Debates of Oct. 28th, 1994

Social Security Programs

[Stan Keyes, Liberal, Hamilton West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I consider it a privilege to spend a few minutes discussing the provisions of Bill C-54 which deals with overpayment of old age security benefits and a time bar on the recovery of these overpayments.

This provision points out the challenges of administering our income security programs which comprise an extremely large enterprise, one which is vital to the well-being of more than six million Canadians.

To manage effectively a program that provides more than $20 billion a year to six million clients is challenging enough but the Government of Canada must also maintain the reputation of the income security programs as effective, efficient and equitable. After all the purpose of the old age security and other benefits is to help provide Canadians with a just reward for a lifetime of work and service to family, community and society.

The old age security program is designed to assist those whose retirement income is minimal or even non-existent. It is designed to contain elements that alleviate poverty among senior citizens. Inevitably with such an extremely large group of programs there will be anomalies. People may receive more than their entitlement. People may receive less than they are entitled to.

A vital part of administering these funds of such formidable size is to remedy abnormalities in a manner which is effective, equitable and, where appropriate, compassionate.

The Old Age Security Act contains restrictions which prohibit the recovery of substantial overpaid amounts and allow clients to retain unlawful gains. The act restricts the recovery of some overpayments aside from those arising from fraud or wilful misrepresentation. Collection can be made only for access moneys received in the current fiscal year plus the full previous fiscal year.

This is not the case with the Canada Pension Plan. It allows overpayments to be recovered regardless of the timeframe. The proposed amendment to the Old Age Security Act reads exactly this way: "Where a person has received or obtained a benefit payment to which the person is not entitled or a benefit payment in excess of the amount, the benefit payment to which the person is entitled, the amount of that benefit payment or the excess amount, as the case may be, constitutes a debt due to Her Majesty".

This provision amends the Old Age Security Act to remove timeframe restrictions for recovery of overpaid moneys including payments for guaranteed income security and spouse's allowance. The change will provide greater accountability to the taxpayer and allow equal treatment of clients of old age security and the Canada Pension Plan.

Under this change the minister will have the discretion to collect the entire amount overpaid to a client rather than a limited amount. However, in keeping with the policies and practices of the income security programs there would be no change to the existing authority to remit overpayments in various cases. These would include cases of hardship where administrative costs exceed the debt or where the debt cannot be collected within the foreseeable future.

Another new amendment incorporated in Bill C-54 will extend the minister's authority to remit overpayments where there was administrative error or erroneous advice. As a result of this amendment, recoveries of incorrectly paid funds are estimated to be approximately $1 million to $2 million every year.

I should mention that the time restriction has never applied in situations where charges of fraud were laid and proved but of course there are only a handful of cases of that type. Nevertheless, this amendment will enhance the ability of government to administer the old age security program in keeping with justice and equity.

No concerned Canadian wants to deny old age security benefits to a senior citizen who is deserving and in a difficult financial situation. Nothing in this proposed amendment will change that. The removal of this time restriction on recovery brings the old age security provisions into line with those of the Canada Pension Plan and the Unemployment Insurance Act.

Earlier in this debate the hon. member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve commented that the government will collect debts incurred 15 years ago on the basis of erroneous advice from the department. This comment does not recognize the minister's ability expanded in this Bill C-54 to forgive overpayments incurred in such circumstances.

These amendments taken together will provide the minister with the flexibility to forgive overpayments where that is merited and to pursue the recovery of overpayments where that is merited. That is surely what is desired as opposed to the previous rules which were arbitrary and inconsistent with other government programs.

Where administrators have made errors, overpayments are to be forgiven. Where persons have made incorrect claims, overpayments are to be recovered. However, the government is determined to merit the reputation of the income security

programs as programs that respect both the taxpayer who provides these millions in benefits and the pensioner who deserves to be treated with sensitivity and dignity.

The old age security program is designed to help those who really need help. Through supplements, it is intended to help those senior citizens whose income is low. With more than six million people benefiting from all income security programs, there are bound to be anomalies.

I want to again stress that a vital part of administering these large sums of such formidable size is to remedy anomalies in a manner which is efficient, equitable and where appropriate compassionate. The amendment to remove time barriers to recover overpayments is an important provision and another reason why Bill C-54 merits the support of all members of this place.

[Randy White, Reform, Fraser Valley West, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my hon. colleague on his introduction to Bill C-54.

I too rise in support of Bill C-54 and I want to start by talking a little about some of the problems with how government in the past has managed pension programs in general. There are a lot of pension programs that exist in this country today.

We have to have a complete understanding. There really is not anything any more important than looking after our seniors today, for they cannot and will not get jobs as we are trying to get for our young people. They generally would not be retrained into our society. They are not going for extra education and these are the people really who deserve a secure retirement.

One of the members opposite is referring to himself. I think we will look after him too and I will talk a little about the MPs pension plan in a few minutes and we will see how well we will look after him in the future.

These are the people who really deserve a secure retirement because they have earned it through paying taxes and through paying into the CPP and so on. I guess we have to ask here whether the government and that other party from Jurassic Park have really looked after the welfare of senior citizens of the past. When we talk about changes to old age security, CPP and so on in the future we are going to have to get into looking at some new, constructive ideas because as most people in this country know money is becoming of short supply for those kinds of programs and they are going to have to be dealt with.

I have some difficulty in getting some confidence that this government will deal with these programs in a new, modern, constructive way. This is after all a traditional party of which we have one left in the House. Traditional ideas we thought were going to be gone in years past and for the future are ideas like the Senate. The better part of this country today is asking that we have elected senators, that they be effective and that we have equal representation in provinces. Yet this government still provides the patronage appointments to which most Canadians are opposed.

We talk time and time again about the MP pension plan. Virtually not a month goes by in this House when we do not complain about it. Yet no changes have been made. We are talking about tradition and how we get a government like this, a traditional party, to move ahead and make some constructive changes in CPP and old age security. We are running out of time on some of these programs and they really have to move ahead; laws and legislation like in the Young Offenders Act where the whole country really wants this traditional party here to move ahead with them and make tougher constructive changes. It has failed to do it time and time again.

What we have here I fear is another traditional party that is dealing with non-traditional problems like old age security and CPP which have to be changed.

Why would we expect this government to come up with new ideas? I guess maybe we do not and that is what we are here for. That is why we have come to this House, to try to infiltrate some changes throughout the system.

Old age security is what is called a non-contributory program. Individuals do not contribute to it. It comes from tax revenue. On one hand one might assume that we could cut that out because people had not contributed to it. That is not the fact. Over the years all the taxes paid into the government have been used in part to fund old age security which is good in measure. That will have to change somehow unless the government finds some revenue either by raising taxes, and we hope it does not do that, or cutting expenses and we know it is not doing that.

The Canada pension plan is the contributory portion of pension for Canadians where the employer and the employee contribute.

To address old age security and CPP and future changes we must look at how the government manages its current pension plans. We know what they are. They are the MP pension plan, the military pension plan, the civil service pension plan and the RCMP pension plan. There are a number of them. Those plans should be covered under the Pension Benefits Standards Act. This act sets standards for pension plans in this country on the financing and the fund management. It was introduced in 1967 and amended by the Conservatives in 1987. The plan has four very good standards which actually should apply to all pension plans.

The first one is that the employers must ensure that dollars are held in trust. This is very basic and necessary for any pension plan. A pension fund administrator shall be put in place managed by a board, an organization that is charge of the fund. The administrator must be responsible for appointing somebody for accountability and then the fund must be prudently invested. It

stands to reason that is the only way a good pension plan could be managed.

However, these standards that were in the standards act were intended to protect the interests of the plan members. Not surprising, however, Parliament exempted the federal government from these rules. Here we go with this kind of sanctimony. We will look after everybody else but ourselves. When this act came in and was modified in 1987, Parliament said that is okay for everybody else but we will not get involved in that portion, we will exempt ourselves from it. It did, with the military, civil service, RCMP and MP pension plans.

Consequently, there are problems with those plans. I am going to illustrate from these four plans what is wrong with the management and the ability to fund old age security and CPP.

The problem with that particular exemption is that total pension payments exceed the contributions. When you exempt yourself from these rules you start to go into the hole. You start into deficits. That we know is where we stand today. Today we have total liabilities for RCMP, military and civil service pension plans of $94 billion, unfunded. It is carried in an account on the books of the government as an SPA, I believe, a special purpose account. It is a liability. It is not funded in trust as the Pension Benefits Standards Act so directs everybody else to do.

We pay out about $6 billion to these three organizations, the military, civil service and RCMP. That comes directly from general revenues paid by the taxpayer.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

I regret that at this stage in debate on this particular piece of legislation members are entitled to 10 minutes without questions or comments.

[Randy White, Reform, Fraser Valley West, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that is too bad. I just got warmed up. I have not even had an opportunity to tell the government what I think of it today. I only did that yesterday.

We have to work on old age security and CPP, make no mistake about it with this government, and RRSPs as well.

I am advising the government now to keep away from taxing RRSPs. It may be the one very good livelihood senior citizens have in this country. After 20 years of spending money carelessly by both Liberals and Conservatives there are very few dollars left in those pots to fund other pensions.

If that bank is broke, which it is, what has to happen here is that old age security and CPP must be the number one priority for funding. That means the government should attend to the Pension Benefits Standards Act, try to get these in trust and try to get them funded.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

All those in favour will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Pursuant to order made on Thursday, October 27, 1994, a recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred until Tuesday, November 1, 1994, at the end of the period provided for Government Orders.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think you will find unanimous consent to proceed immediately to private members' hour notwithstanding the couple of minutes left.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

The House has heard the suggestion of the chief government whip. Is there unanimous consent to proceed to Private Members' Business?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed from June 14 consideration of the motion that Bill C-210, an act to provide for the recall of members of the House of Commons, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Recall Act

[Ed Harper, Reform, Simcoe Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure for me to rise today and speak in support of Bill C-210, a bill introduced by my colleague from Beaver River.

To my mind this is one of the most important bills that we may be discussing in this Parliament because it is a very small but important step in restoring confidence in the system and restoring trust in politicians.

I am particularly pleased to rise and speak on this bill today because I recall it as being one of the major reasons why I joined the Reform Party in reading over its policies and positions on political reform and on freer votes, referenda, citizens' initiative, recall.

Back in 1990 when I first was exposed to those policies they rang very true with me. I said yes indeed that is what is wrong with this country of ours today. Politicians have lost touch with the people they are representing and the system is in great disrepute.

Recall is one part of political reform, but as I said earlier, it is a very important step in the direction to make politicians more accountable to the people who voted them into office. Referendums can encourage the common sense of the common people to be brought to bear on some of the major issues we are and will be facing in this 35th Parliament.

Canadians have lost faith in the system. They have lost trust in the politicians. The results of the last election in having 205 new members of Parliament elected to this House speaks very clearly to the feelings of the Canadian voters that there must be change. They are not happy with the status quo and we have to have some new directions.

Consider Meech Lake, followed by the Spicer commission, followed by the Charlottetown accord. During that period these things indicated very clearly that Canadians were saying: "We want change; we are not happy with the direction governments have been going in".

This applies particularly when I reflect on the Charlottetown accord. All major governments were supporting it; all of the major press were supporting it. However, the Canadian people saw through it and said: "No, this is not a good idea. This is not a good move". They rejected it. It was to the utter disbelief of the parties that the Canadian voters would stand up, see through the smoke-screen being presented to them and say: "No, this is not what we want. We have not had a voice in this process".

That was a turning point in Canadian politics and it was a turning point for the better. Politics in Canada will never be the same. The problem is that once credibility is lost, it is extremely difficult to get it back. Talk is not enough. It takes action. This bill is going to provide some action, a step in that direction. Changes must be made.

I recall when I was campaigning. The door to door experience I have described was frightening. At door after door I am sure other members as well as myself were being met with the same reaction: "I am absolutely fed up with what has been going on up there in Ottawa. Why should I believe you? You are here at the door telling me what you want me to believe, what you think I want to hear. But you will go to Ottawa and you will do exactly as you are told, just as has been going on for years. I am fed up with it".

I encountered that at door after door. That level of cynicism really was disturbing. In a way it reinforced my desire to get involved in the system and hopefully bring about the change needed to restore the level of confidence that has been so sadly lacking.

I am building a case for the mistrust and the cynicism that is out there with the voters. I want to read some quotes from the very famous red book because it has been played so often during this first sitting. There are those who would suggest that the red book should have started out with the phrase once upon a time, but it does contain the odd pearl of wisdom.

I would like to take this opportunity to quote some of them. They will reinforce exactly what I am saying today in support of recall. On page 91 under "Governing with Integrity":

Canadians have always prided themselves on the quality of their democratic institutions. Yet after nine years of Conservative rule, cynicism about public institutions, governments, politicians, and the political process is at an all-time high. If government is to play a positive role in society, as it must, honesty and integrity in our political institutions must be restored.

The most important asset of government is the confidence it enjoys of the citizens to whom it is accountable. There is evidence today of considerable dissatisfaction with government and a steady erosion of confidence in the people and institutions of the public sector.

This erosion of confidence seems to have many causes: some have to do with the behaviour of certain elected politicians, others with an arrogant style of political leadership. The people are irritated with governments that do not consult them, or that disregard their views, or that try to conduct key parts of public business behind closed doors.

On page 92 under "Parliamentary Reform" it states:

In the House of Commons, a Liberal government will give MPs a greater role in drafting legislation, through House of Commons committees. These committees will also be given greater influence over government expenditures. More free votes will be allowed in the House of Commons, and individual members of Parliament will be involved in an effective prebudget consultation process. We will establish mechanisms to permit parliamentary review of some senior order in council appointments.

A lot of talk so far but little in the way of action.

Let me now go to page 93 under the title "Perspectives". This quote that is in the red book was actually taken from the Public Policy Forum, 1993:

Given the sustained and often angry criticism that has been widely expressed by the public in recent years, it is remarkable how little has been done by way of reform. Of all the grounds on which successive governments, together with MPs, could be charged with being unresponsive, none is more striking than the lack of response to unmistakable expressions of public dislike of the manner in which Parliament goes about its business. If Canadian parliamentarians are unwilling to effect changes, they must be prepared to accept a further loss of public regard. If, however, they are now ready to embrace reform, there are a number of avenues open to them.

The last quote is from page 93 of the red book. The source is the Royal Commission on Electoral Reform and Party Financing of 1992. It is entitled "Political Cynicism in Canada".

I will read out the quote and the percentage who agree with the statement: "I don't think that the government cares much what people like me think"; 72 per cent agreed with that statement. "Generally, those elected to Parliament soon lose touch with the people"; 79 per cent agreed with that statement. "Most candidates in federal elections make campaign promises they have no intention of fulfilling"; 82 per cent. "Most members of Parliament care deeply about the problems of ordinary people"; 62 per cent. "Most members of Parliament make a lot of money misusing public office"; 64 per cent.

The problems we have had with the Minister of Canadian Heritage this week illustrate there is a problem. Unfortunately, the government missed a great opportunity this week to show it meant to restore integrity and honesty to government. By not taking fast and appropriate action it has lost the credibility that is so heralded in its famous red book.

Let us get back to recall. Is there identified support for recall? There is a very definite yes in answer to that question. In October 1991 the province of British Columbia had a vote on whether to support recall and 81 per cent of the voters in that province responded in favour of recall. In the March 1994 Gallup poll 75 per cent of Canadians said yes to recall. In the province of Quebec 70 per cent supported recall. In the province of Ontario 78 per cent supported recall.

Let us go now to the question of party affiliation relative to the question of supporting recall. Liberal supporters, 76 per cent endorsed recall. BQ supporters, 76 per cent supported recall. Indeed, there is very strong support for recall.

In the first week of Parliament the need for recall was demonstrated by what happened in the riding of Markham-Whitchurch-Stouffville. The member was not good enough for the Liberal Party and was thrown out. The people in that riding now have no member or no way of getting at their member. Just this morning I presented another petition in the House with hundreds of names on it requesting that Parliament do something about this inability for constituents to get at a member who is not representing them.

I cannot understand this reluctance toward recall. I can only assume it is because members have not received the message that the voters want change. That has been demonstrated so clearly. They are still out of touch with voters. The people who pay our wages, our bosses, are telling us and demanding that change be made.

I spoke about the Spicer commission because it reinforces a lot of what I was saying. The final chapter in that report was not written by Mr. Spicer or any of his commissioners, but by one of the Canadians who was interviewed. What he said was: "No hyperbole or political hedge can screen any member of any legislature who thwarts the will of the people on this matter. The voters are watching and waiting". I think they are waiting for recall.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak in the debate on the proposed act to provide for the recall of members of the House of Commons. This bill is a good example of an idea that has its merits but does not quite make it. The purpose is to ensure that the member is worthy of the mandate he received from his constituents. The problem has been with us since the beginnings of the democratic system. We have seen this in the past in many countries, and though people have tried to find a solution, they have failed to come up with satisfactory answers. In countries where recall exists, it very seldom occurs, but there are also some outlandish situations.

If we consider the bill before the House today, I will explain why I said it does not quite make it. It is certainly not attractive in its present form because, among other things, it opens the door to all kinds of political intrigue. I will give an example. If this bill is passed, it would give more power to party organizations. Take for instance, a riding where a member was elected with less than 50 per cent of the vote, or the case of an independent member, like, for instance our colleague here in the House who represents the riding of Beauce. I am not saying that politicians might actually do this, but the parties might get together and decide to start a petition to challenge a seat held by an independent member, who would not have the same political clout as these parties, and a new election would be called, not to challenge the performance of the member but just to win another seat. And this may have important repercussions, one way or another.

What started out as a good intention expressed by the Reform Party could have unacceptable consequences like giving even more weight to the party machine at the expense of the member representing his or her riding. In addition, according to the current legal interpretation of the political party financing

legislation, if this act providing for the recall of members of the House of Commons went into effect, it would become an appalling form of lobbying for those who finance political parties, and who are not necessarily individuals. For example, companies, banks or unions on the other side of the fence could decide in a given situation to make a member lose his seat, not because of poor performance but because his ideas are different from theirs. In this regard, our legislation governing political party financing is not tight enough at the present time to allow us to put in place a concept such as the recall of members.

Another perverse element which is not in the legislation must be avoided, namely the systematic use of recall to remove members from the House. This bill provides that such petitions can be accepted 18 months after an election. Politicians could easily make systematic efforts to question the mandates of members from the other party, from the other side of the House, thus creating instability which is totally inconsistent with the goals and objectives of our parliamentary system. We cannot afford to transfer to a parliamentary system such as ours ideas which may have been successful in a different type of system but which would not have the same effect here. I think that these perverse effects must be avoided at all cost.

Something else to keep in mind is that we must not over-legislate, and in this regard I think that the Reform Party is contradicting itself. You do not solve a problem by passing a law and damming every little stream. In this Parliament, if the mandate of one or two individuals should be reconsidered because of something they did, I think that it is not necessary to pass a law that would have a major effect on the parliamentary system and the electoral system and unpredictable negative effects.

My colleague from the Reform Party just gave the example of Charlottetown. If we had had such a law when the Charlottetown Accord failed and all of Canada started to recall all the members who had spoken in favour of that horrible agreement, I feel that we would have had a constitutional crisis and an even more obvious parliamentary crisis, especially since about a year passed between the Charlottetown Accord and the next federal election, the same time it would have taken to come up with something to challenge the mandates of the people who had been elected.

So, this solution does not seem viable, in my view. It does not seem like an appropriate solution to the problem which may be created by a member of Parliament who does not properly fulfill his mandate. Other forms of representations can be made and actions can be taken by the constituents, without jeopardizing someone's mandate because of his ideas.

Let us not forget too that we sometimes have free votes on moral issues and on bills. Some pressure groups could conceivably resort to the recall process because of just one issue representing a very minor part of the work done by a member.

I also want to say a word on the short text-some 200 words-to justify the application for recall. We are in politics. We see the same reality from different perspectives. That text could take different forms and be subject to various interpretations, thus generating an instability which is not appropriate, considering that, in the next few years, Parliament will have to consider major constitutional changes.

It is because of the strength of our parliamentary institutions-and this must be recognized-that a party seeking a radical transformation of our country's political structure, can come here and express its views. We must ensure that this democratic process continues to exist. Indeed, that institution is still the best democratic tool available.

Let me mention a few issues which I consider more urgent regarding MPs' mandate. I already said it, but I will repeat it now: We must first ensure that we have a political party financing process act which is airtight. We must ensure that only individuals, and not corporate entities, can make contributions to a political party.

When you look at the list of the people who are presently contributing to the financing of political parties like the one currently in power or, in the past, the Conservative Party or any other party that is satisfied with following the letter of the law, you realize why their hands are tied in so many situations. You understand why, in the social program reform for example, government action is much more limited and softer than what the public expected. This is because this party's financial backers, if not handed control, at least exercise moral influence over it. When these backers are banks, unions, corporate bodies, the voters are not a priority and, in that sense, the intent of the Representation Act is distorted. Therefore, it appears to me that legislation to that effect is much more urgently required.

The second element on which I believe it appropriate to move very quickly is to make sure that when people are elected, they come here with a clear, well-defined mandate and that they respect it. In politics, people are always right in the end. We live in a society in which-the Conservative Party of Canada can attest to that-if political parties retreat in their ivory tower and forget about the people who brought them to power, they eventually pay dearly for it. In our political system, a four- to five-year term of office seems very reasonable.

Each one of us, the 205 new members, knows it to be true. If, after 18 months in office, we were asked to perform as efficiently as those who have been fortunate enough to be here for two, three or four years, it would render the system less efficient. Contrary to the Reform Party's objective, this would further diminish voter confidence in the institutions which represent them.

To conclude, I would say that what we have here is the age-old problem of democratic representation by delegation. It has been with us for a long time. The solution we are being offered is not the right one. I believe that we should give it some more thought. This bill should be dropped and instead we should start a reflection on a priority issue, the financing of political parties.

[Jim Hart, Reform, Okanagan—Similkameen—Merritt, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to participate in the debate on Bill C-210 proposed by the member for Beaver River respecting the recall act.

In trying to find why we would need a bill such as this one in place in Canadian politics, I asked the Library of Parliament to do some research and give me examples of corruption and situations that may have been prevented if we had recall legislation like the one before us. I was amazed. My fax machine burned up for about a half hour with all the examples the library was sending me.

A December 30 article in the Ottawa Citizen refers to 18 members and ministers on the Liberal side of the House and on the Conservative side of the House who were implicated in such corruption. There was also more evidence in a June 28 article that reads: ``Two PC MPs leave caucus pending probe, an RCMP investigation into the misuse of federal funds''.

Another article that caught my eye states: "Prime Minister Kim Campbell has inherited the mandate of one of the most corrupt governments in Canadian history. Seldom have so many been caught doing so much for themselves".

These are examples of some of the things. I found it totally outrageous that the Canadian public has put up with nonsense like corruption charges against members, forged documents, shoplifting, kickback deals, ministers accepting $2.5 million in loans from a friend who just happened to be a government contractor, questionable land deals, lavish spending while on government trips abroad financed by the taxpayer and conflict of interest charges. The Canadian public demands more from elected representatives.

Recall is the power of the people to petition for the holding of an election on the recall, the removal of a member of Parliament. It was first used in the American Articles of Confederation of 1777 and recall currently exists in 15 American states. We hear criticism that if recall were in place we would have massive amounts of tie-ups in the process because of all the numbers that would be coming forward to the House.

From the best count I have been able to make of recall in the United States, I could only find seven state representatives, one state senator, two elected state cabinet officials and one governor. They are rather low figures and nothing to get too concerned about.

With accountability and open government high on the Canadian taxpayers' agenda, recall is direct popular participation in the administration of the law. No position should be considered too lofty or too dignified for this type of action. The position of a member of Parliament exists for and is financed by the people of Canada. The people should be able to remove any incumbent whose performance they consider unsatisfactory. The people should be able to remove any unsatisfactory MP or minister without turfing the whole governing party out of office.

One hon. member just mentioned a few minutes ago the red book. There are certain quotes in the red book that are pertinent to this. The red book on page 91 states:

If government is to play a positive role in society, as it must, honesty and integrity in political institutions must be restored.

This erosion of confidence seems to have many causes: some have to do with the behaviour of certain elected politicians, others with an arrogant style of political leadership.

It would seem in principle that the Liberal Party is supportive of direct democracy in government.

Adopting recall is a way of introducing into the administration of the law the kind of democratic control that citizens' initiatives and referenda could bring to the making of law. Recall introduces a deterrent to and, as a last resort, a cure for arrogance, bias, corruption or incompetence among elected officials.

If the people had the power of recall we would not have an abusive MP pension plan. We would not have patronage. We would not have outrageous perks. We would not have an ear for special interest groups. We would not have cabinet ministers abusing their power as we have seen in the last couple of days.

If the people had the power through recall legislation we would have a higher public opinion of elected officials. We would have more accountability in government. We would have MPs representing their constituents instead of toeing the party line.

By passing Bill C-210 history will show that we did restore public confidence in government. To restore confidence in this place we must move toward a truly democratic system. We must be accountable in supporting Bill C-210 and introducing recall. Thereby we will establish the power of the people.

Let us examine the democratic option of recall and discuss its potential impact on the Canadian system of government and its electorate. Recall is a procedure that allows the voters to call their representatives to account before the end of their normal term, at a time of the voters choosing.

This has been criticized in some arenas but before the House affairs committee on September 7 there was testimony by Dr. Peter McCormick, a political scientist from the University of Lethbridge, as follows:

I think we have to reject the argument that voters would be discarding representatives every second week, that there would be recalls going on endlessly and constantly. In a democracy it should not be necessary to belabour this point. If we can trust the electors to show some wisdom and some judgment in electing people in the first place, surely it is not unreasonable to say that they will exercise similar wisdom and judgment in how often and to what purpose they use recall. If we cannot trust them to use recall then it is not clear why we trusted them to do the electing in the first place.

The recall process outlined in Bill C-210 essentially involves three stages: an application for recall, a recall petition and finally a byelection. I do not want to spend too much time on the actual workings of the bill because I do not have that much time. However I would like to talk a bit about the safety valves that are included in the bill.

First, the Clerk of the House will not accept a recall petition until the grace period of 18 months has passed since the last election, which applies both to newly elected and re-elected MPs. In the case of newly elected members, they would have a reasonable chance to establish a record of representing and serving their constituents.

Second, a recall petition can only be made once in a constituency during the life of an elected Parliament. This would prevent an MP being repeatedly harassed by an organized special interest group.

Third, the petitioners' official agent must report all contributions and expenditures related to the group's recall campaign, including a list of all people who made financial donations, thus limiting the lobbyist factor.

Fourth, the safety valve is the time limit for collection of recall petition signatures. This ensures that the issue that triggered the petition remains alive and significant for the later stages of the process.

Fifth, as an added precaution Bill C-210 incorporates several clauses that would ensure the official agent is operating above board by instituting an offence punishable on a summary conviction.

In closing I quote the words of Edmund Burke in his 1774 speech to the electors of Bristol:

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 opinion high respect; their business unremitted attention. It is his duty to sacrifice his repose, his pleasure, his satisfaction, to theirs; and above all, ever and in all cases, to prefer their interests to his own.

I urge all the members of this place to support Bill C-210.

[Diane Ablonczy, Reform, Calgary North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to stand in support of my colleague's bill today.

I want to say that I am very dismayed that none of the government members opposite has the courage to stand and talk about the concept of recall in this House.

As my colleague from Simcoe Centre has already stated, this is a measure that has very high support among the Canadian electorate. In other words, Canadians want us to be subject to recall. The members of this government will not even talk about it and that is a shame and not in the interests of Canadians.

Really the purpose of a recall mechanism is that Canadian democracy would benefit from the increased accountability of elected officials. Once again this week we have seen how very unaccountable elected representatives really are.

This government talks so loudly about integrity in government and how it was going to put a watchdog in place that would be accountable to Parliament. What has it done to provide for accountability of elected officials? What it has done is appoint a lapdog that is answerable only to the Prime Minister and is now being used as kind of a Delphic oracle when the Prime Minister needs some words of wisdom from a deep source to justify his actions.

Canadians are not satisfied with the level of accountability that their elected officials have. It needs to be corrected.

This idea of holding elected representatives accountable by some recall mechanism is certainly not something that has just been dreamed up by a few strange people in this country. The whole concept originated in ancient Athens which was the birthplace of democracy.

[Marlene Catterall, Liberal, Ottawa West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I want to draw to your attention and to the attention of the House that the member speaking has commented on the participation of the government in this debate, suggesting it is some kind of cowardice that prevents us from speaking on this bill.

In this hour of debate we have chosen to leave the debate to the Reform Party hoping that it will display through it speeches how foolish an idea this is.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Order. With the greatest of respect I do not believe at this point that we have a point of order.

I was attentive to the remarks of the hon. member with regard to the issue raised by the government deputy whip but I conclude that there is no point of order and I ask the member for Calgary North to resume her intervention.

I do not know that there was a point of order. It is a matter of debate. At this point the floor has been granted to the hon. member for Calgary North.