entering the
debate I noticed the member for Lethbridge said was that we
should change the way we handle petitions, that we should
somehow handle them more seriously. If we were to do that the
people who sign these petitions would take more care and be
more serious in signing them. I did not totally follow the logic
but so be it.
To some extent I too have been disappointed in the debate
today. I come from a municipal background in which we actually
had representatives from all the political parties. I had the good
fortune to sit beside a Conservative member who was a good
friend of mine. I notice that in this House they are few and far
between. As a matter of fact we had more members on my
municipal council of 11 than we have Conservative members in
the House.
I go back to my riding and talk to them every once in a while
because in some sense they have a more balanced perspective
coming from right of centre. I appreciate that.
As a municipal councillor I have handled petitions on such
things as people being opposed to a granny flat. Virtually 100
per cent of a neighbourhood said it did not want a granny flat
<>
1645
because it would start the destruction of the neighbourhood.
That happened in my community.
D (1815)
I took the petition seriously because the petition said that if
we were to allow a granny flat, this was the thin edge of the
wedge. The next thing we would have were high rises in single
family neighbourhood housing.
I took the petition and went around knocking on everybody's
door. I explained to them what the petition said was not correct. I
explained to them that the character of their neighbourhood was
going to remain the same. The fact was that virtually 100 per
cent of the people in that neighbourhood signed the petition. I
take every petition that I receive very seriously.
We received a petition on medium density housing, group
homes and extended nursing homes. People opposed that. One
would have thought the Hell's Angels motorcycle gang was
going to establish a clubhouse. Instead we were talking about a
nursing home where many of us, if we are fortunate enough, will
go if we are around that long. We had petitions on day care,
development, street pedlars, slowing down growth, reforming
the Young Offenders Act, you name it, a municipal council gets
it all.
In municipal politics any delegation can come forward and
make a presentation to council. Therefore petitions are things I
take very seriously and I believe most members in this House
do.
I believe every member consults with his or her constituents
on a regular basis. Somehow the suggestion that we are not to be
trusted is wrong. Everybody who is in this House is concerned
about serving constituents.
Let me put a petition to the House, because this is an issue that
came up during the election campaign. It relates to pensions and
double dipping and how I stand on this issue. I had no problem
saying that I thought there needs to be pension reform. I said I
would support the age of 60.
I disagreed strongly with the concept of double dipping. If I as
the member wanted to get a petition ready and if I were to ask the
question of whether the electorate agrees that there should be no
double dipping, there would be an overwhelming number of
people who would sign the petition. I would change the petition
slightly, keeping in mind that we have three different levels of
government, or actually four because in Ontario we have the
municipal, regional, provincial and the federal government.
One of the things that the leader of the Reform Party has
always said and I agree with him 100 per cent is that there is only
one taxpayer. Keeping that in mind if I were to write a petition
and it asks whether you agree that double dipping should be
outlawed, the answer would be an overwhelming yes.
If I worked the petition a bit differently and ask whether they
believe that if somebody is collecting a pension for sitting on
municipal council or in a provincial legislature and they get
elected as members of Parliament, meaning that is double
dipping, do they think it should be stopped? I can tell everybody
just from my talking with people that the answer would again be
yes. I guess in some ways I really do wish that we could try to
make this House a little less partisan and try to debate the merits
of legislation that come up.
The speaker from Wild Rose was referred to after speaking in
this House on Friday. He got into the whole issue of crime,
justice and lawlessness in this country. I found the discourse
rather bothersome because the crime issue is an easy one to pick
on. Interestingly enough that is one of the examples being raised
here. It talks about the Young Offenders Act. It was not too long
ago when the Minister of Justice rose in the House and talked
about a report by a gentleman by the name of Dr. Anthony Dube.
Dr. Anthony Dube is a criminologist at the University of
Toronto. He knows more about the public perception of the
judicial system, he knows more about the public perception as to
the extent of crime in Canada than probably any other Canadian.
He is an expert on those issues.
D (1820)
He found that Canadians on the whole believe that they live in
a much more violent society than they actually do. That is an
interesting commentary. Where does that come from and what
kind of implication does it have? I can tell you where it comes
from. Dr. Dube outlined it. It comes from the fact that the
popular media insists on feeding us a daily dose of some
horrendous crime that takes place in Canada, and if nothing goes
on in Canada, it will go to the United States; if nothing happens
in the United States it will go to Europe, Africa, Asia, wherever
it has to go.
We have news crews in this country ready to move on a
second's notice, to go out to some crime scene so they can splash
it all across the TV screen and the next day in the printed media
with the sole purpose of somehow driving ratings. It is not hard
to understand how people perceive our communities to be more
violent than they really are.
When you compare us with the United States of America we
are a much more peaceful society than it is. Unfortunately we
are not as fortunate as Europe. This is talking in terms of hard
statistics. There are places in Europe where they do not report on
crime hardly at all because they do not see any socially
redeeming value in it. The suggestion is there that it might be
encouraging crime.
<>
1646
The other thing that Dr. Dube talked about was the public
perception of the sentences that judges hand out. He had two
groups. To one group he gave the transcripts of the trial. Those
people went through the hundreds of pages of exactly what went
on in the courtroom. He gave the same trial information to
another group of people but it came from the media.
He found that the people who got the information by reading
what went on in the courtroom would more often find that the
judges were just in their sentences or maybe even too harsh and
alternatives to incarceration that might have been imposed
should have been considered. In the cases of people reading the
media information what the study found was that the people did
not believe that the judicial system was working because they
believed that the judges were much too lenient. That says
something and it is an important lesson for us here. It means that
when we take time to study all sides of the issue the solutions
might not be as simplistic as they look at first blush. That is
important to note.
In terms of the Young Offenders Act, the Liberal Party is
committed to dealing with it and we want all members of the
House dealing with it seriously in committee. We should make
the best possible changes in the legislation that we can make,
keeping in mind it will never be perfect because we are living in
an evolving society and the dynamics change.
On the issue of killer cards every member of the House wants
to find a way of getting rid of them. There is no question about
that.
As to the recall of members, I have some difficulty with it.
There is the underlying premise that when the electorate made a
decision on October 25, 1993 it was not an informed decision.
D (1825 )
I think that it was an informed decision. There is a
responsibility on the part of the electorate when it does make a
decision that government is going to be governing for a period of
approximately four years.
It is the ultimate insult to say that the electorate, in making its
decision, made a bad decision and somehow it has to be
protected from the decision that it made.
We discussed petitions and how they are presented. As a new
member in this House, I came to the orientation and one of the
people who made a presentation to all members on petitions was
the member for Beaver River. She told us how to present
petitions. She is the one who made suggestions on it. I do not
think she was telling us not to take these presentations seriously.
I think every one of us takes these presentations seriously.
There is a fundamental premise in all of these motions and
certainly references to the national energy program and going
back to when the deficit started and the debt started. There is
definite politics being played there. I wish it were not so but it is
certainly being done.
I will refrain in the next four years in this House from
referring to the Reform Party from the west as perhaps the party
of alienation, that feeds on alienation, just like the Social Credit
Party did. I will refrain from saying, the explanations by the
member for Beaver River notwithstanding, that it was the
members of the Social Credit Party involving the father of the
present leader who got rid of recall.
I do believe that issues being raised in this House for debate,
issues that this Parliament does not work, are a red herring. I say
that because there has been a crisis of confidence in our
democratic institutions, I recognize that, but that crisis of
confidence has been fed by forces within this country. I would
suggest that what we collectively do in this House over the
course of the next four years is really going to determine the
future of Canada.
To some extent we are going to be entering some very difficult
debates. I do not for a minute think that we are going to avoid
dealing with the issue in Quebec. We will at some point. I think
every member believes that we are going to be doing that.
However, it is important that we look at the parts of this country
that work well. Our democratic institutions have worked for 127
years. We have one of the best governments in this world and
every one of us should recognize that. We should not be saying
that somehow this country does not work or that somehow this
country has broken down, because it has not.
We can certainly all work together to make it better, but one of
the first things we owe this country is to believe that we can do
it. That is not by destroying the very institution itself.
In terms of being accountable, governing is not easy. Any
governing party is going to have problems. However, we went to
the electorate on October 25 and we went with a plan. We were
elected with a majority of members in this House.
As a member, I do not totally feel good about what happened
to the former government in terms of the number of seats it
received. Somehow I do not think that was very fair. It certainly
bothers me and I would like to see if during the course of this
Parliament that can be redressed. When I look at members who
are classified as independents I see members who are not really
full members of this House in terms of what their privileges are.
If I am to believe that every constituency deserves
representation, which I do because it made a choice, there is
fundamental respect that we should extend to that member in
terms of rights.
Mention was made of the Charlottetown accord, but nobody
mentioned that our Prime Minister when he was Leader of the
Opposition called for a referendum on the Charlottetown
accord. The Liberal Party believes that referendums have a
place. I can say that in my constituency the split was almost
down the middle. About 55 per cent were for the Charlottetown
accord
<>1647
and 45 per cent were against it. I know that my colleague from
Kitchener went the other way.
Mr. Pickard: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. My colleague
can finish his speech and other members may ask questions of
him.
Would it be possible to get unanimous consent to carry on
until 6.40 p.m.?
The Deputy Speaker: Very well. We have no late show
tonight. Members should be aware of that when deciding
whether they wish to give unanimous consent to the request by
the hon. member for Essex-Kent.
Is there unanimous consent to go until 6.40 p.m.?
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: I hear no, so I have to go with that.
Would the member please conclude.
Mr. Telegdi: Mr. Speaker, in conclusion our Prime Minister
said there should be a referendum and the party supported that.
There was a referendum because pressure was put on the
government. That is important to note.
In terms of concluding this debate, I can only say as the
member from Waterloo and as someone who believes he is
accountable to his constituents, I have absolutely no problem in
terms of how we have been handling petitions and the way we
can feed them into committee. Any member in this House has
the ability to raise that.
Let me say that we are all small r reformers and certainly the
rookies in this House are. The fact that some are big r Reformers
does not give them the monopoly. I make the plea that over the
course of the next four years we on all sides of this House try to
be as non-partisan and unsanctimonious as possible.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: It being 6.30 p.m., it is my duty to
inform the House that pursuant to Standing Order 81(19) the
proceedings on the motion have expired.
[English]
Since there are no members available for the proceedings on
the adjournment motion, this House stands adjourned until
tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24.
(The House adjourned at 6.30 p.m.)