Debates of April 29th, 1994

Pearson International Airport Agreements Act

[Gaston Leroux, Bloc, Richmond—Wolfe, QC]

Mr. Speaker, because its credibility is at stake here, the government has no other choice but to confirm the need for a commission of inquiry to examine this matter as soon as possible. We need an inquiry.

[Roger Pomerleau, Bloc, Anjou—Rivière-Des-Prairies, QC]

Mr. Speaker, most of my Bloc Quebecois colleagues who have taken part in the debate on Bill C-22 so far looked at it in terms of government openness, and all of them came to the obvious conclusion that a royal commission of enquiry should be set up to look into the whole issue of the privatization of Pearson airport.

In the speech he just made, my colleague for Brome-Missisquoi brought out quite well the large number of friends of the government, both Conservative and Liberal, who were involved or had a hand into this matter, which represents millions of dollars.

My colleague for Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead told us how this piece of legislation before the House today was put together: under clause 7, no action may be instituted against the government by any company that could have grievances against it, but clause 10 allows the minister to make a direct but secret settlement with people who might want to claim some small compensation.

Besides, the Nixon Report, commissioned by the Prime Minister, concludes along the same lines. I would like to quote its conclusion:

My review has left me with but one conclusion. To leave in place an inadequate contract arrived at through such a flawed process and under the shadow of possible political manipulation is unacceptable. I therefore recommend that it be cancelled.

Leading to that conclusion, Mr. Nixon said: "Failure to make public the full identity of the participants in the agreement and other salient terms of the contract inevitably raises public suspicion".

In my opinion, when the government proposes to privatize a Crown asset, openness should be mandatory and the public

should be entitled to know all the details in the agreement. That is why, on the whole, we are asking for an enquiry in that matter.

I would also like to quote some remarks made by the hon. member opposite for York South-Weston and reported in the media. They were reported in the November 26, 1993 issue of the Ottawa Citizen , and I quote:

"I didn't spend the last nine years in Ottawa bashing Tory sleaze to have it occur in our party or for our party to condone it".

Some other remarks were also reported by the Globe and Mail where he was quoted as saying:

"This will be a true test of Mr. Chrétien's commitment to integrity in government and I have considerable confidence in him that he will kill the deal".

Of course, this is the bill that kills the deal. The only problem is that giving the Minister of Transport discretionary powers to compensate people party to this behind-the-scenes deal is tantamount to having the fox in charge of the chicken coop, and the Bloc is obviously against that.

Why was the privatization of Pearson airport ever considered to begin with? It is quite simple. Pearson airport makes money. Incidentally, it is one of the very few money-making airports in Canada. Why does it make money? Because everything was done to put it in that position.

The Mirabel airport was built many years ago because the Montreal airport was crowded with international flights. A few months after Mirabel was built, the ban on international flights landing directly in Toronto without a stop-over at Mirabel was lifted. After that, all international flights could land directly in Toronto without stopping first in Mirabel.

What did that mean? It meant killing Mirabel and increasing the number of international flights landing directly in Toronto. Today, Mirabel airport is a white elephant and we are on the verge of expanding Pearson airport at the cost of millions of dollars, several million of which will come from Quebec.

The same pattern can be seen in the case of the port of Montreal, with the opening of the St. Lawrence Seaway. Over the years, that system diverted traffic from Montreal to Toronto. The port of Montreal is failing and the one in Toronto is thriving.

The same thing happened with the Borden line. It was recommended by the Borden commission, on which not a single Quebecer sat. It resulted in the petrochemical industry of the east end of Montreal being transferred to Sarnia.

The Auto Pact is another example. It was signed with the United Stated, which goes to prove beyond the shade of a doubt that a small country like Canada can strike deals with a giant such as the United States. But that deal was made for Ontario. Quebec did not get anything out of it.

What is the logic behind all this? They want Ontario to be the economic heart of Canada. This is a Canadian way of thinking. Concentrate all the economic activity in Ontario. Unfortunately, this concentration is to the detriment of Quebec. In the four points I just mentioned, thousands of jobs were lost in Quebec.

Once Toronto's and Ontario's international attraction is established, many companies deciding to come to Canada will follow the same logic which says: "If you want to do business, go where the business is". So they all go to Toronto or elsewhere in Ontario because that is where the business is.

Once this attraction has become extremely strong, it even drains Quebec's own companies. And I am referring to companies like Cadbury, Black and Decker, Electrolux, Habitant Soups, which all left Quebec because there were better opportunities in Toronto. Of course, this endless corporate exodus is responsible for the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs in Quebec. As we speak, the media report that there are 790,000 welfare recipients and 400,000 unemployed workers in Quebec. And the media-and I heard it again this morning-tell us about an economic recovery.

There is no economic recovery, Mr. Speaker, let us not kid ourselves. The Prime Minister of Canada, under the circumstances, must find a culprit because he does not want to admit the phenomenon I just described. Of course someone to blame is always found, as we saw recently in the House: the unemployed and the welfare recipients, they are to blame.

So they are officially accused of being beer drinkers slouched in front of their TV, this after their jobs have been taken away. Unfortunately all these people are in fact looking for a job. Since he got a very strong reaction, the Prime Minister is attempting to find other reasons why the situation is bad, even if the corporate exodus from Quebec to Ontario is very clear. And now the Prime Minister has called all of Quebec's legitimate and historical demands whims.

I would like to say a few words on this. All the Premiers of Quebec, whatever their political party, as far back as I can remember-and I am not very old, but I still remember it-always said the same thing.

In the mid-1950s, Maurice Duplessis wanted Ottawa to give Quebec back its due. This was not a whim on his part; he said it because he believed that we were being had by Ottawa.

In the early 1960s, Jean Lesage liked to use the expression "masters in our own house"; that was no whim. He was simply convinced that we were not in charge of our own affairs and that Ottawa always controlled everything.

A few years later, Daniel Johnson used the expression "equality or independence". That was not a whim either. He simply felt that, with the way things were in Canada, Quebec was not getting equal treatment. The situation was such that ultimately Ottawa always decided what was best for Quebec.

Of course, several years after that, René Lévesque began to champion the cause of Quebec sovereignty. And that was no whim either. He believed that sovereignty was the only way for Quebecers to become masters in their own home.

The Bélanger-Campeau Commission came to the same conclusion. Either Canadian federalism undergoes a radical change to ensure that Quebec is given its fair share, or Quebec becomes sovereign. That conclusion was certainly no whim. It reflected the clear consensus of all Quebecers who appeared before the Commission.

I see, Mr. Speaker, that you are indicating that I have one minute remaining. There is so much more that I could say. When we say that we do not want the federal government to intrude into our field of jurisdiction with respect to vocational training, it is no whim. This is the unanimous position of the National Assembly.

The Prime Minister claims that disaster will ensue if the separatists-this is the word he used-are elected. Need I remind him that Moody's, which is certainly not a den of nasty separatists, has pointed out to him that the debt, not the political situation, is responsible for what ails Canada. When the Liberals came to power in 1980, the debt stood at $80 million. They managed to increase it to roughly $200 million. Under the Conservatives, the debt rose from $200 million to $500 million. Now the Liberals, in office once more, are saying that the debt will come in at about $600 million.

It does not take a genius to figure out why our bankers are nervous. The fault does not lie with the nasty separatists. They are nervous because they are owed money. May I conclude, Mr. Speaker?

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

If I recall correctly, I was asked yesterday if, by allowing one hon. member to speak longer, I was in fact impinging on another member's speaking time. We are supposed to adjourn at 1.30 p.m. this afternoon. I will let your colleagues decide whether they will let you conclude your remarks, briefly.

Is there unanimous consent to allow the hon. member to conclude his remarks?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Roger Pomerleau, Bloc, Anjou—Rivière-Des-Prairies, QC]

To make it short, Mr. Speaker, I will skip a few things. Let us just say that we request a royal commission into the Pearson airport transaction. It is obvious from all the facts stated in this place that there has been some degree of scheming. We do not want any dealings to take place outside of this House. If certain facts need to be disclosed to the public, we want them to be made public here, before this House, so that the people can have a good idea of what this is about.

[The Speaker]

I wish to thank the hon. member for his co-operation. On debate, the hon. member for Jonquière.

[André Caron, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in the last days of its second mandate and in the middle of an election campaign, the previous government privatized Terminals 1 and 2 at Pearson airport in Toronto by signing an agreement with a company called T1 T2 Limited Partnership. After defeating the Conservatives on October 25, the Liberal Party came to power planning to cancel this deal, as promised during the election campaign.

On October 28, the Prime Minister commissioned Mr. Robert Nixon, former treasurer of a Liberal Ontario government, to investigate this controversial agreement. The bill before us today gives effect to Mr. Nixon's recommendation to cancel the privatization agreement made between the government of Canada and the T1 T2 Limited Partnership consortium.

Let me remind you that the principal shareholders of this company are the fabulously wealthy Charles Bronfman and Mr. Don Mathews, Brian Mulroney's leadership campaign manager and former fund-raising campaign president for the Conservative Party.

In light of the exceptional circumstances under which this agreement was made and the many disquieting facts surrounding it, and also in light of the findings of the Nixon Report, simply cancelling the contract will do very little to clarify matters for the public, which is expecting more from the government.

The public wants light to be shed on the role played by lobby groups in this whole business. According to the Nixon Report, lobbyists had put a great deal of pressure on the Conservative political staff as well as on senior government officials.

Mr. Nixon says that lobbyists, by their actions, led the government to make dubious decisions. He said, and I quote: It is clear that the lobbyists played a prominent part in attempting to affect the decisions that were reached, going far beyond the concept of "consulting". With regards to lobbyists' influence on government officials, he added: "When senior bureaucrats involved in the negotiation for the government of Canada feel that their actions and decisions are being heavily affected by lobbyists, as occurred here, the role of the latter has in my view,

exceeded permissible norms". Permissible norms were exceeded in the Pearson airport affair. Such statements cannot remain unanswered.

Obviously, excessive lobbying was used with Conservative politicians and federal officials in order to influence their decisions. It seems evident that the public service integrity and impartiality are being questioned by the findings of Mr. Nixon's inquiry. In view of these circumstances, the government cannot turn a blind eye on this affair and just cancel the Pearson airport privatization deal, by secretly compensating people who may have lost money, as it intends to do with this bill before us.

A royal commission of inquiry must be established to shed light on this dubious transaction which looks increasingly like a political and financial scandal as the facts come out. Quebecers and Canadiens must be told the truth about the role attributed by the media to Bill Box, Pat MacAdam, Fred Doucet, Harry Near, Hugh Riopelle, and Garry Ouellette, all lobbyists linked to the Conservative Party, former senior officials or members of Mr. Mulroney's party political staff. One could add to that list Ramsey Withers, a Liberal lobbyist and former deputy minister of Transport, and Ray Hession, former deputy minister of Industry and senior official of the Department of Supply and Services under Trudeau.

A royal commission of inquiry will be able to throw some light on this whole affair and on the role played by these persons. If nothing reprehensible is found, great, we will be pleased to know it. This is not all. The government has to learn a lesson from all this and to take this opportunity to conduct a comprehensive review of the legislation governing lobbying in Canada.

In a free and democratic society as ours, where citizens have the right to express their views, lobbying is part of the decision-making process. Citizens as well as organized groups may influence the government decisions if they feel it is in the public interest. In the United States, lobbying is institutionalized, part of the political scene and well regulated. In order to prevent undue influence of lobbyists on the government, it is essential that their activities be governed by stricter legislation than what we presently have in Canada, which has been totally inefficient as far as the Pearson airport issue is concerned.

The present Lobbyists Registration Act identifies two categories of lobbyist groups. These are: professional lobbyists who have contracts with third parties and approach politicians and civil servants in order to influence them; and the other lobbyists who, because of their functions, may have to approach federal civil servants or politicians to defend their interests; those are, for instance, unions or professional associations seeking the support of the government on a specific piece of legislation.

As for disclosure of their activities, professional lobbyists must give the name of their employer, the name and address of their clients and the purpose of their approach. Those of the second group are required to give only their name and the name of the organisation for which they are working.

Like the Standing Committee on Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Government Operations in its report, I think that interest groups of all categories should be required to follow the same rules of disclosure. Since the purpose of interest groups is essentially to influence the decision-making process of the government, it seems normal that they all be subjected to the same rules.

In brief, time has come for lobbyists to be required to disclose the nature and object of their activities with governmental authorities, as well as the financial benefits they receive for their services.

Moreover, we must protect senior public servants against the schemes of interest groups.

As a matter of fact, the Nixon report reveals that many senior public servants were exposed to considerable pressure by lobbyists who were trying to influence their decisions regarding the privatization of the airport. It even points out that, and I quote: "Indeed this element of pressure resulted in several civil servants being re-assigned or requesting transfer from the project".

The investigator found that some government officials involved in the privatization of Pearson airport had to quit working on that matter because the pressures from lobbyists were too strong and their integrity was in jeopardy.

Given those disclosures, which are very disturbing-to say the least-and in order to avoid any recurrence of such things, Mr. Speaker, all public office holders must be required by law to disclose all contacts they have with lobbyists. Canadians and Quebecers have a right to know who is trying to influence government officials, and why.

In conclusion, at a time when our fellow citizens are asking governments to be more open, we have no other choice than to demand that a royal commission of inquiry be established to clarify the strange events that surrounded the privatization of Pearson airport.

The government must also clean up lobbying in Canada. It has to, because of the scandal that surrounded the privatization of Pearson airport. We have to put an end to the maneuvering by friends of the government and to influence peddling, which tarnish the reputation of our democratic institutions and that of the people working in those institutions.

[Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral, Bloc, Laval Centre, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-22 has been the focus of debates in this House

since April 26. It is now at the second reading stage before being referred to a committee.

However, it seems the decision of the House will have to wait because the Official Opposition clearly intends to show that supporting Bill C-22 is tantamount to supporting non-transparency. Otherwise, the Prime Minister, who professes to be the best advocate of transparency, would never forgive us.

Since October 25, 1993, things have been happening in Canada; among others, the House received a new group of members for whom political transparency is just a ploy if there are no strict statutory rules governing the democratic financing of political parties. The impact of our arrival was traumatic for Canada. But just like some hard-to-swallow pill, I believe this impact can only be beneficial.

This debate on Bill C-22, driven firmly and efficiently by the Official Opposition, is also educational since it proves clearly that the present laxity of the federal rules on political parties' financing is contrary to the best interests of society.

Traditionally, oppositions, like those of the 34 previous Parliaments, hesitated, with good reason, to point a finger at friends of the party in place because any accusation on their part had a 90 per cent chance of turning into a boomerang as fierce as the attacks themselves. But the opposition in this 35th Parliament intends to prove that the absence of legislation on the financing of political parties can only create a vicious circle with a very simple and clear-cut rationale.

Mr. Speaker, no one has the right to bite the hand that feeds him, much less this government. It's an open secret: this government considers that corporate contributions to the election funds of traditional federal parties are as essential as bread and butter. There is enough butter left to clog the most performing liver. Otherwise, how can we explain the presence of clause 10 in this bill, which, for all intents and purposes, authorizes the Cabinet to compensate Limited Partnership, if it considers appropriate to do so? I looked into my crystal ball and I could see, without any doubt, that the government will pay a reasonable compensation to the groups connected with the Pearson Development Corporation.

But can a reasonable government take upon itself to pay a reasonable financial compensation when the whole contract, according to Mr. Robert Nixon, was anything but reasonable? You can judge for yourself, since Mr. Nixon wrote the following in his report:

My review has left me with but one conclusion. To leave in place an inadequate contract arrived at with such a flawed process and under the shadow of possible political manipulation is unacceptable. I recommend to you that the contract be cancelled.

In his wisdom, the Prime Minister followed the recommendation of his investigator. Indeed, Mr. Robert Nixon, the former Treasurer of Ontario under the Liberal government of David Peterson, and a prominent member of the Liberal Party of Ontario, knew what he was talking about.

I will repeat my question: Is it reasonable to pay compensation as a result of the reasonable cancellation of an unreasonable deal? Any citizen with any degree of common sense will answer a resounding no. Why would the government be tempted to answer in the affirmative? We can safely assume that the reasons are many, but I will suggest two.

Answer no. 1: You do not bite the hand that feeds you, especially when that hand is called Charles Bronfman, whose links with the Liberal Party are well known; or Leo Kolber, a Liberal senator and host of benefit diner at $1000 a plate during the election campaign; or Herb Metcalfe, well-known lobbyist and, surprisingly, former organizer of the present Prime Minister, one job preparing the way for the other I suppose; or Ramsey Withers, another Liberal lobbyist; or Ray Hession, former Deputy Minister of Industry during the Trudeau era.

Answer no. 2: You do not bite the hand that feeds others. You never know. Even if the others seem to be dying, there might be a miracle, they might come back to life. Don Matthews was chairman of the leadership campaign of Brian Mulroney in 1983.

I have other names, but time is getting short and since I want to give you my conclusion, I will skip them. Besides, they are well known.

So, we have come full circle. The government, which has been bragging for a long time about openness, has no choice but to act according to its commitments.

Since October 25, the government has made a number of decisions. In Quebec, it cancelled the helicopter contract, but where are the compensations for lost jobs? Do we have any expectation of industrial reconversion? No. True, Quebec workers are not the ones who contribute the most to the finances of the Liberal Party of Canada.

In Toronto, the Pearson airport deal is cancelled. In that case we know where compensations are going to go. Canadians and Quebecers know it too. The jobs will be saved, and friends of Pearson Development Corporation will be rewarded-I mean compensated, Mr. Speaker.

On the one hand, contracts are cancelled and on the other hand, verbal agreements are carried out, which is hardly conceivable. Members will understand that I am referring to the Ginn Publishing deal.

I can appreciate that our colleagues opposite think it is time to stop quibbling about the issue. In my career as a teacher, I have learned that even a clear message will not necessarily be understood by everyone. We believe that, if we repeat it enough, the population of Canada will finally come to understand and will ask the government to implement a law on democratic funding of political parties, for the sake of transparency.

The government should take the Quebec legislation as a model in that matter. Besides, there is no reason to be ashamed of trailing behind Quebec on that issue. In that field as in many others, Quebec does not see things the same way, perhaps on account of its difference.

I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that when Quebec decides to cut the Canadian trailer loose, my country will be glad to collaborate with its neighbour in order to help bring more justice and equity to our world.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

It being 1.30 p.m. the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

Recall Act

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Beaver River, AB]

moved 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.

Mr. Speaker, for a moment I thought we had unanimous consent to put it straight through the House; that would have been absolutely marvellous.

It is a real pleasure for me to stand in the House today to bring forward an issue that many Canadians, at least outside the House, are talking about probably far more regularly than some of our colleagues would like to acknowledge.

Canadians are seeking dynamic and constructive change in their political institutions; not just tinkering with this or that but real change. They are demanding that political institutions and politicians listen to them, consult with them, and ultimately be accountable to them.

Over the past 25 years governments have expanded their scope of activities enormously and touched people's daily lives in many ways. Canadians want an increasing share in decisions that affect their lives and their pocketbooks. During the same 25 years governments have become very large, very complex, and are often out of touch with ordinary citizens.

One need only reflect on the findings a couple of years ago of the Citizens' Forum on Canada's Future, of course referred to as the Spicer report, to sense the frustration and anger felt by Canadians toward government in the recent past. The defeat of the Charlottetown accord in October 1992 was seen by many as a massive rejection of the typical or traditional style of leadership in Canada.

Members will know from media reports, from a wide variety of polls and from their own door to door experience in the last election, that many Canadians do not even think it worthwhile to participate in the political process. Too many have become disillusioned, alienated and cynical about political parties, politicians themselves and government in general, perhaps in some cases with good reason, sad to say, through failure of politicians to listen, failure to consult, and failure to be accountable at all times to the people who elected them.

We in the 35th Parliament have an opportunity to change this, to rectify these shortcomings, and to improve the quality of representative democracy in the country. Through a series of modest, pragmatic, parliamentary reforms we can improve this in future parliaments and work to restore confidence and pride among Canadians in our political institutions. Nothing would be more refreshing than that. We would have people coming from sea to sea to the Chamber and saying: "Yes, this place is real; it is practical and it works".

Recall legislation is one of those sensible, pragmatic, progressive parliamentary reforms that the House should legislate. Recall is a parliamentary reform whose time has come.

There is much misinformation about recall. I would like to quash some of the misinformation about recall legislation. I certainly hope this may change the speeches on the other side of the House that are already prepared. I would like to talk also about the virtues of recall legislation because I believe they far outweigh any misinformation or myth. Otherwise I would not be introducing the bill.

I think is important that we remember the key words again, to listen, to consult and ultimately to be accountable to their employers, the voters in their particular districts who hired them and brought them into office.

Recall legislation would make sure that there was benefit both to our constituents who voted us in and to ourselves. There has to be benefit on both sides. It is not going to be just all good for them or all good for us who sit within the sanctity of these halls.

The opponents of recall suggest at least three bogeymen in expressing their opposition. First, they say that recall is a procedure that has failed when tried in other jurisdictions. In other words it has not worked so it will not work. That certainly is inappropriate.

Second is that recall would be used mischievously for partisan purposes. For example, high profile government members such as cabinet ministers or my friend from Broadview-Greenwood who certainly is high profile would be subjected to harassment. We would hate such a thing to happen.

Third, people will say that recall would encourage short term or parochial thinking by members to the detriment of the long term common interest of all Canadians.

If we fall for any one of those three myths we are saying that the Canadian public does not have common sense. I am not sure there is anyone in this House who would dare say such a thing, especially after the fall of Meech Lake, after the fall of the Charlottetown accord and after last fall's general election where we saw incredible changes in this House of Commons.

Hon. members will know that recall has been a facet of the Swiss system of direct democracy for a long period of time and it is well regarded in that country. Fifteen states in the United States of America employ recall for elected state officials and two additional states, Hawaii and Utah, are now actively considering recall legislation.

This is not ground breaking, this is nothing totally radical. It is not the Canadian way of course to do anything radical. We would be following other countries that have brought in legislation on recall and which have proved substantially that it works well. Thirty-six states provide for recall of locally elected officials. No American state has ever repealed recall legislation once it was established. I think that tells us volumes.

The United States has 36 states that have recall in place. They have never once repealed recall legislation. Something about it must work.

Of course we as members of Parliament know that it is not maybe so much the exact act of recall but it is the threat of recall where members must be looking over their shoulders all the time, not so much with a fine bunch as this, but people are saying: "We do not think he or she is doing their job well". We would be continually looking over our shoulder realizing that somebody stands there with a chain to bring us back into line if we stand out of line.

That whole thing is so important. There would be members in this House as they have done any number of times even in the life of this Parliament, who would say: "Oh, yes Deborah, but Alberta brought it in and then repealed it".

As we know recall legislation was brought in by Premier William Aberhart in 1936. It was repealed. But it was repealed because of some very serious weaknesses in it. They were basically that people could buy off names for a petition. My recall bill has made sure that cannot happen. When that bill was repealed, and we want to make sure that it is on the record in Hansard one more time, Premier William Aberhart and Ernest Manning who was a senior cabinet minister then, the father of Preston Manning the leader of the Reform Party, the hon. member for Calgary Southwest, in fact voted against the repeal. We can honestly say it was not their fault. They brought in the legislation but it was repealed by a bunch of backbenchers who thought there were real serious weaknesses in it.

Let us turn and look at the positive side because that is where we gain the most. Let us look at Switzerland and the 36 American states in assessing the success of recall. The charge that recall would be used in a frivolous manner by defeated parties or special interest groups to harass high profile government members such as cabinet ministers does not stand up under examination. Who would benefit by such actions?

Political parties do not wish to appear frivolous. Dear knows they may wish to appear to be any number of other things. But I am not sure that political parties go out to seek the goal of being frivolous. Not one.

Second, not all the losing parties in a constituency have an interest in a byelection at a particular moment. They would not say: "Let us defeat that person immediately and have a byelection". As all of us well know, we are exhausted after a general election and much work has to be done for the new Parliament. By making the threshold high enough people will not be tempted to be foolish and say: "Let us unseat that person".

Most important, political parties do not have the degree of authority over their members between elections for such nonsense to occur. There is no way anyone from any political party in this House of Commons would have their leadership say: "We demand that you trigger a byelection to force that MP who won the election out of office". I do not believe that would happen. It takes an incredible amount of time, energy and money to get the process going. I do not think political parties would do that just to appear frivolous.

The second myth, the view that voters can be shamelessly manipulated between elections, shows little trust in the electors. If anything has been learned from the last five or ten years of Canadian history it is that we should trust the electors. Some of us might think they made some wrong choices at a particular time. There are some Reform Party candidates I would have loved to have seen in office because they would have made excellent MPs.

At the same time, I know we must trust the common wisdom of the electors. Therefore, when we say the people have spoken on election day we must mean it. We must be able to say that the electors spoke and this is the way it is. Sure, maybe those of us on this side of the House wish the numbers had been different. Who knows, maybe some on that side wish the numbers had

been different as well. However, they were voted in by people who care about their country and we must not dispute that.

These are the same electors who showed wisdom and judgment during the general election. Surely they can be trusted to show the same wisdom and judgment when faced with a petition for recall.

It cannot be said on the other side of the House: "We were voted in with a huge majority so we think all the electors are very wise" and then this afternoon stand up in this House of Commons and say: "MP recall is ridiculous for any number of reasons", by intimating that the electors could not fall for such foolishness. It does not work.

The third charge against recall and another myth I would like to dispel is that members might become very parochial to the detriment of implementing the government's mandate. Similar to my previous comment, this view shows little trust in the intelligence or the judgment of the electors. In addition, it shows no confidence in the ability or judgment of the ordinary member of Parliament.

I think it is always seen by MPs who are safe and cosy in this place after being elected that they are on the payroll as it were for four or five years, to say: "Well MP recall is negative. It can never do me, as a member of Parliament, any good".

Let me talk about the positive side of recall for an MP. If I am doing my job to the best of my ability or if my neighbour is doing his best job, then why would they be able to get an enormous number of constituents to sign a recall petition against him? There would be a great deal of difficulty in getting the number of people necessary to sign under my Bill C-210. It would then show a vote of confidence in the member for Kindersley-Lloydminster. If they were not able to rustle up enough names to vote against him that would not be a negative thing, it would be positive. It would show he has the confidence of his electors.

It would be a marvellous exercise to see recall in action. For constituents not to be able to get enough signatures together on a petition, what a vote of confidence that would be for my friend here to say: "Wow, they could not get enough people together. That means they generally believe in me and what I am doing". That would be healthy, refreshing and long overdue at this point.

The charges against recall contain little substance and much misinformation.

There have been quotations in the House in the last several days. Let me add a quote by 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 put out by Harvard University Press in 1989. Thomas Cronin states:

Today's critics of the recall device-

I suspect there may be some of them in the Chamber today.

-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.

Then he says, to close his comments:

No evidence exists to support either contention.

Beware anyone who might stand up in the Chamber this afternoon, and say that such a thing would not work because Thomas Cronin has said there is no evidence at all to support the contention that member of Parliament recall is weak.

When I last spoke on this bill, as I have done several times because I believe in it, I emphasized that members have nothing to fear from its introduction. The bill contains a number of sensible provisions to prevent its mischievous use and ensures strict regulation in its application.

Perhaps the bill in Alberta in 1936 was not tight enough and that is probably why it was repealed. However, we have come up with sensible legislation.

These are some examples of why I think it would be taken seriously by the electors and would not pose any personal threat to probably most members in the House.

First, the petition must be signed by a sufficiently high number of electors in a constituency to prevent mischief. If I needed 100 names or 5,000 names or whatever I could find them very easily. However if we looked at the number of voters who voted in the last election and then took 50 per cent plus one, that is a powerful number of names that we would need. It is a high threshold because we have a multi-party system.

In the United States it is just one way or the other. You vote Republican or Democrat and the person needs 50 per cent plus one. It is about as simple as that. But we have four or five parties running here. A seat can be easily won without 50 per cent of the vote, so I have put the threshold high, that 50 per cent plus one of the number of people who voted in the riding in the previous election is needed. That number of names is very difficult to come up with and the Chief Electoral Officer would need to make sure that all those names were legitimate.

Also I have incorporated a period of grace into the bill, an 18-month waiting period after the general election before a recall petition can be initiated. That also would destroy the myth of people turning around and saying, "let's go get her" after she has been elected for two weeks. We would need a period of a year and a half in the bill for people to prove themselves. This would make sure that MPs are given a chance.

Naturally unusual circumstances such as criminal charges, fraud, et cetera could shorten this period in the case of blatant misrepresentation. Also, recall could be used only once in a constituency during the life of a Parliament. If people got this tool and went wild with it, they would be able to say: "Oh, let's get him" and "let's get her". Let us put some sensible guidelines in place. Another one is that it could only be used once in the life of the Parliament.

Anyone who is still dubious about this should remember that people are sensible. If we are talking about power to the people we need to give it to them whether we like it or not. As we have witnessed around the world people are taking power into their own hands. Canadians are no different. They have proved it time and time again: Charlottetown, 1992. That side of the House was in opposition then, they all said "yes" at least publicly. I know of some, I will not mention any names, who had a great deal of difficulty with it and they voted "no". But publicly they all came out and said "yes".

It depends how loudly we talk publicly, but nonetheless we would make sure that if this only happened once in the life of a Parliament that would be healthy. The recall process also would be subject to strict regulations, verified by the Chief Electoral Officer. For example, there should be procedures for verifying that all signatures are genuine and obtained through legitimate means.

Of course the first thing somebody would say is: "That's going to cost an incredible amount of money and you Reformers are always, always saying cut, cut, cut". There would be some dollars involved in this but I ask the question to all of those cynics: How much will it cost if we do not do that? What will the ultimate cost be if we do not initiate recall and see some incredible situations as we are witnessing even today where members of Parliament are going to sit as independents or whatever else? What is the cost ultimately to the constituents, to the particular member, and to the Canadian political system in general? We are all going to be harmed. I think this would be cheap and would make sure that we have some healthy balance in here.

Let me talk about some more merits of recall. I have a feeling I have not convinced everyone on the other side of the House.

[An hon. member]

They are coming.

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Beaver River, AB]

They are coming, though. Let us remember that recall will strengthen the link between individual representatives and their electors. That is a good thing to to have happen in the country.

It will provide the disillusioned or dissatisfied voter with an instrument and public process for practical action. We saw it in the Charlottetown accord where people said: "I have a vote", and vote they did in incredible numbers with an incredibly resounding n-o from sea to sea. It was not just us rebels in the west; one of the maritime provinces voted no as well and Ontario as good as voted no.

That is exciting to me because people realize that they can hold the reins of power; it is not just in the Chamber. People will be able to do more than just sit and complain as they wait for the next election. One can deduce from this that recall will ensure political parties and politicians listen more.

I can think of nothing more to say to wrap this up. If politicians would listen more, if they would consult more, ultimately they would be accountable far more to the people who actually voted them in, who actually are paying their paycheques, and who are actually saying: "We want some mechanism in place whereby you are accountable to us".

We have heard time and again from across the floor the Prime Minister and others saying that we do have accountability, that we do have recall; it is called general elections. No, it is called MP recall. I would be thrilled to see the bill pass through the House of Commons as quickly as possible.

[Ted McWhinney, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to follow the hon. member for Beaver River. She speaks with thoughtfulness. She is always interesting and she is good humoured. I hope to enter the debate with those same qualities.

It is an interesting question. I think we are all interested in participatory democracy. It was, after all, Pierre Trudeau who coined the term. This Parliament is marked by a feeling that transcends all parties to change the system to get more direct involvement by people, more participation by members.

It should be understood, though, that we operate within the context of two different antinomies or sometimes conflicting principles of liberal constitutionalism today in western societies and western influenced societies. One is the concept of government by assembly, which is returning power to Parliament after more than half a century in most western societies of executive dominated regimes.

The other is direct democracy, getting people involved in decision making in its logical conclusion or what my friend, Professor Mirkine-Guetzévitch, called plebiscitarian democracy. Sometimes those two trends run counter to each other. Without anticipating the work of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, the committee of the House of Commons now studying these issues including the institution of recall, I would refer to some changes that are already apparent.

The office of prime ministership is in the process of change. It is always true that the office depends on the man or woman in it. The prime ministership was different under Mr. Churchill from that under his successor, Mr. Attlee, or under Margaret Thatcher

and her successor whose name is often forgotten. The same is happening in Canada.

The Chrétien model of the prime ministership is a very kinder and gentler Prime Minister who rests on collegiality, consensus and a heightened respect for Parliament. Some would say after the last eight years that was very much needed. It is the Pearson model and it is changing Parliament interestingly and constructively.

There is also a heightened sensitiveness among individual members of their responsibilities to their constituents and getting their opinions and, by the way, no particular fear of referenda as such.

I happen to think referenda are fully part of democratic constitutionalism. The Quebec referendum of 1980 was healthy. It cleared the air. The Charlottetown referendum was healthy. I never accepted the view of the prophets of gloom and doom that the country might come to an end as a result of that referendum. The decision has been accepted loyally and with goodwill by all concerned and we are now on to the economic business of the country.

Referenda should not of course be used as an instrument to harass governments or to preoccupy the public agenda. I would warn that there are constitutional limits. If referenda proposals are deliberately ambiguous and confusing or they are repetitive, repeated every year, there are ample constitutional means for controlling them through the Supreme Court. Maybe at some future stage some people, including myself, may have to return to that issue.

Let us get on to recall, the institution as such which the hon. member raised with such ardour and such persuasiveness. It is in many respects antithetical to the main liberalizing constitutional element I have already referred to: government by assembly giving more powers to members of Parliament, not merely opposition but government members, getting away from this presidentialized prime ministership we see in so many British influenced societies.

I would have to raise some questions to the hon. member. I have lived in Switzerland as part of my professional life. I have a great admiration for the Swiss system. However I am always reminded of the particularity of constitutional institutions in their own society and the difficulties in translating an institution from one society to another, unless the basic societal and cultural conditions in the one are sufficiently replicated in the other. It is one thing to have recall in a Swiss canton where everybody knows everybody. I knew all my neighbours; I knew everybody in my canton, I think.

Try translating recall to a constituency. Not even speaking of the hon. member for Ontario's seat which has 220,000 voters, but a seat like my own of 100,000, how do you prove 50,000 or 40,000 signatures on a recall petition? It does not even take a good lawyer to tie an issue like that up in the courts for 17 years requiring everybody to prove their signatures.

I can foresee very great difficulties, endless litigation and expense in carrying this proposal out if it were to be adopted. I wonder if the liberalizing thoughts of the hon. member might not be better directed to other institutions of participatory democracy which I think are already receiving some early favour with the standing committee.

There are more effective ways for Parliament itself to control its own procedures and to ensure dignity and mutual respect among its members. It must never be forgotten that Parliament is a high court of Parliament. It is a vestigial judicial institution too. It has enormous disciplinary powers which are sometimes forgotten. It has the power to scrutinize its own MPs.

There are constitutional limits to this and political dangers. As an academic commentator I warned during the U.S. impeachment debate about confusing legal grounds for impeachment with political grounds for impeachment. That is to take us back to the bad days of the 18th century instead of the golden days of the 17th century in which constitutionalism in England was more vibrant. One is also reminded of the last days of the Weimar republic when majorities used their power to exclude minority members.

Nevertheless, this having been said the standing committee would do well to re-examine Parliament's power itself to discipline its members. It could look at these issues for taking care of some of the pathological examples the hon. member cited where recall in the absence of other more effective mechanisms might be the constitutional instrument to look to.

I would ask the hon. member if she could put her proposals in the context of a larger constitutional vision which includes a revived Parliament where members do have something to do, where the executive exercises modesty and self-restraint in relation to opposition members and government members.

There are changes here that we are on the verge of making. We have a sympathetic Prime Minister. I cite again the example of Mr. Pearson. He and his great colleague, Paul Martin, Sr., were great parliamentarians. This can be a House that will literally reform itself.

Contributions such as the hon. member opposite has made are constructive and helpful. They start the debate. They are the raw material for the overburdened standing committee with a strange double barrelled name. Nobody dares use the word constitution but let us face it, it is a constitutional committee that we have in Parliament, the Standing Committee on House Management and Procedures, and it can act.

Her contributions will add to the debate and I do believe she will see results, perhaps not the particular institution she is advocating. It does need more thought on the modalities, how to get it through, how to overcome those battalions of lawyers who will descend and those 17 years delays but it can be done.

[Gaston Leroux, Bloc, Richmond—Wolfe, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak in the debate on Bill C-210 and consider certain aspects of this bill.

Speaking on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois, I would like to start by saying that the essence of the act to provide for the recall of members of the House of Commons may be expressed as follows: "any elector ordinarily resident in an electoral district who wishes to seek the recall of the members for that district may file with the Clerk an application for the recall of the member in a prescribed form". The recall procedure which exists in 15 American States, allows for the dismissal of a member of Parliament or public servant.

I would like to provide some historical background. A similar system exists in four swiss cantons. Significantly, the procedure exists only with a very restricted socio-political framework, and even at that level, its use is extremely limited. In the United States, for instance, the system only operates at the municipal level. At a higher level, we have only the case of a Governor of the State of Oregon who was recalled in 1921.

To define more clearly the position of the Bloc Quebecois on this question and to explain the political background of the recall concept, I think it is important to go back in history, and I intend to go back a little further than the hon. member from Vancouver Quadra, in fact, to the end of the 18th century. It was the Age of Reason in Europe, a philosophical movement that dominated the world of ideas and gave birth to the broad democratic principles that would guide western societies and still do. In continental Europe, the principle of sovereignty was transferred from the absolute monarch to the people. Although this movement started two centuries ago in England, France and Germany, it has gained in depth and acquired a more universal dimension.

For Jean-Jacques Rousseau, for instance, sovereignty is the "general will" which is always fair and equitable and thus a very effective concept. We see the idea of democracy emerging, where the people decide. But is democracy, in the sense of power to the people, the best form of government? And by the same token, is the right to recall based on the concept of power to the people a good way to control the actions of politicians? If this right to recall existed, would politicians be more likely to answer to constituents for their actions?

As for the foundation of government legitimacy, after royal authority was abolished at the end of the 18th century, in Rousseau's opinion, the people became the ultimate holders of the decision-making power. That is why he rejects the idea of representative democracy whereby the people can only wield their influence at regular intervals. About the English people, he said this: "The people think they are free, they are sorely mistaken; they are only free during elections. As soon as the members of Parliament are elected, the people revert to being slaves, to being nothing". That is why Rousseau wanted to give people the right to recall their representatives on a daily basis.

So, as we can see, recalling elected representatives is not a new idea. I think the main flaws of representative democracy, in particular the principle that citizens can only exercise their right to vote once every four or five years, deeply troubles all democrats since the beginning of universal suffrage.

The question raised at the dawn of representative democracy can still be raised today: "How can the sovereign power exercised by a few parliamentary dignitaries result from people's sovereignty?" The notion of democracy expressed through people's sovereignty, through the idea that every citizen of a sovereign state can influence the decision-making process, that everyone wields political power, will quickly take the form of state sovereignty with the application of democracy.

Throughout the 19th century, especially with the advent of universal suffrage, we see that the people's will expressed through the election process does not coincide with the general will. This is important: it does not coincide with the general will. As we move away from the great revolutionary movements that swept Europe in the 18th and 19th centuries, the notion of people's sovereignty gradually gives way to the more absolutist concept of parliamentary sovereignty.

Given what I just said, the Bloc Quebecois considers this bill to be fully justified and symptomatic of people's misgivings about their representatives and of the massive failure of the Canadian political system. Actually, this bill would be impossible to enforce, but it shows a democratic conscience deeply disillusioned by over 100 years of a system that simply does not work. Parliamentary sovereignty has lost all credibility, and making members of Parliament subject to recall will not restore its credibility.

Clause 4( d ) of Bill C-210 says that a statement of 200 words or less would be sufficient to trigger the recall process. This provision would necessarily lead to anarchy in many ridings. Further on, clause 6( b ) mentions the requirement to have a petition signed by a majority of the constituents of a riding in order to recall a member. Such a procedure would make the democratic process too costly and completely uncontrollable. I

note what the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra said about this.

This bill is not practical throughout a country whose population numbers in the millions. It results from a nostalgic feeling about the democratic idealism which arose in 18th-century Europe. That is why the Bloc Quebecois is opposed to this bill and prefers, along with some of our fellow members, like the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra, to take the option of developing within the institution of Parliament itself all the mechanisms for recalling members who are unable to do their job and represent their constituents democratically.

[Ronald J. Duhamel, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, first I would like to congratulate the hon. member for Beaver River for raising this issue, which is a very important one. This is not a new idea; in fact, it has been around since at least the 19th century. As you know, we have always wondered about the possible benefits and the effectiveness of such a measure.

This idea seems to be very attractive, even popular, but we still do not have any proof that it would work. Personally, I do not believe that a simple act would change a great deal the behaviour of hon. members. I would like to believe otherwise, but I think that the behaviour of hon. members cannot be managed by legislation.

In the United States, for example, since 1908, if my memory serves me correctly, there has been only 11 recalled elected officials. You are certainly aware that hundreds, even thousands, could have been recalled, but since 1908, only 11 were.

There are a number of questions that I think need to be answered before we could possibly support this piece of legislation. I will go back to something that the leader of the Reform Party said and I would like to be corrected if I am wrong. The leader indicated that whenever a new initiative is undertaken one has to ask at least three questions: What will it cost? How many people will be involved? Where will the money come from?

I have read the legislation. I have had some people take a look at it. I have had independent parties do an analysis for me. These questions have not yet been answered and they are important questions.

I want to raise another couple of points. Perhaps there are answers to these points. If you look at the last elections in Canada you will find that some members of Parliament were elected with majorities in excess of 80 per cent. Others had majorities of 30 per cent plus a little bit. Is it appropriate to treat both of those individuals, if they were to be made subject to recall, in the same way even though there is a 50 per cent difference in their win? That is a point that I raise that concerns me.

The other point of course, and I indicated that initially in my remarks in French, is it is appealing. There is no question about that. I think the notion by itself is an appropriate one. However it is much more complicated than it appears. How litigious would it be? I suspect that anyone who would be the object of recall would have many opportunities along the way to question whether or not the process had been followed and whether or not it had been followed properly. I think it could probably be stalled for weeks, perhaps even months.

I will give a simple example. Once you were the object of such a process and someone brought in the required number of names, you as an individual would probably want to make absolutely certain that every single one of those names qualified. First, putting that list together would be a mammoth task and, second, ensuring its absolute accuracy would be extremely important otherwise we could be open to litigation. Of course all of that would be extremely important to do and extremely expensive. Some of you will know that the Lortie commission, after having taken a look at it, indicated that this was not the best way to proceed.

Some of you will know as well that Dr. McCormick, who is a supporter of recall, left a lot of questions unanswered. In fact he could not persuade people that this was the way to proceed.

I want to remind the House that on February 7-I believe that is the accurate date-the government asked the Standing Committee on House Affairs and Procedures to examine a number of measures. Among them were, and I quote: "Measures to achieve more direct participation by citizens, including citizens' initiative, the right of constituents to recall their MP". Therefore, there is a process in place in order, I hope, to address that very question in a very serious kind of way.

Until that report is in, until the questions that I have raised are answered-how much will it cost, how many people will be involved in such a process and where will the money come from-it seems to me that it would be wise to withhold support.

I come back to a point that I made initially. While it seems terribly appealing to think that such a process, such a law, such a bill would reform Parliament or the behaviour of parliamentarians, I am very, very cautious about that. I say it in no way to denigrates the idea, an idea I think which is motivated by a member who believes that if it were to work, as she believes that

it might, it could bring about some additional refinement to Parliament. We all know that on particular days it could stand additional refinement.

Mr. Speaker, as I said a moment ago, even if the idea seems attractive and even if there is some good in it, there are a number of questions about its effectiveness, its advantages and its cost, that must be studied before going ahead.

But the main reason is that the government already launched an initiative which will deal with a number of questions. I personally think that the matter must be considered as a whole. If it is not considered that way, I am not convinced that it will change very much the behaviour of hon. members.

Mr. Speaker, I should have said initially, and I hope that you and the members will permit me, to share my time with my colleague from Broadview-Greenwood.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

There are five minutes remaining in this block of time and if that is agreeable to the House, the member for Broadview-Greenwood would have the floor until 2.20 p.m.

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Dennis Mills, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, I begin by congratulating the member for Beaver River for advancing debate on this very important issue.

Part of the reason why I will not support your motion is because I believe you have been an example-

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Order. I know the member for Broadview-Greenwood brings a great deal of enthusiasm and other qualities to his interventions, but the Speaker would want to maintain the usual traditions and be somewhat-

[Dennis Mills, Liberal, Broadview—Greenwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, through you to the member, I did not want the member to think that I was all of a sudden becoming impersonal.

I believe that one of the unique qualities of the member for Beaver River is the fact that the member has always had the courage to go against the wind. I want to pick up from the member's speech where she talked about the Charlottetown accord and tried to bring the relevance of the Charlottetown accord experience to this recall debate.

I was elected in 1988 for a very specific reason in downtown Toronto. I ran opposing the Meech Lake accord. I believe in a strong national government. I was ideologically supportive of the Pierre Trudeau vision of this country and I still am. I was given the trust in 1988 by the people of Broadview-Greenwood, which had been an NDP riding for 25 years, because I took a very specific stand on that important constitutional issue. I also thank John Turner for his terrific debating skills. That was the other great reason I believe that I won.

Two years ago, when we had the Charlottetown accord, I was sitting in this House of Commons with a position on the Constitution, a strong national government. If I were to maintain the trust of my electorate, and the member for Beaver River always says listen to your electors, I had to sit in this House in opposition and I did not support the Charlottetown accord. I sat here and I did not support my party's position. It was a very painful experience.

I then went into my riding and I campaigned on the beliefs that I had. My beliefs were personally that I did not believe in dismantling or decentralizing this national government any more than it had already been dismantled. I campaigned, not vigorously, but I campaigned. I was not trying to get into a confrontation with my leader or my party colleagues. It was just something that I had been given a trust on in 1988 and I had to m maintain it.

During discussion of the Charlottetown accord I put my position forward. A majority of my constituents at that time did not share my view of the Constitution. Every night I gave my reasons. Our office was open seven days a week, 24 hours a day, for that period of time. It cannot be said that I hid behind the curtain or anything like that. People knew.

Because of the incredible thrust of advertising and because of the media, we were gobbled up by the big hustle on the Charlottetown accord. During that campaign period many people in the community went along with the pack. Those of us in my own community at the time of the election who did not share the view lost by 2 per cent.

I could have been at that moment in time, because of the Charlottetown accord, a victim of a recall action. My constituents could have initiated a recall action. They would have had the basis for getting a recall motion going.

It is important that we debate the issue, but the real test of our accountability does not come in the short term. It comes with our four-year actions in the House. That is when we get our recall test.

[Keith Martin, Reform, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is truly an honour for me today to support my colleague from Beaver River and Bill C-210. I will start with a quote, if I may: "People, it has been said, want a government that listens, not lectures".

When I was younger one of my goals in life was to represent my country in a responsible fashion through entering the political arena. I was lucky enough to do that through my constituents in Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca.

Prior to the Reform Party coming into existence, I did not feel there was any political party around that truly stood for democratic principles, where the politicians truly represented the wishes of their constituents.

One of the things that attracted me to the Reform Party as opposed to any other political party was its commitment to democratic reforms, reforms that would give the power back to the people. I feel putting the power back where it belongs is fundamental to a truly democratic society.

A primary example of this is the ability of the public to recall elected representatives when they are misusing their position or are not representing their electorate in the manner they were led to believe they would be represented. This is not pie in the sky reform but is a very real part of democratic reforms in a number of countries. We need to look at our neighbours south of the border to see that reform, democratic principles and recall are integral parts of both state and local politics. As mentioned before it also occurs in Switzerland, a model of democracy.

What is the mechanism of recall in Canada? First, as has been proposed by my esteemed colleague, there would have to be a relatively high petition threshold of 50 per cent plus one. This would be an attempt to avoid any spurious attempts at recalling MPs by the opposition. I hope this allays some of the fears of my colleagues across the way in government.

Second, members of Parliament must be given adequate time to get a track record, that is recall cannot be instituted before 18 months in the tenure of a member of Parliament.

Third, recall can only be applied once during the tenure of an MP in any four or five year period of time.

Recall is a remedy of the partisan block voting that has plagued Canadian politics for decades. Members vote now in many cases according to what their party wishes them to vote. This is the antithesis of democracy. Hand in hand though with recall there is another excellent opportunity for the government to democratize the system. That is, we must see that every vote in this House on a bill is not a vote of confidence in the government. Rather, if a bill were defeated, we would have a vote of confidence. This is a liberating thing and would enable the members of this House to truly represent the wishes of their constituents and they would not be hamstrung by party lines.

It would only take the Prime Minister a couple of minutes to make a statement in the House to liberate the members in this House and enable us to do that. I implore him to do that.

A concern about recall that has been mentioned by my colleagues in the government that I will put to rest right now is that it would enable special interest groups to manipulate the electorate and exert undue influence in the political process through continually exercising a petition to have a member recalled.

The reality is very different and will not occur because the electorate is not gullible, It is not mindless or ill-informed but then it does not bend to the whims of special interest groups. We should have more confidence in the ability of the electorate to not fall for spurious attempts at defeating a member of Parliament. That is why this bill will be excellent for democracy in this country.

This has been borne out many times in studies and is one of the reasons why it has been so successful with our colleagues to the south of our border.

My esteemed colleague from Beaver River has brought about and is raising this matter partly because the people desperately want recall. A few examples are evident right now and appropriate.

In my home province of British Columbia in the 1991 provincial election the people were asked do they or do they not want recall. Eighty-one per cent of the people in British Columbia said that they want recall now.

We in the Reform Party asked 1,500 Canadians across this country if they wanted recall or did not want recall. Seventy-five per cent of them wanted recall. This is something the public desperately wants. I think we should exert our influence, our duty and our role to adopt this great bill.

There are a number of other initiatives that I think we ought to address in tying in with our ability and our wishes in the Reform Party to democratize the system. One of those is binding national referenda and the other is citizens' initiatives, both democratic forums that I think would strongly improve the way in which business is done in the House.

Some would argue that these reforms somehow enable elected officials to shirk their responsibilities and get them off the hook in making difficult decisions. I submit that there is no higher power in this land, in a democratic society, than the will of the Canadian people.

We elected officials are merely agents of that will. It is true that we are elected to make decisions on their behalf but I still hold very dear to my heart the idea that the power of the people is of primary importance.

I quote Thomas Jefferson who said in 1820: "I know of no safer depository of the ultimate powers of society but the people themselves and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them but to inform their discretion".

It is our Reform Party belief of direct democracy which distinguishes it from the other three mainline political parties. These democratic reforms are what I believe in and are what we as a party believe in. It is what we will fight for.

I hope other like-minded democratic parliamentarians will think likewise, know that this Bill C-210 is integral and important for democratic reforms and is equally important to making our Parliament more effective.

I implore them to adopt this worthy bill.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

With the bit of time we have left, the hon. member for Fredericton-York-Sunbury.

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Fredericton—York—Sunbury, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I will try to be as brief as possible.

I commend the member for bringing this debate forward. I believe in her sincerity and I believe also in the underlying principles around which the recall concept is being promoted. Unfortunately I cannot support it. I see the exercise of recall as an adversarial exercise.

The public is tired of that kind of adversarial system. I genuinely believe we can come up with positive measures to involve people. In my constituency we have held a number of very successful public meetings that were well attended, well received and non-partisan. It involves the constituents in Fredericton-York-Sunbury in public policy discussions. There are those kinds of positive approaches to involvement.

I agree with the member that the public feels powerless and alienated from the system. I spent nine months going door to door in the constituency and I have to say with honesty that the concept did not come up as a mechanism, although the concerns the member expressed certainly came up very often.

As a member of Parliament I felt an obligation to respond to that and I have. On February 27 we had a large forum in the constituency on health matters. In March we had a forum on national defence matters. These were well attended, well reported, televised public policy discussions. Just last Sunday the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources Development visited the constituency and we had a non-partisan public meeting on HRD issues.

The need to change the system is real. I believe the public expects us to do that. I also suggest that there has been evidence so far in this Parliament, as brought to the attention of the House by the members on the side of the member proposing this bill, that changes have been made, for instance the debate in terms of Bosnia as one positive change.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I thank you for your indulgence.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.

Pursuant to Standing Order 96(3), the order is dropped to the bottom of the list of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

It being 2.30 p.m., this House stands adjourned until Monday next at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 2.30 p.m.)