House of Commons Hansard #26 of the 35th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was petitions.

Topics

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:35 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

A colleague wants a quick question as well. The shorter his answer the better his chance.

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:35 p.m.

Liberal

Roger Simmons Liberal Burin—St. George's, NL

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.

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:35 p.m.

Liberal

Ben Serré Liberal Timiskaming—French-River, ON

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.

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:35 p.m.

Liberal

Roger Simmons Liberal Burin—St. George's, NL

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.

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:40 p.m.

Reform

Elwin Hermanson Reform Kindersley—Lloydminster, SK

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.

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.

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.

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:50 p.m.

Liberal

Morris Bodnar Liberal Saskatoon—Dundurn, SK

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.

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:50 p.m.

Reform

Elwin Hermanson Reform Kindersley—Lloydminster, SK

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.

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:55 p.m.

St. Boniface Manitoba

Liberal

Ronald J. Duhamel LiberalParliamentary 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.

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:55 p.m.

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.

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:55 p.m.

Reform

Elwin Hermanson Reform Kindersley—Lloydminster, SK

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.

SupplyGovernment Orders

5:55 p.m.

Lethbridge Alberta

Reform

Ray Speaker ReformLethbridge

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.

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.

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.

SupplyGovernment Orders

6:05 p.m.

Liberal

Karen Kraft Sloan Liberal York—Simcoe, ON

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.

SupplyGovernment Orders

6:10 p.m.

Lethbridge Alberta

Reform

Ray Speaker ReformLethbridge

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.

SupplyGovernment Orders

6:10 p.m.

Liberal

Paul Szabo Liberal Mississauga South, ON

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?

SupplyGovernment Orders

6:10 p.m.

Lethbridge Alberta

Reform

Ray Speaker ReformLethbridge

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.

SupplyGovernment Orders

6:10 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

Unfortunately my friend from Waterloo has a stopwatch and he reminds me that the time is up.

SupplyGovernment Orders

6:10 p.m.

Liberal

Andrew Telegdi Liberal Waterloo, ON

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.

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.

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.

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.

SupplyGovernment Orders

6:25 p.m.

Liberal

Jerry Pickard Liberal Essex—Kent, ON

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.?

SupplyGovernment Orders

6:25 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.?

SupplyGovernment Orders

6:25 p.m.

Some hon. members

No.

SupplyGovernment Orders

6:25 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

I hear no, so I have to go with that. Would the member please conclude.

SupplyGovernment Orders

6:25 p.m.

Liberal

Andrew Telegdi Liberal Waterloo, ON

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.

SupplyGovernment Orders

6:25 p.m.

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.

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.)