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.