Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to participate in the debate on Bill C-210 proposed by the member for Beaver River respecting the recall act.
In trying to find why we would need a bill such as this one in place in Canadian politics, I asked the Library of Parliament to do some research and give me examples of corruption and situations that may have been prevented if we had recall legislation like the one before us. I was amazed. My fax machine burned up for about a half hour with all the examples the library was sending me.
A December 30 article in the Ottawa Citizen refers to 18 members and ministers on the Liberal side of the House and on the Conservative side of the House who were implicated in such corruption. There was also more evidence in a June 28 article that reads: ``Two PC MPs leave caucus pending probe, an RCMP investigation into the misuse of federal funds''.
Another article that caught my eye states: "Prime Minister Kim Campbell has inherited the mandate of one of the most corrupt governments in Canadian history. Seldom have so many been caught doing so much for themselves".
These are examples of some of the things. I found it totally outrageous that the Canadian public has put up with nonsense like corruption charges against members, forged documents, shoplifting, kickback deals, ministers accepting $2.5 million in loans from a friend who just happened to be a government contractor, questionable land deals, lavish spending while on government trips abroad financed by the taxpayer and conflict of interest charges. The Canadian public demands more from elected representatives.
Recall is the power of the people to petition for the holding of an election on the recall, the removal of a member of Parliament. It was first used in the American Articles of Confederation of 1777 and recall currently exists in 15 American states. We hear criticism that if recall were in place we would have massive amounts of tie-ups in the process because of all the numbers that would be coming forward to the House.
From the best count I have been able to make of recall in the United States, I could only find seven state representatives, one state senator, two elected state cabinet officials and one governor. They are rather low figures and nothing to get too concerned about.
With accountability and open government high on the Canadian taxpayers' agenda, recall is direct popular participation in the administration of the law. No position should be considered too lofty or too dignified for this type of action. The position of a member of Parliament exists for and is financed by the people of Canada. The people should be able to remove any incumbent whose performance they consider unsatisfactory. The people should be able to remove any unsatisfactory MP or minister without turfing the whole governing party out of office.
One hon. member just mentioned a few minutes ago the red book. There are certain quotes in the red book that are pertinent to this. The red book on page 91 states:
If government is to play a positive role in society, as it must, honesty and integrity in political institutions must be restored.
This erosion of confidence seems to have many causes: some have to do with the behaviour of certain elected politicians, others with an arrogant style of political leadership.
It would seem in principle that the Liberal Party is supportive of direct democracy in government.
Adopting recall is a way of introducing into the administration of the law the kind of democratic control that citizens' initiatives and referenda could bring to the making of law. Recall introduces a deterrent to and, as a last resort, a cure for arrogance, bias, corruption or incompetence among elected officials.
If the people had the power of recall we would not have an abusive MP pension plan. We would not have patronage. We would not have outrageous perks. We would not have an ear for special interest groups. We would not have cabinet ministers abusing their power as we have seen in the last couple of days.
If the people had the power through recall legislation we would have a higher public opinion of elected officials. We would have more accountability in government. We would have MPs representing their constituents instead of toeing the party line.
By passing Bill C-210 history will show that we did restore public confidence in government. To restore confidence in this place we must move toward a truly democratic system. We must be accountable in supporting Bill C-210 and introducing recall. Thereby we will establish the power of the people.
Let us examine the democratic option of recall and discuss its potential impact on the Canadian system of government and its electorate. Recall is a procedure that allows the voters to call their representatives to account before the end of their normal term, at a time of the voters choosing.
This has been criticized in some arenas but before the House affairs committee on September 7 there was testimony by Dr. Peter McCormick, a political scientist from the University of Lethbridge, as follows:
I think we have to reject the argument that voters would be discarding representatives every second week, that there would be recalls going on endlessly and constantly. In a democracy it should not be necessary to belabour this point. If we can trust the electors to show some wisdom and some judgment in electing people in the first place, surely it is not unreasonable to say that they will exercise similar wisdom and judgment in how often and to what purpose they use recall. If we cannot trust them to use recall then it is not clear why we trusted them to do the electing in the first place.
The recall process outlined in Bill C-210 essentially involves three stages: an application for recall, a recall petition and finally a byelection. I do not want to spend too much time on the actual workings of the bill because I do not have that much time. However I would like to talk a bit about the safety valves that are included in the bill.
First, the Clerk of the House will not accept a recall petition until the grace period of 18 months has passed since the last election, which applies both to newly elected and re-elected MPs. In the case of newly elected members, they would have a reasonable chance to establish a record of representing and serving their constituents.
Second, a recall petition can only be made once in a constituency during the life of an elected Parliament. This would prevent an MP being repeatedly harassed by an organized special interest group.
Third, the petitioners' official agent must report all contributions and expenditures related to the group's recall campaign, including a list of all people who made financial donations, thus limiting the lobbyist factor.
Fourth, the safety valve is the time limit for collection of recall petition signatures. This ensures that the issue that triggered the petition remains alive and significant for the later stages of the process.
Fifth, as an added precaution Bill C-210 incorporates several clauses that would ensure the official agent is operating above board by instituting an offence punishable on a summary conviction.
In closing I quote the words of Edmund Burke in his 1774 speech to the electors of Bristol:
It ought to be the happiness and glory of a representative to live in the strictest union, the closest correspondence and the most unreserved communication with his constituents.
Their wishes ought to have great weight with him; their opinion high respect; their business unremitted attention. It is his duty to sacrifice his repose, his pleasure, his satisfaction, to theirs; and above all, ever and in all cases, to prefer their interests to his own.
I urge all the members of this place to support Bill C-210.
