Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate today on our supply motion. I will be speaking specifically to paragraph (c):
a petition which will be presented requesting the government to bring forward a bill which would make recall of members of the House of Commons a part of the law.
Parliamentary reform has been a subject of intense interest in the House for many years. Our party, in response to the views of the Canadian public, has proposed several measures and several reforms designed to restore powers to Parliament and improve the state of representative democracy.
Representative democracy is improved when citizens are both willing and able to express their views to us as their representatives. I say willing in the sense that Canadians must believe that their views will be received by us, their views will be listened to by us, and their views will be seriously considered by us.
Regrettably many Canadians do not participate in the political process. Too many have become disillusioned, alienated and cynical about the entire political process. Those who actively participate in the political process, who still believed that an aroused and informed citizenry can make a difference, should be given every encouragement, should be given every reasonable means to express their views. That is why we chose this topic today.
A citizens' petition is an ancient, traditional and sensible way for ordinary citizens to put their views before their government. We should encourage its use. One form of citizens' petition that the House can and should adopt as soon as possible is a citizens' petition for recall. It is my firm belief that recall legislation would provide voters with a greater sense of control over their representatives between elections. Recall would provide a means to counter the feelings of cynicism and alienation expressed by many Canadian voters about politicians, political parties and government.
Recall would provide a disillusioned electorate with an instrument and a public process for some sort of practical action. Recall would enhance the role of constituents between elections and hence would improve dialogue between constituents and their representatives. Both parliamentarians and their constituents would be winners. Recall legislation would improve representative democracy.
Members of Parliament should have nothing to fear from the introduction of recall legislation. Sensible provisions would be included in the legislation to prevent superfluous or mischievous use of this democratic reform. For example, a petition must be signed by a sufficiently high number of electors in a constituency to prevent mischief. Second, there would be a grace period after the general election before a recall petition would kick in. Third, a recall measure could only be used once per constituency, per term of an elected Parliament. Fourth, the recall process would be subject to strict regulation, verified by the Chief Electoral Officer, for example, procedures for verifying that all signatures are genuine and obtained through legitimate means. If that did not happen, a fairly severe fine would be in place.
1620
When talking about recall we need to say this is not something radical we are just thinking about doing now in Canada's Parliament. The citizens of ancient Athens had a democratic process to ostracize wayward politicians through banishment from Athens for a period of 10 years.
Think of the number of members in this place. If our constituents were displeased with us they would banish us, or shun us to use a cultural term from my area, for 10 years. That certainly would make us consider strongly what kind of representatives we were.
Some writers say this ancient process is the foundation for recall legislation we are discussing today. Recall has been a facet of the Swiss system of direct democracy for a long period of time. Fifteen U.S. states employ recall for elected state officials; 36 provide for recall of locally elected officials. No American state has ever repealed recall legislation once it was established. Recall has only been used successfully nine or ten times in that entire history. Obviously the system is not abused.
The recall mechanism utilized in Alberta in 1936 was incorporated into a public law, but it had its defects. The Alberta recall bill was mentioned earlier, but in this case the law was too easily open to abuse by opposition parties and interest groups, and we have heard lots about them today.
For example, the bill contained no provision prohibiting the purchase of signatures for a recall petition. Its first use was marred by this abuse when a group of Calgary lawyers reportedly offered the good citizens of High River up to $5 a signature to sign a recall petition against the premier. It is for that reason among many others whereby we believe very sound safeguards should be in place.
When the Alberta recall bill was repealed by the Alberta legislature, it was done by a free vote. The premier at the time, William Aberhart, voted against that repeal, as did Ernest C. Manning, who was a cabinet minister at the time. The repeal was carried by a majority of the backbenchers who considered the bill to be defective.
Some opponents of recall claim that members are elected primarily to carry out a mandate as detailed in their party's election platform and must often sacrifice the good of their constituents for the good of the whole. Recall, they claim, would encourage short term or parochial thinking to the detriment of the whole.
Reformers agree that members must consider factors solely beyond the wishes of their constituents, but stress that a member's primary duty should not be to the party but to the constituents, to represent their concerns, their needs and their interests.
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 , published by Harvard University Press, 1989, states:
Today's critics of the recall device 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. No evidence exists to support either contention.
That bears repeating. Thomas Cronin said that no evidence exists to support either contention.
Power may not always corrupt, yet it does have this tendency. Recall strikes at incumbent arrogance.
All of us in this place must pay attention to that. We must perk up our ears when we hear a sentence like that. It touches all of us because we are elected officials. Recall strikes at incumbent arrogance.
I stand here in this Chamber today talking about MP recall not as an outsider, but as someone who has been elected once, in fact re-elected once also in the general election of October 1993. I am subject to MP recall as is every other member in this House. Therefore it cannot be said this is someone who is criticizing the process from the outside.
In summary, as parliamentarians we should encourage citizens to express their views at all times and by all legitimate means. The citizens petition remains a valid and legitimate means. Its use should be respected and encouraged. The petition for recall would enable our citizens to rid themselves of those who violate their trust. It would encourage members to be more responsive to the views of their constituents and enhance the role of ordinary parliamentarians. It would promote representative democracy in this nation.
Let me conclude with a couple of comments from the Globe and Mail , February 19, 1994. Kenneth Whyte in his article entitled The West'' says that the real problem with the government's response to all the questions we have asked in the last several weeks about representative democracy, member of Parliament recall, whether the government would allow a referendum on the issue of physician assisted suicide, is that it demonstrates the government has not a clue about what it is dealing with. He says that the issues of referenda and recall are of enormous symbolic importance. Nothing could be more true. He went on to say:The bottom line is that traditional political institutions will either open themselves to greater public participation or lose still more credibility''.
Mr. Speaker, I lay it before you that MP recall is something we will need before the life of this Parliament is out.
