Debates of April 14th, 2000

Crimes Against Humanity Act

[Maurice Vellacott, Reform, Wanuskewin, SK]

Madam Speaker, I certainly will. As I move to do that I do not apologize for my pro-family concerns. I do not apologize for acting on behalf of Arab families and these were the states that brought these concerns forward.

I will say when we have brought into the International Criminal Court some of the statements and others pushing for other things with respect to environmental issues and those being tantamount or ranking equally with crimes against humanity, war crimes and so on, I have considerable concerns about that. We would begin to shoehorn all other kinds of things. We talk in terms of aggressions that are undefined. What exactly do we mean by that?

Yes, I am concerned that this would become captive to special interest groups that would drive the agenda. We already have enough issues in terms of judicial activism within our own country, never mind some unaccountable group of the United Nations which would be entrenched forever. We have no way of recalling those people. We have dollars to no end that are wasted in my view on some of the United Nations activities.

This just adds another big monster with respect to trying to do things that can be done effectively in other ways. Sunset clause tribunals that are ad hoc over a shorter period of time can get to the same result.

[Grant Hill, Reform, Macleod, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak today to Bill C-19, on the issue of the International Criminal Court, its purpose and relationship to Canadian law and rules.

I will do an overview on the purpose of the International Criminal Court. It is designed to be a permanent institution that would prosecute serious crimes of international concern. It is designed to be complementary to national criminal jurisdictions.

I note that our Minister of Foreign Affairs is vigorously supportive of this court. On September 25, 1998 when the minister appeared before the UN General Assembly he said, “A strong reinvigorated United Nations is still the best foundation for the future. The contours of that future are emerging. A new system based on humanitarian standards and new practices based on humanitarian needs and human security is emerging. Also enhancing human security requires establishing new legal instruments. The agreement in Rome which establishes the ICC, the International Criminal Court, is a major step toward that goal”. Our minister has stated publicly and internationally that he supports this initiative.

In trying to review issues like this one I believe in doing an equilibrium or balance. I will try to do that today to lay out some of the positives behind the bill, this institution, this court and then highlight some of the potential concerns which I think could well be addressed and should be addressed.

On the positive side, the crimes are defined pretty specifically as crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. A reasonable thinking Canadian citizen would say that any of those things should be prosecuted, should be taken care of and should see sanctions.

A second positive aspect would be that war criminals would have difficulty hiding. In this modern day of rapid communication it would be very difficult for a war criminal from another country to hide. With international scrutiny and the scrutiny of the public, I think that would surely be a positive. This process would leave the right to prosecute still with the nation's judicial system. In other words, if Canada had a war criminal living here, we could prosecute that individual here under Canadian law. To my mind that would be appropriate.

Another thing I find positive is that the bill is a forward looking bill which could not look backward at crimes committed before the bill was enacted. We have a bill which is trying to look at things that most reasonable thinking individuals would say are horrific. They should not be condoned. They should not be allowed. They should be prosecuted. To that end those are the positives.

What concerns are there related to going down this road? One of the concerns is about national sovereignty. When there are extra country bodies there is a concern about national sovereignty.

I listened to my colleague from the NDP, which is regularly against globalization when it relates to financial issues, praising globalization of court issues. That is one thing I would like to engage in, in terms of an information gathering source. If globalization is bad with these big international companies coming in and taking over, and I think that is a legitimate concern in some cases, how is it that suddenly globalization of a court system would cause no anxiety whatsoever? There seems to be a bit of an imbalance in that debate.

National sovereignty is a concern. Would the prosecutor have powers that would override national laws? I am not certain that I have the answer to that. I pose that more as a question than as a statement of fact.

The second big issue for me is accountability. That is a buzzword phrase these days in politics. By that I mean that if there is an expansion of rules relating to specified crimes, if there is a problem with the bureaucracy growing and becoming very expensive, are those mechanisms of accountability present? In my reading of this issue that is another question mark. The regulations which go with these processes often do not follow the line or the trend intended. Accountability is a second concern.

There is the issue of cost. It would be a very foolish politician who said “Here is a blank cheque. Let's have an international court that is not subject to cost”. I listened to those who said that war crimes tribunals would be more expensive than an international criminal court. I have yet to see an international organization save money, especially one run by politicians and bureaucrats.

The politicization of some of these issues, these war crimes, is another concern I have. I will use the specific example of expansion. I said before that one of the big crimes was crimes against humanity. That is a very broad categorization. During war crimes rape is one of the horrific crimes. No one would argue with that.

Another crime under crimes against humanity is enslavement. If someone were to ask me if a soldier enslaving a group of individuals would be a war crime, my answer would be categorically yes. To bring people under bondage is a crime against humanity.

What if the definitions went a little further? In a relatively more narrow form the family position in many Arab countries is that the woman stays home, covered and does not have much interchange with the masculine component of society. What if that were to become enslavement?

I have heard from members of Arab nations that they have concerns in that regard. How would I prevent those definitions expanding? The means to do that so there are no court challenges would be to have very specific definitions of enslavement. I will not go deeper into that, but the specific way in which those crimes are defined is very important in something of this nature.

I mentioned briefly the issue of globalization. There are many who think that globalization is absolutely ideal when it comes to economic issues. There are many who think that globalization is absolutely ideal when it comes to a large police force in the world to do peacekeeping. There are many who think that globalization is ideal with regard to a court system for these crimes.

I raise my own personal concerns because I have not seen good accountability, good cost control and a lack of politicization at that level. The idea of going after criminals worldwide for heinous crimes is one that any sound thinking Canadian would support vigorously. The bill may end up being supportable. Bill C-19 may end up having enough definition and specificity brought to it. I certainly hope that would be the case.

I will pause in my commentary on the international criminal court and sum up by saying that I believe this could move toward a point where it is supportable. At this point in time, in terms of the positive and the negative, maybe we need to tip the scales of balance a bit to bring in more of the positive before I could personally support the way the bill is laid out.

[David Kilgour, Liberal, Secretary of State (Latin America and Africa)]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member who just spoke indicates it is one hand or the other for him, but does he not think that there is much that is positive in the bill?

Anybody who has been, for example, to Rwanda has seen the bodies of people as I have in the schools that are still there. Does he not think that we need something like this that will help us to bring to justice people who commit these crimes outside Canada?

I know the member admires Václav Havel too. Was this not the kind of thing that President Havel was talking about when he spoke to the House not so long ago? What would it take to tip the balance for the hon. member so that he could support the bill?

[Grant Hill, Reform, Macleod, AB]

Madam Speaker, I value the opinion of the member opposite. I have always found him to be a very fair and balanced individual. The positives that I mentioned of course were not allowing war criminals to escape by hiding in a jurisdiction, the definitions of the crimes and having an oversight.

The concerns I have relate to expanding definitions of some of these crimes and having an impact on cultures which do not operate like those in Canada. I do not think it would be impossible to make the bill very supportable. The definitions of the war crimes would need to be pretty specific. They would have to exclude some things that activists might go after. I do not mean to spend a lot of time on that, but issues of costs and accountability would be very well and properly laid out.

One thing I did not mention was the comparison between the ad hoc tribunals that we have had and a permanent operation. My long term hope is that this sort of thing would not be necessary, that we would be able to co-operate in an international way, and that brotherhood and wonderful values would prevail. Perhaps the eternal optimist in me is showing.

I do not think my concerns are insurmountable. I would hope that we could review these things in a good and open spirited dialogue.

[Maurice Vellacott, Reform, Wanuskewin, SK]

Madam Speaker, my question is with respect to some of the other material in the Statutes of Rome. I am referring to a rather intriguing section in chapter 6 under genocide.

How would the member define the things included under article 6(b)? It talks about causing mental harm to members of the group. In another place I read in article 8(c)(ii) that it talks about committing outrageous acts upon personal dignity. Would the member have a way of defining or telling me exactly what that means?

[Grant Hill, Reform, Macleod, AB]

Madam Speaker, I believe those definitions are not specific enough for me. I think my colleague is moving in the same direction as I am. If we are to define crimes against humanity, let us be specific. Most of us understand that these are major crimes such as genocide. Wiping out a population for political purposes is absolutely against everything I believe in. Since time immemorial we have had people who have purposes that I do not understand.

Let us not go down the road of politicization. Let us not go down the road of saying that if there were a war and a host of people were being held in an area against their will would somehow be the definition of crimes against humanity.

I talk about murder. I talk about rape. I talk about torture. I talk about the awful things that happen. Let us make sure that we stay on real true crimes against humanity rather than going to some idea that is hard to define such as mental cruelty. I have real trouble with that in my own family. I sometimes think my teenagers practise mental cruelty on me. I hope I would not be confined for that.

[Howard Hilstrom, Reform, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Madam Speaker, the debate today on Bill C-19 concerns setting up an International Criminal Court that would deal with serious issues like genocide and various other crimes between nations and internally.

The idea for this court came up after the serious issues of the second world war involving the Nuremberg and Tokyo trials. It also came from the current United Nations special war crimes tribunals which arose out of Yugoslavia and Rwanda.

On July 18, 1988, under the auspices of the United Nations General Assembly, Canada along with 119 other countries signed a treaty that would bring into force the International Criminal Court. This court is intended to be a permanent court with a permanent bureaucracy. The treaty was specifically referred to as the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.

This court would have the power to investigate, prosecute, indict and try persons for the most serious crimes of international concern. These include genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and the crime of aggression which are open to wide interpretation by judges from around the world who would be sitting on this tribunal.

In short, the purpose of the ICC is to prosecute war crimes, including internal acts of repression. This is where we begin to question the interpretation that the various judges would use and bring into effect judge graded law, I guess, on an international scale. It is my understanding that the regulations and other issues setting up this court are not in place at this time. To a certain extent, we are buying a pig in a poke on this treaty with not knowing those very things.

We in the Canadian Alliance certainly support foreign policy that is guided by values and the principles of Canadians. In trying to set up one court that would encompass the beliefs and traditions of the whole world, it is hard to see that being done in a very effective and efficient manner or even in a manner that would deal fairly and justly with individual countries around the world.

That is one of the arguments why ad hoc courts have been set up to deal with specific incidents that arise as opposed to trying to say, before the crime is even committed, that we will be imposing this set of values on those people in that country when it may be culturally insensitive and not in keeping with the traditions in that area of the world.

A specific country or individuals in a specific country who are committing crimes against humanity certainly cannot be tolerated, but I question whether or not this permanent court is the best way to address those crimes.

The ICC threatens to become a powerful, unaccountable institution with power to investigate, prosecute, indict and try citizens of even Canada. Here we would run into the interpretation of the courts as to what constitutes this crime when that may be something we would consider a crime in Canada but a crime that should be dealt with internally as opposed to a crime that this court and the United Nations would feel should be dealt with on the international scene. That is a serious consideration.

I do not believe it has been demonstrated that the United Nations has the capacity to run an international criminal court without making it as ineffective as some of its programs and the bureaucracy set up to handle issues of starvation and so on around the world. It always seems that individual countries end up having to come to the aid of other countries that are experiencing problems that the UN seems incapable of doing anything about because of the gigantic bureaucracy it has put in place. It is a bureaucracy that has been put in place not by an elected government necessarily. The bureaucracy is made up of people who were appointed, often patronage appointments, from the member countries of the UN that puts these people in place.

What we could see with a permanent court is virtually permanent employees of the bureaucracy and permanent appointments to that court that would not be in the best interests of many people and many countries. As Canadians, we have to very seriously consider national interests and national values as to what we believe is a criminal justice system. Even between ourselves and Europe there is a difference in how criminal justice systems work. I do not believe the negotiations that were entered into to bring this treaty forward really considered all the various aspects.

From our government's point of view, prior to the signing, besides the non-government organizations that were funded by the federal government, we should have obtained more input from the general population of Canada and from the opposition members in the House of Commons.

I believe that the ICC could undermine the ability of the United Nations to act in the interests of international security and peace. One example would be stopping Saddam Hussein or sending a message to international terrorists. I do not see how, at this point in time, we can get away from the co-ordinated efforts, such as we have under NATO, to take care of these serious international issues. The United Nations just does not have that capacity. Giving the United Nations a permanent criminal court would not seem to be the way to go at this point in history.

I do not think the world is ready yet for a world government. There is a lot of resistance out in the ridings when people consider that there is this bogeyman set up as the world government. When we talk about permanent institutions like a criminal court, that is what is happening. I appreciate that it is not designed for every small offence inside a country, but it does smack of having one world government, which is certainly not in the best interests of individualism, freedom or democracy as we know it in Canada.

I support the concept and the continuation of the ad hoc international tribunals that have been dealing with war crimes and international situations. These tribunals should never be made permanent. Instead, I argue that they should always remain ad hoc, subject to sunset provisions as the tribunals are presently operating.

My main reason for saying that is that a permanent international body would essentially be unaccountable and would, as experience with other international organizations have shown, become a rogue type entity to the sovereignty of elected parliaments and legislatures. Not every country that appoints people to this court would be democratic. Many countries in this world are still run by dictatorships.

The ad hoc bodies have the advantage that they can be set up and dismantled by sovereign governments and by governments that have a direct concern and interest in the area and might have the military strength. In the case of Canada, which has little or no military strength, it could make a strong, morally persuasive effort for which we have a good reputation on the international scene. The world would be much better served by having that type of ad hoc court which would be more sensitive to the very incident that has given rise to the complaint of war crimes.

In conclusion, war crimes are something that every one of us has lived with in our lifetimes. We can certainly go back into recent history and see the war crimes that were committed. It is of very serious concern to all of us.

However, rather than just submitting a good idea forward to our foreign affairs minister and certain other people around the world, maybe the majority of people will not be in agreement with that. Countries with a long history of democracy, such as the United States or Israel, have very serious concerns about this treaty.

I think we would be remiss as a government in Canada and as Canadian people to approve a treaty that is deficient in any way. When the majority of the world, including a major power like the United States, have their questions answered, along with the serious questions we have raised here today as part of the Canadian Alliance, that is the time we could consider having a permanent court.

[David Kilgour, Liberal, Secretary of State (Latin America and Africa)]

Madam Speaker, does the hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake, who stressed what he regards as the financial unaccountability of the international court, accept the fact that there is an assembly of states parties that will elect the prosecutor and judges for the court on the basis of established qualifications, that the assembly will be able to remove judges for improper conduct, will have management oversight of budgets and will audit the operations of the court?

Does this international court not have a good deal of accountability? I would contend that it has a lot more accountability than the present ad hoc tribunals do, at least the one in Arusha. Perhaps the member is aware that there have been all kinds of administrative and other problems with the ad hoc tribunal operating in Arusha.

Is it not more cost effective to have a standing court rather than continually reinventing the wheel, such as we have had to do in the case of the ad hoc tribunals?

The member said that we were buying a pig in a poke. That is a good metaphor but where is the pig and where is the poke? It seems to me that this court is something that has been shrieked for by what has been happening around the world, which the member knows very well. I would urge him to reconsider what he said about the lack of accountability in the bill.

[Howard Hilstrom, Reform, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Madam Speaker, the pig in a poke comment referred to the fact that it would be nice to have all the regulations and everything set out beforehand so that we could know fully how the court will actually operate and how it will be put into place.

When it comes to war crimes, I do not believe that cost is a big concern when trying to deal with the actual issue, but I am concerned with costs that are imposed by a bureaucracy that has been put in place.

I do not think the hon. member opposite can deny that the bureaucracy of the United Nations has been really unaccountable. We saw several countries, including the United States, withhold payments in order to get the United Nations to become more accountable and more efficient. I think its agriculture department was one of those that was identified.

[Maurice Vellacott, Reform, Wanuskewin, SK]

Madam Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member is aware that article 44 in the documents from Rome provides that the international criminal court may employ, free of charge, expertise of personnel provided by state members and individual NGOs. To me that will mean that well-funded radical groups will be stacking this court with their selected radicals. Article 105 also provides that the $80 million annual cost to the ICC could be defrayed by voluntary donations.

I wonder if he has a concern that groups like the Rockefeller and Ford foundations will be contributing to the court with many strings attached.

[Howard Hilstrom, Reform, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Madam Speaker, certainly non-elected organizations, which are non-government organizations, should have input into government policy in their home countries. However, to be so directly involved on the international scene affecting the sovereignty of countries like our own is unacceptable to me.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

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.

Petitions

[Randy White, Reform, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

moved:

I. That Standing Order 36(8) be amended to read as follows:

Except in the case of a petition referred to the Chief Electoral Officer pursuant to section (1) of Standing Order 36.1, every petition presented pursuant to this Standing Order shall forthwith be transmitted to the Ministry, which shall, within forty-five days, respond to every petition referred to it; provided that the said response may be tabled pursuant to Standing Order 32(1). In the case of a petition referred to the Chief Electoral Officer pursuant to section (1) of Standing Order 36.1, it shall be transmitted to the Ministry for response pursuant to this section only if the Chief Electoral Officer reports that it does not comply with Standing Order 36.1(1), or, if it complies, the motion pursuant to Standing Order 36.1(2) is defeated by the House.

II. That the Standing Orders be amended by adding new Standing Orders 36.1, 36.2 and 36.3:

36.1(1) At the request of the Member presenting a petition, or if no request is made at the time of the presentation of the petition, by any other Member giving notice in writing to the Clerk, a petition which has been presented in accordance with Standing Order 36 and which purports to be signed by two per cent of the persons entitled to vote in the last general election to the House of Commons may be referred to the Chief Electoral Officer, who shall determine within forty-two days whether the petition complies with this requirement by counting the signatures and verifying such proportion of them as is in his or her opinion reasonable. The Chief Electoral Officer shall make a report of his or her findings to the Speaker within the time specified, and such report shall forthwith be submitted by the Speaker to the House of Commons.

(2) If the report of the Chief Electoral Officer is that the petition complies with the requirement set out in section (1) of this Standing Order, immediately after the said report is submitted by the Speaker to the House of Commons, the Clerk of the House shall cause to be placed on the Notice Paper, a notice of motion for referral of the petitioners' prayer to a standing committee, which shall stand in the name of the Member presenting the petition or such other Member who requested that it be referred to the Chief Electoral Officer pursuant to section (1) of this Standing Order, as the case might be.

(3) When a notice given pursuant to section (2) of this Standing Order is transferred to the Order Paper, it shall be set down for consideration, and the House shall meet at 11:00 a.m. on the next Wednesday when the House is sitting, at which time the order of business shall be the consideration of the said notice. In the event that a notice or notices of motion for concurrence has been set down pursuant to Standing Order 124 for such day, or if other business pursuant to this Standing Order or Standing Order 36.2 has been previously set down for such day, it shall be set down for consideration, and the House shall meet at 11:00 a.m. on the following Wednesday when the House is sitting.

(4) When the House meets at 11:00 a.m. on any Wednesday pursuant to section (3) of this Standing Order, the House shall not consider any other item but that provided pursuant to that section, provided that: a ) if such proceedings are concluded prior to 1:45 p.m. on any such day, the Speaker shall suspend the sitting until 2:00 p.m.; and b ) all such proceedings shall be concluded except as provided pursuant to section (5)( b ) of this Standing Order at 1:45 p.m. on the same day.

(5) A notice given pursuant to section (3) of this Standing Order shall be taken up and considered for a period not exceeding two and one-half hours, provided that: a ) during the consideration of any such motion, no Member shall speak more than once or for more than ten minutes; and b ) unless the motion be previously disposed of, not later than the end of the said two and one-half hours of consideration, the Speaker shall interrupt any proceedings then before the House and put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment, every question necessary to dispose of the said motion or motions, provided that any division or divisions demanded in relation thereto shall stand deferred until no later than the ordinary hour of daily adjournment in that sitting, when the bells to call in the Members shall be sounded for not more than fifteen minutes. Any remaining questions necessary to dispose of proceedings in relation to such motion or motions, on which a decision has been deferred until after the taking of such a division, shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.

(6) The provisions of Standing Order 45(5) shall be suspended in the case of any division demanded pursuant to paragraph ( b ) of section (5) of this Standing Order.

36.2(1) When a petition is referred to a committee pursuant to Standing Order 36.1, the committee shall, within sixty sitting days of the referral, report back to the House, provided that if no report is presented by the end of the sixty sitting days, the Member who presented the petition, or such other Member who requested that it be referred to the Chief Electoral Officer in accordance with Standing Order 36.1(1), as the case might be, shall be entitled to present a bill or motion to give effect to the petitioners' prayer within fifteen sitting days, and such bill or motion shall for all purposes be deemed to be the committee's report referred to in section (2) of this Standing Order.

(2) The committee's report shall be in the form of either a ) a bill for an Act which, if adopted by the Parliament, or b ) a motion which, if adopted by the House,

would give effect to the petitioners' prayer, and the committee's report to the House shall be deemed to constitute notice of motion or notice for leave to present the bill, as the case might be.

(3) The Member who presented the petition, or such other Member who requested that it be referred to the Chief Electoral Officer in accordance with Standing Order 36.1(1), as the case might be, shall be deemed to be the sponsor of the bill or of the motion prepared pursuant to this Standing Order in the House, unless the Member is a Minister of the Crown in which case it shall be considered to be an item of Government Orders.

(4) After forty-eight hours' notice, the Member sponsoring the bill, or a Minister, as the case might be, may introduce the bill during the daily routine of business and the House shall give it first reading in accordance with these Standing Orders.

(5) Notwithstanding any other provision in these Standing Orders, a bill that has been introduced pursuant to section (4) of this Standing Order by a Member who is not a Minister of the Crown, or a motion sponsored by a Member who is not a Minister of the Crown after forty-eight hours' notice upon the Member giving notice in writing to the Clerk, shall be placed on the Order Paper and shall be set down for consideration, and the House shall meet at 11:00 a.m. on the next Wednesday when the House is sitting, at which time the order of business shall be the consideration of the said bill or motion. In the event that a notice or notices of motion for concurrence has been set down pursuant to Standing Order 124 for such day, or if other business pursuant to this Standing Order or Standing Order 36.1 has previously been set down for such day, it shall be set down for the consideration, and the House shall meet at 11:00 a.m. on the following Wednesday when the House is sitting.

(6) Subject to paragraph ( b ) of section (8) of this Standing Order, when the House meets at 11:00 a.m. on any Wednesday pursuant to section (5) of this Standing Order, the House shall not consider any other item but that provided pursuant to that section, provided that: a ) if such proceedings are concluded prior to 1:45 p.m. on any such day, the Speaker shall suspend the sitting until 2:00 p.m.; and b ) all such proceedings shall be concluded except as provided pursuant to section (8)( c ) of this Standing Order at 1:45 p.m. on the same day.

(7) Notwithstanding any other provisions in these Standing Orders, but subject to the time limits set out in this Standing Order, a bill under this Standing Order shall be debated at second reading, and, if passed, it shall immediately be considered in a Committee of the Whole, which shall report to the House forthwith upon completion of its consideration, and the House shall immediately take up the report and third reading stages of the bill; provided that, unless the Committee of the Whole has reported the bill earlier, then fifteen minutes prior to the end of the time scheduled for consideration of the bill, it shall be deemed to have been reported without amendment. Standing Order 71 shall be suspended with respect to any bill considered pursuant to this Standing Order.

(8) A bill or motion set down pursuant to section (4) of this Standing Order shall be taken up and considered for a period not exceeding two and one-half hours, provided that: a ) during the consideration of the motions to adopt the bill at all stages or the motion, no Member shall speak more than once or for more than ten minutes; b ) in the case of a bill, if the said bill has not been disposed of prior to the end of the first ninety minutes of consideration, during any time then remaining, any one Member may propose a motion to extend the time for the consideration of any remaining stages on a second Wednesday when the House is sitting for a period of two and one-half hours beginning at 11:00 a.m., provided that

(i) the motion shall be put forthwith without debate or amendment and shall be deemed withdrawn if fewer than twenty members rise in support thereof; and

(ii) a subsequent such motion shall not be put unless there has been an intervening proceeding;

in the event that a notice or notices of motion for concurrence has been set down pursuant to Standing Order 124 for such day, or if other business pursuant to this Standing Order or Standing Order 36.1 has previously been set down for such day, it shall be set down for the consideration, and the House shall meet at 11:00 a.m. on the following Wednesday when the House is sitting; and c ) unless the bill or motion be previously disposed of, not later than the end of the said two and one-half hours of consideration, or not later than the end of two and one-half hours of consideration on the second Wednesday agreed to pursuant to paragraph ( b ) hereof, the Speaker shall interrupt any proceedings then before the House and put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment, every question necessary to dispose of the motion or motions, provided that any division or divisions demanded in relation thereto shall stand deferred until no later than the ordinary hour of daily adjournment in that sitting, when the bells to call in the Members shall be sounded for not more than fifteen minutes. Any remaining questions necessary to dispose of proceedings in relation to such motion or motions, on which a decision has been deferred until after the taking of such a division, shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.

(9) The provisions of Standing Order 45(5) shall be suspended in the case of any division demanded pursuant to paragraph ( c ) of section (8) of this Standing Order. 36.3 No vote taken in the House pursuant to Standing Orders

36.1 or 36.2 shall be deemed to involve a question of the confidence of the House in the Ministry or a Minister, unless the Bill or Motion is considered to be an item of Government Business pursuant to section (3) of this Standing Order.

III. That the Clerk be authorized to make consequential amendments to the Standing Orders.

Madam Speaker, in addressing the House today on petitions I want to start by saying several things about the democracy within which we live. There are many concerns in the country about the ability to take concerns to the House of Commons to be heard and to get action taken. Petitions is one of the few ways that citizens can sign a document, send it to the House of Commons, have it read in the House of Commons, and get some action taken.

The unfortunate thing about petitions is getting the action taken. I just submitted three petitions today. Two were on Bill C-23 which the government has already disposed of and really did not listen to it. The other one was about changing the age of consent from 14 to 16 years for consensual sex. That will fall on deaf ears. A letter will go back to the person who initiated the petition saying so sad, too bad, try again some time.

I will give a brief background about petitions and what they are used for. The petition process was first introduced into the Alberta legislature by Jim Gurnett, an NDP member for Spirit River. Those particular concepts upon which this motion is debated were eventually brought into the House of Commons by Ross Harvey, another NDP member for Edmonton East in 1992 under Motion No. 89.

Let us not make the wild assumption that I am following the dialogue and prospectus of any bill in which the NDP would be interested, but where it comes down to the input as a democracy I think those two gentlemen had the right idea.

In the United Kingdom the right of petitioning the crown and parliament for redress of grievances dates back to the reign of King Edward I in the 13th century. Citation 666 of Beauchesne's fifth edition at page 209 says the following about petitions:

The right of petitioning the Crown and Parliament for redress of grievances is acknowledged as a fundamental principle of the constitution and has been exercised without interruption since 1867.

The difficulty with petitions in this land is that they fall on deaf ears once they reach the House of Commons. Virtually everybody in the House has submitted petitions. Many of them have been very good and informative petitions that we want to go somewhere.

The current process is that they are presented by members of the House under Standing Order 36. Then the government tables a response in the House and sends the response to the first name on the petition. Even if 40,000 people signed it, only one person would get a response. That is the end of the deal.

The only way a petition can be referred to a committee is with a show of unanimous consent, which is something that almost never happens in the House of Commons. Basically it does not even go to a committee for study, which is sad indeed.

When we debated whether or not the particular motion should be votable, it is unfortunate that even the subcommittee on Private Members' Business decided not to support it as a votable motion. I believe the issue has a great deal of support in the House of Commons. It is sad that it will never get to any further action than what is said here today.

What was I proposing in the motion? Let us see how harmful it is, if it is at all. If hon. members had 3% of eligible voters on a petition, which is approximately 550,000 people, it would ultimately get to be a votable resolution in the House. It is as simple as that.

I could go through a lot of the other details, but the primary point is that people in our country see it important enough to physically take a petition around their areas, their cities, their communities and their provinces. They see it important enough to take it door to door. Those who see the issue as important enough to sign a petition should have some way of seeing it followed through by their representatives in the House of Commons.

This is not happening today. If someone signs a petition it basically goes nowhere. It comes into the House. We say we have a petition and have about 15 seconds to read the darned thing, and there it dies.

The government might say that it looks at the petition and considers it in legislation, but let us face it: since I have been in the House I have not seen a petition that has really affected a piece of legislation. Major bills have come forward such as the Young Offenders Act; Bill C-68, the gun control bill; and Bill C-23, the recent modernization of benefits. All of them had substantial petitions from across the country with hundreds of thousands of names. They have come into the House and nothing has happened with them.

As politicians we hear from people who say that they feel strongly about an issue. They want to get a petition together and ask for help in wording it. They want to take it door to door and make a change in Canada. I do not even have the heart to tell them that the other half of the process is that I will take it to the House and read it for 15 seconds. Then I will sit down and it will die. It is not a good process whatsoever.

The motion is not votable. I stand here today on a non-votable issue only to get my point across. What we need is all parties in the House to say that the process is not working. We need to be able to effect change by the will of a majority of people who care about it. In effect that is called citizens initiative. We talk about citizens initiative. That is what a petition really is. It is a citizens initiative to invoke change.

[John Duncan, Reform, Vancouver Island North, BC]

When it reaches a certain threshold.

[Randy White, Reform, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

Yes, I agree with my colleague. This certain threshold is 3% of eligible voters. When it is signed and 3% or more of eligible voters want the change, it does not mean that it has to come into the House and is done right away. It means discussion takes place. It means committees get involved and look at it. In effect, rather than have legislation that comes into the House top down, we are getting legislation that is encouraged bottom up. It makes sense to most people.

I hope this does not fall on deaf ears after today. I hope when we get into committees like procedure and House affairs, the main management committee of the House of Commons, we could table this as a necessary change to the standing orders.

We could have a serious discussion and have a subcommittee and the House of Commons look at some way of putting some strength into the courage and convictions of those who walk around the country and sign documents to get change to take place.

The point is being made here that we lack a certain amount of democracy in what we call a democracy. If we continue with majority governments in this land that basically make the bills in cabinet and whip their members into a vote on a Tuesday night—

[David Collenette, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

You're cynical.

[Randy White, Reform, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

The minister says I am cynical. At least there is one minister here listening to how we should invoke democracy into the country by getting petitions in place.

If the government and the democracy keeps working from a majority government and a cabinet to its members to vote in a certain way, notwithstanding the desires of people through petitions across the land, then we tend to alienate ourselves from the very people who have put us in this place.

My comment is this. If we truly want democracy, then let us put it in place. Let us take a simple process like petitions with some threshold of numbers of our population who sign them and turn their question or desire into a motion. Let us get it into a committee, study it and possibly turn it into legislation or include it in a piece of legislation that we want.

That is it. I would be interested in other comments in the House, but more than comments, I am interested in some action. The next time this comes up, it should be in the House of Commons with some kind of legislation with teeth in it and not some kind of rhetorical comments that, sure, they want our comments but, too bad, so sad, they are going to do nothing about it.

[Scott Brison, Progressive Conservative, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise to speak to Motion M-128. Institutional reform is something for which I believe there is a broad based level of support, not just within this parliament but from Canadians, and that we do need a significant level of institutional reform to make parliament and our democratic institutions more functional. There are a number of things that need to be done.

There has been a secular decline in the role of the member of parliament over the last 30 years. It started in the late 1960s when the practice of debating the estimates in the House of Commons ceased and instead committees took over some of that. The notion of committees taking over some of these responsibilities previously held by the committee of the whole in the House of Commons is not in and of itself necessarily a bad thing. The difficulty with it is when the committee structure becomes so partisanly controlled and, of course, comprised of a majority of the government.

Often we get the idea in the House as members of parliament that the committees are operated as branch plants of the ministers' offices and in fact committee chairs are often at the beck and call of ministers it seems. Sometimes the legislative agenda of committees seems to be more dominated by the legislative agenda of the executive than it probably should be. I think there would be a rather significant level of agreement with that from both members on the opposition benches and members of the government side.

This proposal brought forward by the hon. member for Langley—Abbotsford would change the standing orders to provide direct access to the agenda of the House of Commons for petitioners representing 2% of the eligible electorate. It does this by requiring qualified petitions to be the basis for legislation or an order of the House to meet the demands of petitioners. A mandatory process of time allocation or closure of debate governs the considerations of all qualified petitions.

It is ironic in some ways that the hon. member, who regularly objects to the government's use of time allocation, is prepared to have it further enshrined in the rules to cover this proposal. Time allocation, some arbitrary allocation of time to any legislation whether imposed by the government or some institutionalized parliamentary procedure, is equally egregious. This proposal would give something to petitioners that members of the House do not enjoy and that is the guaranteed consideration of any proposal meeting the 2% threshold. I have some concerns about that.

At the heart of the discussion is the age old question of what is the role of the member of parliament. Are members of parliament here to represent their own best judgment and to represent the best interests of their constituents by using that judgment? In a representative democracy this is a very important issue.

A representative democracy is based on the premise that when a member is elected to the House, that for the period of a member's term he or she makes decisions. The member's goal is not only to represent the views of his or her own constituents but also the interests of all Canadians in this House. Every four years there is an opportunity for the electorate to make a decision to re-elect that member or to elect somebody else.

If in fact the hon. member actually believes we should be moving away from the principles of a representative democracy to a direct democracy, I have some significant concerns as would many Canadians when they really thought about it. What is the magic of a 2% threshold? It is an arbitrary figure. Certainly it is a large number of people, but 2% of the electorate certainly does not represent a majority. It is 2%. Why should special powers be given to 2% of the electorate that is denied to other petitioners? Are the ideas or grievances of persons lacking resources to garner the 2% threshold automatically less worthy than the beliefs or concerns of the people who may account for 1.5%?

At present the House requires 25 signatures on a petition. This was put in place in reaction to abuses that took place in the past when petitions were used to delay or oppose government bills. Those days are gone and the House should back Canadians who petition the House of Commons on legitimate issues.

All members take very seriously the petitions presented in the House. I listen intently to petitions when they are presented. I consider the views of individuals who have through the petition process an opportunity to have their views heard here in the House of Commons. Through the private members' process, which should be bolstered and improved, individual members of parliament have the opportunity to represent views presented in petitions from their constituencies, not just on Wellington Street but on the main streets of their ridings. We should be using the private members' process, as should the government. All parliamentarians should advance the notion that there should be a greater level of engagement for private members to bring forward through the private members' process constructive motions and legislation that can benefit Canadians.

My concern is with who would use this provision. It is a ready opportunity for many of the moneyed interest groups and so-called ordinary citizens are quite likely to initiate petitions. If we look at the U.S. with the well financed and powerful lobby organizations, the difficulties and problems are far greater with the degree to which these lobby organizations are financed.

This would invite the same type of what the hon. member may view as direct democracy. I consider this as being an opportunity for some of the major lobby organizations and individuals with money to use the process to garner support and actually gain direct access to the House of Commons. In some way they could push aside the elected members who are here as part of a representative democracy to not only recognize the concerns of focused special interest groups, but also to make decisions on behalf of all Canadians.

I have a number of concerns. The hon. member has spoken a number of times about the importance of his constituents. If the majority of his constituents want something, then it is absolutely the right thing for us to do. I remind the hon. member that there have been times in the past when decisions have been made, which in retrospect have been the right decisions, that a majority of Canadians did not agree with.

One was the free trade agreement. The majority of Canadians voted against a free trade agreement in the 1988 election, but a visionary and courageous government was willing to seize the day. It had a vision for the future. Instead of focusing on polls, it took a significant risk. It actually implemented the types of public policy Canadians needed for the long term, not the types of public policy that would benefit the party in the short term.

Populism is the natural enemy of representative democracy. The poll based populism which is so pervasive in the hon. member's party, seems so palatable to people when they first hear of it. When Canadians have thought about it more clearly however, and they have, they have rejected the hon. member's party. Canadians have done this because they realize they are better served by thinking members of parliament who have a vision for the future and who will take risks sometimes and offer Canadians real solutions and courageous visionary policy on issues of importance to Canadians instead of focusing on short term polls.

The party the hon. member represents has at various times fought against the charter of rights. It has criticized the charter of rights and has referred to it as judicial activism. It has ignored the fact that in our system of government the judiciary has a role. Ultimately I am glad that we have a charter of rights to protect Canadians against members of parliament who would go with the tyranny of the majority and where majority rules in areas where it should not, such as minority rights.

I could go on an on about this motion. It clearly will not work.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to address the issues raised in Motion No. 128 introduced by the hon. member for Langley—Abbotsford. He proposes that we amend the standing orders to alter the way we deal with petitions.

My hon. colleague is well known for his background, experience and knowledge in the area of parliamentary procedure. I will take the time to review the proposal carefully and I hope he and the House will view it as constructive.

If I understand my hon. colleague's motion correctly, the purpose of his motion would be to alter the process for dealing with petitions so that a public petition could automatically become the basis for law or a resolution of the House. Not only does the member propose that any petition with sufficient signatures could become law, he also proposes that these laws could come into effect with no apparent policy analysis or prior consultations with affected groups and with relatively minimal parliamentary scrutiny. In fact it appears that the House and its committees would be forced to consider these petition bills on a relatively short deadline.

Before I discuss the merits of the motion, I will address the historic background of petitions. The procedure for petitioning parliament is a longstanding practice which goes back many years.

In medieval England, the records show that individuals petitioned parliament to seek resolution to an issue in cases where the courts had been unable to reach a decision. The British House of Commons, therefore, served in a quasi-judicial capacity.

Procedures for handling petitions evolved from this early form partly because of their extreme popularity in Great Britain in the early part of the 19th century. In the year 1843 alone there were over 33,000 petitions filed in the House of Commons. However, as my hon. colleague might imagine, dealing with this inordinate number of petitions did not leave very much time to deal with the other pressing matters of national business.

Because of the impact of these petitions on the time of the House, changes were made to limit the rules of debate so that matters of interest and importance to all individuals would not be hijacked by political strategies that might not be in the broader interest of the nation.

Canada, of course, has adopted these British parliamentary traditions and petitions are now only presented to the House, generally without provision for debate. In the 1985 report of the Special Committee on Reform of the House of Commons, the chair, Mr. James McGrath, noted:

—the right to petition Parliament is a fundamental right of the citizen and that petitions are an integral part of the process whereby the people of Canada speak to their elected representatives.

This is still true today.

As a means of ensuring that petitions are treated in a relevant fashion, the standing orders require that the government respond to petitions within 45 days to ensure that the government would take note of the content of the petitions.

It appears that the sponsor of this motion is suggesting that petitions are not given due recognition by the government and it would seem that through Motion No. 128 he is attempting to alter the nature and significance of petitioning a parliament.

To begin with, the government does take seriously its responsibility to respond to petitions presented by Canadians and within the 45 day limit. In this session we had about 600 to 700 petitions presented by members from both sides of the House.

First, the presentation of petitions allows parliament and the government to tap the public mood and to hear what issues concern individuals, not only from across the country but also from specific regions.

Second, the standing orders require the responsible department to respond to petitions. Petitions give these policy makers or policy advisors valuable information that can be fed into the ongoing and dynamic process of policy development. This can and often does stimulate legislation, regulatory or policy change.

Finally, members of the House have numerous instruments here at their disposal for debating issues of national and regional importance, including those raised in petitions.

As a representative of his constituents and with his experience, if my hon. colleague saw an issue that required attention he could introduce a private member's bill or motion to allow an issue to be considered, just as he has done in this case.

On any day the House is sitting, a member can ask a question of member of the government during question period or can submit a written question. Of course, opposition parties can make their own determination of what issues are important to Canadians. They actually select the subject of debate on any opposition day in the House.

Furthermore, the standing orders of the House now provide that standing committees have a mandate to study any issue that falls within the mandate of a minister's department.

The process that my colleague is proposing through Motion No. 128 raises a number of questions. For example, how would parliament deal with several petitions on the same subject but with opposing perspectives? How would a standing committee cope with petitions that affected many other committees or that required broader consultation and integration with the work of other committees of the House? From a purely constitutional and procedural perspective, bills which involve the spending of public funds can only be introduced by the government with what we call the royal recommendation.

I suggest that my hon. colleague's motion, while it is a creative initiative, it has a number of practical difficulties. I want to emphasize that the government supports the ability of Canadians to petition their parliament. With reference to the member's initiative, members of the House may wish to consider whether they want to alter the way we deal with petitions. We might wish to consider other ways of dealing with them and place these procedures in the standing orders. I therefore suggest that if the hon. member wishes to pursue this matter further—and he may well might as well might other members of the House—he could seek to have this issue, among others, brought on to the agenda of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs which might study it further. One never knows what might be recommended back to the House.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères, QC]

Madam Speaker, Motion M-128, introduced by our colleague from Langley—Abbotsford, moves us to reflect upon the political system within which we operate.

The British parliamentary system is, as we know, one of representative democracy. It is absolutely beyond the realm of possibility for 30 million Canadians and 7 million Quebecers to all get together at one time in one place to pass rules to govern the society in which we live.

As a result, the population delegates the power to legislate to a certain number of representatives, their members of parliament, who meet together in parliament to pass legislation in lieu of their constituents, their fellow citizens, whom they represent to the best of their ability, during a mandate. At the end of their mandate, if the elected representatives have not fulfilled the expectations of those who elected them and have not carried out their mandate, it is the responsibility of the population to decide to change representatives and to place its trust in another party, another individual.

The debate around Motion M-128 leads us to reflect upon this system of representative democracy within which we operate at the present time, and to look at what possibilities are available to us in order to achieve better participation and a participative and more direct democracy. This would result in our fellow citizens, those whom we represent, becoming more involved.

When the British parliamentary system as we know it was first established, centuries ago, in the United Kingdom, Great Britain at the time, communications systems were obviously not like those we enjoy today.

It is, therefore, understandable that our fellow citizens experience a degree of frustration and cynicism as far as politicians are concerned, because nowadays they are in a position to follow politics closely. They can get their expectations and concerns through to their MPs quickly, and they are also able to see very quickly the impact of the decisions made by their elected representatives.

If we are to counter this sort of wave of public cynicism toward politics and parliament, perhaps we should consider involving the public more in the democratic process and politics outside the traditional election periods when they choose their members of parliament.

That said, let us get back to the heart of the debate, the matter of petitions. We know that petitions have been an integral part of the British parliamentary system since its inception. It became clear very quickly that, outside election periods, the public needed a way to make its expectations known to parliamentarians and to direct the work done and decisions made by its representatives. So petitions made this possible.

The pubic could sign a petition from time to time, express, in doing so, its support for a given cause, its support for a given government legislative measure. In fact, the petition served to draw the attention of parliament and the government to a variety of public concerns.

It is obvious that over the years, even though petitions remain a privileged means of expression for the people, they have lost a great deal of their meaning, not because it is no longer important for Canadians to share their expectations with their elected representatives, but because we can see that the government is paying less attention to those petitions.

How many times have we tabled petitions in the House and received just a very short response from the government? And then nothing further is done.

At least the motion brought forward by the member for Langley—Abbotsford would make sure there would be a proper follow-up on every petition. Having said that, I have some questions regarding the appropriateness of the particular measure proposed by the member for Langley—Abbotsford.

Obviously, and members certainly noticed that in my introduction, the Bloc Quebecois is completely open to the development of mechanisms for participatory democracy. As a matter of fact, we embarked on a thinking exercise on democracy to see which avenues could be explored to bring the people to take a greater interest and participate more actively in the political process.

This first thinking exercise led to a second one because we felt there was still a lot of work to be done, there were still many elements to develop with regard to this idea of better involving the people in the political process.

However, I must tell my colleague from Langley—Abbotsford that, in this respect, the legislation introduced by one of his colleagues, namely Bill C-229, seemed to me more appropriate, even though I had some concerns regarding it as well.

In his motion, my colleague from Langley—Abbotsford proposes that when a motion is supported by at least 2% of registered voters it eventually become a resolution of the House or a bill.

Bill C-229 is better in that a petition was not supposed to minize, so to speak, the work of parliamentarians because it provided for one extra step. A petition was needed to hold a referendum. And its was only after the referendum was held that parliament could consider passing a bill.

In this case, I wonder about the mechanisms, as they seem somewhat absent from Motion M-128, if I may say so; mechanisms should be put in place in order to ensure that ultimately it is the elected representatives of the people who make the decision to pass legislation so as not to jeopardize or make a travesty of representative democracy by introducing an element of direct democracy.

If the goal is to allow people to bring about changes to the existing political framework, influence public policy and government action, questions arise since even an election fails to alter the course of events in parliament.

One has only to think of the 1993 election, which at the time completely destroyed the political balance within this parliament and reflected a deep desire for change among then people. What did this deep desire for change translate into? Nothing. The federal government has done absolutely nothing.

I wonder how this could be done. How will this measure manage to take into consideration other measures passed by the House? I am thinking in particular of the distinct society motion passed in this House.

Points 3 and 4 stipulated that:

(3) the House undertake to be guided by this reality;

(4) the House encourage all components of the legislative and executive branches of government to take note of this recognition and be guided in their conduct accordingly.

Even the House is paying no attention to this motion. How could the House pass Bill-20? How can the House be preparing to pass Bill C-3, without taking into account the distinct character of Quebec, which should have precluded it?

In conclusion, I would say that, because even this House fails to respect a number of earlier decisions, how can members of the public be expected to stay on top of all those decisions previously taken by the House, which would eventually affect its subsequent actions?

We are open to discussion. I believe that Motion M-128 opens the debate on participatory democracy. Unfortunately, I think that Motion M-128 as drafted fails to meet the short term goals.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Wentworth—Burlington, ON]

Well, Madam Speaker, never let it be said that private members' hour in the House does not produce some interesting debates and some excellent speeches.

I had never intended to speak on this debate. I just happened to be in the House doing my duty, but I received I think some very eloquent points of view on an issue which I think is of importance.

The question of petitions and what petitions mean when people submit them to members of parliament is a very important question.

I have to say, Madam Speaker, that I remember when I came up here as a parliamentarian for the first time in 1993, there was an orientation period in which experienced members of parliament instructed us in this very chamber on what to expect as fledgling members of parliament. I remember, for the member for Langley—Abbotsford's benefit, that one of those MPs who advised the new MPs on what to expect here was the member for Edmonton North who brought up the question of petitions.

What she said basically, was that the members of parliament can take advantage of the opportunity to present petitions from their constituents. I remember classically the words. She said “They do not really mean anything when you put them before the House. They do not actually do anything or have any effect, but they are a great instrument for encouraging personal attention in your own riding”.

So the member for Langley—Abbotsford I think touches a real nerve. I remember that statement vividly. In fact, Madam Speaker, as a result of that statement I have tended to discourage petitioning in my riding, and yet I hear the parliamentary secretary observe that in fact, yes, there is a place for petitions in the House, that it is an opportunity for people to actually get a forum through their MPs. So there is merit both ways, although I am very sensitive to the criticism that is being raised by the member for Langley—Abbotsford, that is where do petitions really go?

One of the difficulties, however, with petitions, and trying to expand the opportunity for petitions to have an effect, as suggested by Motion No. 128, is in fact petitions like opinion polling or referendum, that kind of thing, can in fact represent a minority trying to grab the agenda by putting direct pressure on the parliamentarian.

Earlier today, I presented three petitions in the House. Each one of those petitions represents a minority in society who has a particular thing they want to see happen. They are trying to put pressure on me as a member of parliament by means of a petition. It does not matter whether there are 25 names or there are 200 or it is 2% of the entire population. It is still a minority. It is still a special interest group. Whether the special interest group represents people who are against Bill C-23, as was the case in one of the petitions I presented, or whether the subject is a contract for the postal workers who were petitioning me to support a private member's bill allowing the unionization of rural mail couriers, it is still a special interest group pressuring a member of parliament to take a particular action.

In the final analysis there is nothing wrong with this. I have to answer not only as best I can to everyone in my riding, but I also have to be sensitive to the petitions of minorities, the petitions of special interest groups, the petitions of groups of people with whom I may personally disagree. They still have to have a voice in this place.

I agree with the member for Langley—Abbotsford that the present situation and the present method is inadequate. People, no matter what their viewpoint in a democracy, particularly an open democracy like Canada, have to have an opportunity to speak.

I think that parliament is in the process of being reformed. One way it is being reformed is by opening up Private Members' Business. Just as we are having a very fine debate this afternoon in private member's hour, so too are we trying on all sides of this House to open up the opportunities for backbench MPs to advance meaningful legislation. We have had a number of very good private members' bills advanced, and on this side of the House, at any rate, voting on private members' legislation is always a free vote.

I would say to the member for Langley—Abbotsford that rather than try to adjust the rules in a huge way in which basically we would be advancing the power of minority special interest groups, which we do not want to do, I would take the point of the member for Kings—Hants. We are elected to represent and to make decisions on behalf of everyone, as best we can. That is the parliamentary system. That is what we inherited from the British system. On the other hand, we can give everyone an opportunity to be heard and to have their issue debated.

What I would suggest is that we go forward and try to find a new method of dealing with petitions. One thing we could consider, and this would go to the procedure and House affairs committee, would be to open up Friday, which is a day which is not very good for government business because many MPs are away and often cabinet ministers have other duties. Perhaps we could devote Friday entirely to Private Members' Business, to debate and advance private members' legislation.

Why not use part of that time to debate petitions, no matter what the petition is about? If I have received a petition, whether it is on Bill C-23 or the rural mail couriers, that petition is independent of everything else. It is independent of legislation and it deserves to be heard and debated.

I would propose that perhaps the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs could consider setting up a regime whereby the petitions would come before a subcommittee to determine whether they should be debated in the same way as private members' bills come before a subcommittee to determine whether they should be made votable. That way the petitions which Canadians gather, again whether there be 25, 100 or 1, 000 names, might have more of a life in this House than they do at present. I congratulate the member for Langley—Abbotsford for raising a very important issue.

[Randy White, Reform, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I often get some of my knowledge and points from the great and learned Yuroslav, who is an individual of impeccable knowledge. The great Yuroslav has often told me about the need to involve people in politics.

I want to make a couple of comments about the comments that were made. By and large, we all agree that we should do something with petitions, that they should not just come into the House and die here, that we should have a way of at least discussing the darn things.

One of my colleagues, the chairman of the procedure and House affairs committee, mentioned that we should discuss this issue at committee. I did table that idea about three years ago, so one has to ask where it is going to go.

The only disappointing comments I heard today were from the Progressive Conservative members, who said “If the majority of Canadians want it, that is not necessarily the right thing to do”. Is it any wonder people do not vote Progressive Conservative today. That is exactly the opposite of what I think most people are saying today in Canada. If the majority of people want it, that is necessarily the right thing to do, even though politicians in their rhetorical positioning in the House may not agree. That should be quite irrelevant. It is what the majority of Canadians think that matters.

The bottom line is that petitions are indicators in our society that people want change. People organize petitions and go through the exercise of getting a certain number of Canadians interested in an issue for the purpose of sending it to the House. No matter what the issue is, and it may not be palatable to the House, we should have the right to discuss it, to look at it, to provoke thought and to send something forward to move the government in some direction.

I would not ask for unanimous consent, but I would suggest to the chairman of the procedure and House affairs committee that the committee look at this issue. I would ask that it look at the issue and not exactly what I have put forward in my motion. Let us not get tangled up in whether there are opposing positions on certain petitions. Let us not get tangled up in whether it is 2% or 3%. Let us take this issue to the procedure and House affairs committee to see if there is anything that can be done with petitions to make the people of Canada feel that all the work they went through was worth it.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. As the motion has not been designated a votable item, the order is dropped from the order paper.

It being 2.22 p.m. the House stands adjourned until Monday, May 1, 2000 at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Orders 28(2) and 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 2.22 p.m.)