Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to address the House on the motion before us today with regard to debate of petitions.
1640
I must confess I am a bit disappointed in the response we have had from the other side. This motion was a request asking the government to consider opening up the House for debate on major petitions. I am quite surprised that in its response it seems to be quite strongly opposed to even considering, debating or discussing what we can do to improve this important facet that Canadians have of dialoguing with us here.
I was a bit disappointed by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands who spoke quite strongly against considering a time during the session when we could debate petitions. I was also quite saddened by the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell for his rather vociferous and fierce presentation in opposition to even considering our motion. He suggested that it was improper for Reform MPs to bring this forward for debate. I found it quite interesting that he would quote Edmund Burke, the father of Tories. It may mean that we will have to change the title of Grits to Tories in the future, but perhaps that is who they look up to and thought they would try to receive their inspiration from that source in the future.
Our motion was put forward in good faith to try to open up some dialogue on the matter of petitions. As members are no doubt aware almost daily petitions are brought to the House, certainly often at great effort on the part of Canadians who have issues they feel are important enough that they would actually petition those of us who are elected representatives to in some way deal with them.
Perhaps it is because I am new here. I know the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell said we can introduce motions through private members' bills and so on to bring those petitions to the floor, but it is a difficult and slow process. I do not think it gives proper recognition for the time and effort that many Canadians put into trying to bring the issues that are of vital importance to them to the floor of the House.
I know it is not possible to address every petition brought forward by Canadians and our motion does not purport to do that. It states that there should be a time when the House would deal with serious petitions that are brought to the House, such as the one of 2.5 million signatures brought in the other day. We have heard several separate petitions concerning serial killer cards brought from both sides of the House and there is unanimous agreement that this should be stopped. It is important that legislation be introduced and that this issue be dealt with. These are the types of things that Reform is suggesting should be debated.
I really believe the hesitance of the other side to want to do this is a lack of confidence in rank and file Canadians. Often times all rank and file Canadians see of this House is what they see on their television, usually during Question Period, which I do not think is a totally accurate reflection, at least I hope it is not, of what goes on here.
I want to talk for just a couple of minutes about why I became involved in politics. I believe it relates to the motion before us today. As a young adult my government was a Liberal government. I felt quite alienated from that government. They introduced legislation that in no way, shape or form was beneficial to my industry, to my family or to those matters that concerned me. However, in my area almost all of the members of the House did not sit on the government side. A Liberal was a rare species in western Canada in the 1960s and the 1970s. During that period the Prime Minister told me, a farmer, that I should sell my own wheat, and he said it in rather unflattering terms. He gave me no means by which I could actually sell that wheat. Then his government introduced the national energy program which devastated an industry in my part of Canada. We are still suffering some of the results of the national energy program which so financially and economically crippled my part of the country.
Then the insult to injury was the tax and spend of the last few years of the Liberal government before it was replaced by the Conservatives which began bringing us down the dangerous slope of increased debts by uncontrolled annual federal spending. Western Canada kept voting for the members who stayed on this side of the Chamber, whether they be Progressive Conservatives or New Democrats.
Finally, the Liberals had infuriated enough Canadians that they lost their support in Ontario and Quebec as well. Then there was a government and my member was on the government side and there was strong representation in the House from western Canada, in fact across all of Canada. There was a massive victory for the Progressive Conservative government. There were very few Liberals in the House. If ever there was a mandate to govern, the Conservatives had it. They had 208 seats if I remember correctly. However, they did not maintain any accountability to Canadians. We saw no difference in my part of Canada in the type of government we had under the new administration in comparison to what we had under the old administration.
The light began to go on in a number of our heads. We thought perhaps the people we were sending to Ottawa were not the problem. Perhaps it was the system.
The new Conservative administration followed on the same course as the Trudeau administration had. The Conservatives introduced the GST against the wishes of a majority of Canadians. They said: "We have a mandate to do this. If you do not think we have done the right thing you can talk to us about it at election time".
1641
Adding insult to injury, the Conservatives introduced the Meech Lake accord. I might add they had the support of the Liberal and New Democratic members in this House. They said: "We speak on behalf of Canadians. You can trust our wisdom. We have thought this through very carefully. What we are doing is in the best interests of all Canadians".
Thank goodness not only Reformers but a number of Canadians have demanded more input in the decisions made in this Chamber because it is getting out of control. They have no input, no means by which to redirect the politicians, leaders or members in the House of Commons if they get going in the wrong direction.
Fortunately, the Charlottetown accord was the time for testing the wisdom of this Chamber. Remember there nearly was unanimous agreement in this Chamber in support of the Charlottetown accord. Of course the member for Beaver River vociferously opposed the accord and a few other members were also opposed to it. It turned out that this body had lost total contact with what was happening outside of this place. I have talked to people who were very much involved in the Charlottetown accord who said: "We had no idea they were supporting it. We had no idea that Canadians saw this issue so differently from what we did". They had lost touch.
Perhaps we could begin, and I emphasize begin, to turn the tables, to bring back accountability, to bring back communication between members in this House and their constituents. We start by looking at the little things we could do to keep us in touch with those who sent us here. We are not sent with a mandate to do whatever we pleased. Every time the governing party has changed it has been to kick the other guys out. When are we going to wake up and realize that? We cannot say we have a mandate to govern when Canadians are merely replacing one group of members with another because they cannot tolerate what the first group has been doing. They have lost touch with Canadians. We have to reverse our thinking.
I am disappointed that members on the opposite side who have been arguing against this motion would be satisfied with a substandard form of parliamentary government. They are prepared to bury their heads in the sand to maintain our form of government exactly as it has been for the last 127 years.
We are entering the 21st century and for the most part we are still operating in a 19th century mode. It is truly unfortunate that we do not elect members to the other place. It is unfortunate that we handle petitions merely as a formality and very seldom deal with them in the significant way they deserve because of the effort Canadians have made in bringing them to our attention.
In closing, it all boils down to whether we as members of Parliament want to consider the importance of individual Canadians or whether we want to be merely attentive to the highly efficient lobby groups and special interest groups that are able to bend our ears. Those groups can afford to send their representatives with their glossy brochures to our offices to try to twist our arms to present their views in this Chamber.
A petition is a very inexpensive way for hard working Canadians who love their country and are concerned about a number of issues, some with which we agree and others with which we are opposed, to bring their issues before us. To just summarily dismiss them is not showing the deserved respect to the people who are responsible for our being here. They have entrusted us to make wise decisions and to keep the lines of communication open with them, so that we will act on their behalf and on their stead.
Therefore I would hardly speak for reform of this place just because it has not totally collapsed in the past. Just because it effectively serves us in some areas does not mean the status quo is what is good for us in the future.
The fact that Canadians are sweeping out one administration to replace it by another again speaks to the fact that we have to look at reform of this Chamber if we are going to give Canadians the type of government and the strength in their leaders they expect and deserve.
