Kennedy Stewart

[Petitions, June 18th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am presenting a petition today regarding bringing online petitions to the House of Commons. The constituents who have signed this petition say they believe the current paper petitioning system is antiquated and inefficient.

The petitioners would like the House of Commons to recognize online petitions as it recognizes paper petitions. This is similar to a motion that I brought forward in the House of Commons, and I hope the government will take it seriously.

[Tackling Contraband Tobacco Act, June 13th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my colleague's speech. I would really like to thank her for the wonderful work she does leading us in industry committee and as our NDP industry critic.

We on the west coast have some real concerns about counterfeiting, mainly because the port of Vancouver is the top entryway for contraband cigarettes in Canada and we have just eliminated the Coast Guard station there. Now we have no Coast Guard presence at all monitoring these ships that are coming in.

We are supporting sending the bill to committee to look at this issue. I would like to ask my colleague how, in light of these facts, we might expand our investigation here to include issues like Coast Guard presence on the west coast.

[Electronic Petitions, June 12th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question and for all her work in this area. She works very hard to bring the voice of youth to Parliament. I think that is very helpful. This is something my motion would also try to do: connect with younger people and update our institutions to better engage folks who are not engaging with our traditional forms of democracy. That is one advantage of moving to electronic petitions. I do not see why anybody on the other side of the House would be threatened by that.

There would be no votes after debate. It would just be an hour debate. If we went forward with the full spectrum of changes in the House, it would just be an hour of debate on issues that are important to members on both sides of the House, I would hope.

[Electronic Petitions, June 12th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his kind words. That is a good question. This is exactly what the committee should be looking at. This is why we need the committee to look at the current petitioning system to see how these two things could interact.

What I would say is that if they can do this in the United Kingdom, if they can do this in the province of Quebec and they can do this in the U.S., what is it we cannot do here? What is it we cannot figure out? I am sure we can find a way to make both paper-based and electronic petitions interact, and of course, bring us into the 21st century and bring more trust to our institutions.

[Electronic Petitions, June 12th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I can assure the member that if he reads the motion, he will see that the details I have added to the motion are only suggestions for study.

I have asked that the committee pursue a broad mandate to look at merely supplementing the current paper-based petitioning system with electronic petitions. I do not see how that would in any way circumscribe what the committee can look at. If this does make it to committee, the members would call witnesses. I would just ask that they consider these other measures.

[Electronic Petitions, June 12th, 2013]

moved:

That the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs be instructed to recommend changes to the Standing Orders and other conventions governing petitions so as to establish an electronic petitioning system that would enhance the current paper-based petitions system by allowing Canadians to sign petitions electronically, and to consider, among other things, (i) the possibility to trigger a debate in the House of Commons outside of current sitting hours when a certain threshold of signatures is reached, (ii) the necessity for no fewer than five Members of Parliament to sponsor the e-petition and to table it in the House once a time limit to collect signatures is reached, (iii) the study made in the 38th Parliament regarding e-petitions, and that the Committee report its findings to the House, with proposed changes to the Standing Orders and other conventions governing petitions, within 12 months of the adoption of this order.

Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to begin the debate on my private member's motion, Motion No. 428 that would bring electronic petitions to the House of Commons.

I will cover three points in my remarks this evening. First, why we need e-petitioning in Canada. Second, what a system for e-petitioning should look like. Third, who supports this initiative.

Before I begin, I would like to say that my motion is inspired by three political scientists: my wife, Jeanette Ashe, who teaches at Douglas College in British Columbia and originally suggested this idea to me; my mentor, Professor Patrick Smith, who teaches at Simon Fraser University and got me started on my democratic journey many years ago; and of course the late Jack Layton, whose phrase, “no opposition without proposition”, guides all my work in this place.

I should not need to tell the hon. members in this chamber that this is a very dark hour for Canadian democracy. Voter turnout continues to plummet in federal, provincial and municipal elections. Less than 60% of those eligible to vote did so in the 2011 federal election, and less than 40% of eligible youth voted in 2011.

Second, citizens are virtually shut out of the policy-making process between elections. Canadians can look and watch, but they cannot really touch nor affect what we do here in Ottawa as there are no mechanisms in place empowering them to do so.

Tragically, people now deeply distrust their own democratic institutions more and more each year. According to a recent Environics polling, less than 20% of Canadians place a lot of trust in Parliament or the office of the Prime Minister, and only 10% give a strong vote of confidence to political parties.

Now, while there is plenty of spirited debate in this place on large-scale changes to improving our democracy, whether it is reforming the electoral system or the unaccountable Senate, I feel there are also small changes or reforms that would go some way to alleviate our democratic malaise.

Finding practical ways to make Parliament more accessible for our constituents is a worthy goal we should all share. I am hoping members from all sides of the House will set aside partisan differences and work together to enhance citizen participation in our democracy through e-petitions.

Democratic engagement is a topic of particular importance to me because I have been fortunate to study it for over 20 years. I have written and taught about democracy and democratic reform, as well as advised governments on how they might improve democracy both here and abroad. In addition, I have been in the trenches, helping citizens both participate in and reform their political institutions.

Motion No. 428 instructs the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to undertake a study of the petitioning process and develop recommendations for how we might improve this process with electronic petitions.

Currently, Canadians can only circulate, collect signatures, and submit paper-based petitions. If they collect 25 names and find an MP to represent their written petitions in Parliament, the government has to respond to the petition in writing within 45 days. Meanwhile, online petitions that might gather thousands or hundreds of signatures of Canadians go unanswered under the current system, as they are not deemed official.

My motion calls on the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to report back to the House with recommendations as to how we could enhance our current petitioning system and bring it into the 21st century by allowing citizens to post and sign certified petitions online. A study would allow us to hear from civil society groups and privacy experts and other jurisdictions where e-petitions are used, as best practices for implementing an e-petitioning system that is fair, efficient and responsive.

In addition to calling for a comprehensive study, my motion goes further and suggests that we increase the impact of petitions. It proposes that electronic petitions should trigger a short debate in the House, similar to a take note debate, if they receive a certain minimum number of signatures, for example 50,000 or 100,000, and are sponsored by no fewer than 5 MPs. Not only would citizens be able to post and sign official petitions online, but their views and concerns would also be debated at the highest level by their elected representatives.

This is far from a novel idea. The core of this proposal is borrowed from other jurisdictions. For example, residents of the province of Quebec, who are often ahead of the rest of the country when it comes to democratic reform, can already submit and sign petitions online. In the United Kingdom, the Conservative government has brought in rules that not only allow for e-petitions but those receiving at least 100,000 signatures can trigger a short debate in their House of Commons. The same is true in the United States, where online petitions meeting a certain threshold of support from the public receive an official response from the White House and President Obama.

My motion also builds on strong populist traditions found in my home province of British Columbia, where residents have the ability to initiate referendums and to recall politicians they do not think are up to the job of governing.

As members can see, we here in this place are behind the rest of the world when it comes to realizing the ideals of direct democracy.

My motion represents a modest but vital opportunity for us to build upon the long-standing practice of our constituents petitioning their elected representatives. Before moving on to those who already support my motion, it is important to clarify a few points about this proposal.

First, Motion No. 428 would supplement, but not replace, the current paper petitioning system. For example, e-petitions that do not reach a minimum threshold of signatures to trigger a debate would still be submitted to the House and receive an official government response. Second, there is a concern that this system would allow frivolous or trivial issues to be raised in Parliament. I suggest that this would not occur if the committee follows my idea not only to require 50,000 or 100,000 signatures before the debate is triggered, but also the added provision that at least five MPs sponsor the petition before it moves forward for debate.

To use a recent example, and a somewhat infamous one, under these provisions it is unlikely that any MP, let alone five, would risk their personal reputations to forward a petition suggesting we change the name of certain politicians to Doris Day even if the petition was signed by tens of thousands of Canadians.

It is also important to remember that the suggestion here is that any debate triggered would be similar to a take note debate, which is not subject to a vote and therefore could not be used to pass bills or motions.

The third and final section of my speech concerns support for Motion No. 428 both inside and outside of Ottawa.

My motion has been jointly seconded by 20 sitting members of Parliament, including two from the Conservative caucus. The member for Saskatoon—Humboldt generously seconded my motion, as did the member for Edmonton—St. Albert, although the latter member has since left the Conservative caucus to sit as an independent. This is an important point. Even at this early stage, there seems to be cross-party support to allow my proposal to move to committee. I look forward to continuing to work with committee members and other like-minded MPs to make this happen, because strengthening our democratic institutions is a value that must go beyond party affiliation.

Support for Motion No. 428 does not stop in Parliament. Former NDP leader, Ed Broadbent, says:

Bringing electronic petitioning to the House of Commons is a 21st-century idea and one I fully endorse. Empowering Canadians to come together and help set the parliamentary agenda will breathe fresh air into our democracy.

I could not agree more.

It may surprise members on the other side of the House that former Reform Party leader, Preston Manning, also endorses my motion:

To be able to petition one’s elected representatives, and to have such petitions addressed, is one of the oldest and most basic of democratic rights.... Affirming and re-establishing this right in the 21st century through electronic petitioning is an idea well worth pursuing.

I thank both Mr. Manning and Mr. Broadbent for their endorsement.

My motion has also been endorsed by civil society organizations from across the political spectrum that share the common goal of promoting democratic participation.

First, the Canadian Taxpayers Federation:

...applauds this worthy initiative...to kick-start Parliament on accepting electronic signatures on petitions. When taxpayers get the opportunity to go online and sign an official petition to Parliament, they'll be able to get the attention of Ottawa politicians in a hurry.... This would help restore some grassroots democracy and accountability on Parliament Hill.

In addition, Egale Canada, an organization dedicated to equality for LGBTQ Canadians, states that it:

...strongly supports [this] initiative to further bridge the communication between citizens and their democratically elected leaders. Working with and on behalf of marginalized populations, Egale Canada believes every effort should be taken to make our voices heard in the simplest ways possible."

Finally, the online advocacy organization, Leadnow says:

We fully support bringing e-petitions to parliament as it will help strengthen the voices of Canadians and enable them to reach decision makers more effectively.

Yesterday I launched betterpetitions.ca, a new website that includes a full list of endorsements and an online petition, where Canadians can show their support for my motion. We have not only two leading elders of our community who have been fighting for democracy for quite a long time who directly support this motion but a large number of civil society groups that think this is a good idea, and importantly, they are from right across the political spectrum.

From the evidence, it is fair to surmise that the Rt. Hon. Prime Minister might also endorse bringing e-petitions to Parliament. In 1994, the member for Calgary Southwest said:

As Reformers we propose that we get back to the roots of liberal democracy, that we reaffirm the principles of democracy in a modern age and manifest political equality through institutional reform.

In 2003, when he was the leader of the Canadian Alliance, he added:

We have stood to bring about in this country an effective system of direct democracy to enhance the voice of average Canadians, not once every four years, but all the time.

I could not agree with that sentiment more. That is what we are here to do.

As e-petitions have the potential to impact all Canadians, I wanted to get an initial idea of how the country feels about my motion. To do so, I commissioned Angus Reid to conduct a national poll asking two questions.

The first question asked:

Do you support or oppose allowing Canadians to use electronic petitions to present their request to the federal government?

I am happy to say that over 80% of those surveyed support or strongly support this idea, with only 11% opposed. There is overwhelming support among Canadians for this motion.

The second question was on the idea of thresholds and what would be needed to trigger debate. The question asked was:

What should be the minimum number of signatures a petition would need in order to be debated in a Canadian House of Commons?

When offered a range of options, the most popular threshold was 25,000 signatures, a very low threshold, followed closely by a threshold of 100,000 signatures. I would be more than happy to make this poll available to the committee if we move forward with this idea.

To recap, first, Canadian democracy is in great need of constructive action and practical reform. We have experienced decades of decline, and our institutions are in need of a refresh, especially now that we are firmly in the digital age. Second, the mechanics of my motion are simple. I am asking the procedure and House affairs committee to report back some time over the next year, within 12 months, with recommendations on how to best implement an e-petitioning system that would empower Canadians to have their say and set the debate in Parliament. Third, I hope I have demonstrated that this motion has support on both sides of the House, among elders, from organizations from across the political spectrum, and most importantly, among Canadians.

We need to make this happen so that before the next election, citizens from across Canada can have at least a touch more control of the political agenda in Ottawa. It is my hope that this initiative will increase citizen participation in democracy, lead to more Canadians being engaged with politics between elections, and perhaps most importantly, renew trust in our democratic institutions.

As we stand in the House, this historic place, witness to many national defining moments, this place of business where legislation that impacts the lives of Canadians is debated and voted upon, we ultimately remember that the House belongs to the people. We have all been privileged to be the voice of our constituents here in Ottawa, and as such, it is our responsibility to ensure that the voices are heard here in the chamber. Through my motion to revitalize Canadian democracy through e-petitioning, we can open the doors of Parliament to the robust debate happening now across the country, and we can stand up to empower the voices of Canadians.

[First Nations Elections Act, June 11th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I, like my colleagues and the rest of the House, abhor this constant closure of debate.

I have a follow-up question for the hon. minister. He was talking about electing a Senate. I heard the Prime Minister, in response to a question in question period the other day, utter about his party perhaps waffling between their lame reforms, I would say, for the Senate, and abolition.

The Prime Minister himself said abolition, so I wonder if the minister could answer as to whether or not that is now in the plans.

[Petitions, June 11th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition signed by hundreds of my constituents regarding the death of Helen Sonja Francis, a registered nurse, who was tragically killed by an impaired driver.

The people who caused this crime were not brought to justice due to administrative errors.

The petitioners are calling on Parliament to amend the Criminal Code of Canada to change the current four-hour limit dealing with warrants to a six-hour limit.

[Science and Technology, June 6th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, well, we did hear the famous $9-billion figure. However, as I just said in my previous comments, this figure is not adjusted for inflation at all. In fact, it is a false figure.

The Conservative government is claiming to have increased funding for science, but basic accounting principles and, as expressed by the Library of Parliament and Statistics Canada, show that we have had a decrease in funding since the government came to power in 2006 by just about 2.5%.

I guess my question to the minister would be this. Does his $9-billion figure include an adjustment for inflation or not?

[Science and Technology, June 6th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I realize the hour is late, but I appreciate the opportunity to follow up on my earlier questions for the government regarding science in Canada.

My question for the Conservatives is this. Where is their national science policy and what goals and objectives does this policy contain?

These are important questions and we need answers for them. The Conservatives are making massive changes to how we approach and fund science in this country, without any idea, I fear, of what they are doing and how they are hurting the pursuit of knowledge in this country.

Let us zoom out to specifics. Since coming to power in 2006, the Conservatives have reduced the overall amount of funding they provide to science and technology in this country. While they spout about having spent $9 billion since 2006, this figure is deceitful and misleading. It is deceitful because the Conservatives do not include inflation in their calculations. This is a very basic accounting practice. When we speak of funding over time, we must include inflation in the calculations and present the figures in real dollars. Therefore, calculations made by the Library of Parliament experts, using numbers provided by Statistics Canada, show that between 2006 and 2013 overall funding for science and technology has actually declined by almost 2.5%.

That is right. In addition to getting rid of the long form census, muzzling scientists and mangling the National Research Council, the current government has cut funding by almost 2.5% since coming to power. This 2.5% may not seem like much, but when it is applied at the national level, it means labs, libraries and other facilities closing, and scientists and researchers losing their jobs. This is exactly what is happening.

The news gets worse. The recently released “State of the Nation 2012” report by the Conservative-created Science, Technology and Innovation Council shows that Canada's gross domestic expenditure on R and D has seriously declined under the current government. In contrast, R and D investment in most other countries has been increasing. In fact, Canada has dropped from 16th in 2006, to 23rd in 2011, when it comes to overall R and D investment. Therefore, the Conservatives do not have a plan for Canada's knowledge economy, and they flail about on this file while inflicting serious damage.

In contrast, the NDP policy in this area is positive and robust. It is worth reading verbatim a policy resolution passed unanimously at our recent policy convention:

Whereas science requires sustained, consistent and predictable investment, and failing to do so undermines long-term innovative potential; Whereas science includes all major scientific fields of inquiry, including engineering, the social sciences and humanities; Be it resolved that the NDP consult widely with scientists, researchers, businesses, post-secondary institutions, provincial, territorial and First Nations leaders to reverse the damage done by Conservative policies and cuts...and [develop] a Made in Canada National Science Strategy; Be it further resolved that the NDP move to match the percentage of GDP invested by the public and private sectors in research and development...as found in other global leading countries such as the United States.

Therefore, my challenge for the Conservatives is to produce such a policy or resolution here tonight and tell Canadians what their targets are.