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.
