Kevin Sorenson

[Health, March 27th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, last week I rose in the House reiterating the concerns being expressed by my predominantly rural riding regarding foot and mouth disease. The letters and calls have not stopped and fears have not been abated as British soldiers continue to be deployed to military camps such as Wainwright, Suffield and Cold Lake.

Hopefully there will be some appeasement given news reports indicating that no British soldiers who have assisted civilians in the United Kingdom with the disposal of carcasses are being sent to Canada and that stringent precautions such as submerging shoes and other personal items in disinfectant are being taken.

I am putting the ministers of defence and agriculture on notice. The cattle industry is the lifeblood of many of my constituents. The economic vibrancy of Alberta depends significantly on a healthy cattle industry.

The ministers must therefore do everything possible to stop foot and mouth disease from invading the country. They are responsible for safeguarding the livelihood of my Crowfoot constituents.

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, March 26th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is absolutely right. As I read through Bill C-7 I did not understand the provincial jurisdiction and the federal jurisdiction. A lot of what the hon. member is referring to is true. Funding is definitely lacking.

Our lead critic from Provencher spoke about the provincial jurisdiction and the federal jurisdiction. As a new member in the House I have gone through the bill, but I have not been privy to all the witnesses and all the committee meetings. I have heard concern that we are stepping into provincial jurisdiction and that we are putting expectations on the provinces. We are not willing, as we used to say down on the farm, to put our money where our mouth is.

It is a huge problem when we download to provinces programs which perhaps they should be in charge of and there is no money available to help follow up. The whole thing should be looked at as far as the federal portion of funding is concerned. If they are willing to come with these programs, the government had better be willing to back it up with its wallet.

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, March 26th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the publication of names does two things. It helps to protect society. I talked about that in my speech. As a parent, the publication of names would allow me to be very careful whom my children hang around with. It would let me know about someone living down the street or close by in the community that I would not want my little girl or boy hanging around with.

I could then do one of two things. I could be there all the time that my child is with that individual, or I could step in say that I do not want my child hanging around with those types of people. The publication of names is a good idea.

The fear of their name being publicized creates a deterrent as well. If they commit a crime or are involved in a crime they do not want their community to know. The hon. member is 100% right. It serves as a deterrent and a deterrent that we should not question. Over and above that it give us another tool to protect society and our young people.

We need to publish the names of all violent offenders such as the individual the hon. member came in contact with. We are not asking for the publication of names of individuals who have shoplifted or stolen candy from a candy store. That is not what we are asking for. We are talking about violent offenders.

The school boards said that they wanted to know the names of those involved in crime. It was information they could use to educate. It could also protect society. Other members said names of violent offenders were already published but not to the extreme they would like to see. Some information is provided to schools to a certain degree, but not to the community to the point where I as a parent would know that young Johnny who just moved in is a convicted drug dealer.

The whole issue of drug dealing is not mentioned under violent offences. We should look at what drug dealers are doing to the country. That is another area that should be publicized. It is ripping our country apart. It is to a large degree driving young people into crime. Parents have said that we need to know who the drug dealers are and who is convicted of drug dealing.

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, March 26th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, we all recognize the fact that we need to be able to divert non-violent offenders. Diversion should not occur from the judicial system because that is where they enter the system when they commit crimes. There are many community based programs, going back to the Juvenile Delinquents Act, that can be implemented for these young people. Some of them are probably living in the condition of delinquency.

We do not believe that for violent offenders we should be looking at some alternative measures, that there should be some community programs for violent offences. We believe that community based programs or alternate programs may be used for non-violent first time offenders.

Young people can make errors. They get mixed up in the wrong crowd or hang out with people who have bad reputations. They blend in and all of a sudden they find themselves involved in criminal activity on a first time offence. We should see how our communities can bring them back in.

The hon. member mentioned that there are already some community programs in place. Other community programs are being considered where the community itself, understanding their young people and the needs of the community, could probably do two things. They could educate them and help them integrate back into that community or for the safety of other young people could hold them in check.

We are not opposed to alternative measures, but we are opposed to those with third or fourth time offences going through alternative measures. We are opposed to violent criminal acts bypassing incarceration. They are placed in a community program where it is a slap on the wrist and we believe they should be incarcerated.

[Youth Criminal Justice Act, March 26th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, we were speaking to Bill C-7, the amendment to replace the Young Offenders Act with the youth criminal justice act. We were speaking about the use of alternative measures or community based programs for non-violent offenders who pose no threat to society.

We firmly believe that only through lengthy periods of incarceration where there are effective rehabilitation programs including education would violent offenders cease to be dangerous.

We are encouraged that the bill would make these educational and rehabilitation programs mandatory. When and if young offenders are incarcerated, they would be forced to go through programs so that they could be integrated back into society thus making it a safer place to live. Protection of society is the key guiding principle of the Young Offenders Act or of the youth criminal justice act.

According to an old Statistics Canada fact finder a very small percentage of violent offenders are incarcerated. It means that a very small percentage of them are actually held in custody. They are unable to go through those programs while a disproportionate number of non-violent offenders are incarcerated, limiting the space and resources needed to rehabilitate the violent offenders.

Prison is not necessary for young persons who commit minor offences. We are not asking that there be incarceration in that regard. In many cases it may be detrimental to them. They may be assaulted by other violent young offenders or they may also learn from the other ones in the prison system. After their release, depending on how we look at it, the educational program may also allow them to progress to higher levels of crime or lower levels of crime.

We fully support alternative measures but only for non-violent first time offenders. In 1995, with the passage of Bill C-41, the Liberal government legislated conditional sentences and alternative measures. My party fought adamantly but to no avail to amend the legislation limiting the use of conditional sentences to non-violent offences. As a result of the government's failure to make such amendments, judges have repeatedly handed out conditional sentences throughout the country to persons convicted of serious crimes.

There is one case that has been raised many times in the House. A man who abducted and viciously sodomized a young woman was given a conditional sentence. The young woman was scarred for life. She now lives with that in her memories and is plagued by that conditional sentence.

A few weeks ago in Ottawa, another case dealt with a woman who was convicted of attempting to hire a hit man to kill her parents and was given a conditional sentence.

The first and guiding principle of Canada's criminal law should be the protection of society. Without strict limits placed on the use of alternative measures or conditional sentences, whether it be for violent adults or violent youth, the tenet for the protection of society would be violated.

In closing I urge the government to take the step to realize and to recognize the importance of dealing with the protection of society within Canada's criminal law. Do we need changes to the Young Offenders Act? Yes, we do. We applaud the government and the minister for recognizing the inadequacies of the Young Offenders Act and for realizing that we need to make changes.

Bill C-7 falls short. It is short of what is required for the protection of society. We are dealing with our children. The throne speech dealt with our children. The protection of our children and grandchildren is paramount. Bill C-7, although it moves in the right direction, falls short of giving the tools we need to help protect society and our children.

[Division No. 36, March 26th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, before I proceed to speak to Bill C-7, the youth criminal justice act, I would like to take this opportunity to commend my colleague from Surrey North for his prompt and critical review of this rehashed piece of legislation.

As a new member of parliament in this 37th parliament, I also want to commend him for the wealth of information that he made available to us, especially in the justice committee, and for the many times he has helped us out. We appreciate that. I would also like to commend him also for his diligent efforts over the last three years in holding the Liberal government accountable for its failure to bring about immediate and substantive changes to the young offenders act.

My Alliance colleague lends credibility to this debate. He turned a personal tragedy, the death of his son, into a crusade. Starting with the establishment of a new group called CRY, crime, responsibility and youth, the member for Surrey North succeeded in drawing attention to the inadequacies of the youth justice system and its failure to hold young people responsible for their criminal actions.

Since his election to the House in 1997, he has utilized his wealth of information and exercised diplomacy while working with members of all sides of the House to amend bills, especially those bills that preceded Bill C-7.

I also congratulate the member for Provencher for his election to the House and for his appointment as lead justice critic for the Canadian Alliance.

The former Manitoba attorney general's speech earlier this month clearly demonstrated his experience and knowledge regarding the Young Offenders Act. I also appreciated his references to federal-provincial financial agreements and how they have come to play a part in the bill.

In June 1997 the justice minister promised to make amending the Young Offenders Act a priority. Nearly three and a half years later Canadians are still saddled with an ineffective law that has failed to adequately hold young people accountable for criminal behaviour. In 1997 the minister realized the need to amend the act. She said, and it was publicized, that it was clearly the most unpopular legislation in Canada.

More than five years ago, following the 10th anniversary of the Young Offenders Act, the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs initiated a review of the justice system. After months of cross country hearings, submissions and presentations by people with a vested interest in youth justice, and at a cost of almost half a million dollars, the committee tabled a report in April 1997. The report contained a number of recommendations to amend the Young Offenders Act.

In dissent, the Canadian Alliance presented a minority report which contained a number of recommendations we believed were important. Unlike those of the committee, my party's recommendations dealt with and fell exclusively within federal jurisdiction.

Unfortunately I do not have time to go into all the recommendations and details of our report. However I will use my allotted time to deal with some of the more important or significant points of it.

The most important recommendation was to make the protection of society the guiding principle of the youth criminal justice act. We live in a time when individuals, boards, committees and businesses are all looking to come up with a mission statement or guiding principle which, as they focus on the direction they are taking, they can keep in mind.

The top priority and guiding principle of Bill C-7 needs to be the protection of society. Appearing before the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs in October 1996, Mr. Victor Doerkson, a member of the Alberta legislature for Red Deer South, said:

In listening to Albertans, one lesson became very clear. The protection of society should take priority over all other considerations and there must be accountability on the part of all offenders—Alberta also recommends that the declaration of principles within the act be amended to give the protection of society and offender accountability priority over all other considerations.

The member of the legislature, who spoke on behalf of many Albertans, said the people were telling him that protection of society must be the guiding principle. Bill C-7 does not do that. It does not, as recommended by the Alberta MLA and many others who appeared before the standing committee, make protection of society the first and guiding principle of the youth justice act.

According to the declaration of principles, safety and security of Canadians is secondary to the rehabilitation and reintegration of the offender back into society.

The Juvenile Delinquents Act came into effect in 1908. It created an informal juvenile justice system that was separate from the adult system. The guiding principles of the Child Welfare Act were that young offenders were not criminals but rather misguided children in “a condition of delinquency”. Because of that condition of delinquency they were not to be punished. They were rather to be treated. That was the guiding principle of the Juvenile Delinquents Act.

Under the Juvenile Delinquents Act there was no specific sentencing and the judges had very significant discretion in dealing with young offenders. This meant that in some jurisdictions judges handed out extremely stiff sentences, including periods of incarceration for fairly minor crimes, while in other jurisdictions light sentences of open custody were given to violent offenders.

This is unfair. It is unfair to the offender. It is unfair to the victim. It is unfair to the public at large as there was no guarantee in the law that the offender would be incarcerated.

Recognizing that the exclusively welfare oriented focus of the Juvenile Delinquents Act was not appropriate and to reduce judicial discretion, the process of reforming the Juvenile Delinquents Act began in the 1960s. It was not, however, until the early 1980s with the introduction of the famous charter of rights and freedoms that major juvenile delinquent reform became inevitable.

The Juvenile Delinquents Act was inconsistent with the emphasis on due process that was in the charter. In particular, it was considered to be contrary to section 15 of the charter of rights and freedoms which came into effect in 1985. Section 15 guaranteed equality before the law.

Besides failing to make the protection of society the guiding principle in the bill, it would also effectively enact the contentious portion of the Juvenile Delinquents Act that wrongfully promoted an inequitable application of criminal law, in that it would provide far too much discretion to the youth courts.

We on this side of the House do not accept the Liberal government's chequerboard approach to the justice that appears to be at the very crux of the youth criminal justice act. We also do not accept the minister's outright rejection of what I consider to be the next two most important principles or recommendations of my party for amending the Young Offenders Act.

The minister has again refused to lower the age of criminality to encompass 10 and 11 year olds in limited circumstances. She has rejected allowing for the publication of the names of all violent offenders. The only way to ensure the safety of our children and grandchildren is to provide parents with the names of violent and dangerous offenders.

We do not have that right now. I listened with great interest to speech of the parliamentary secretary as he elaborated on what may happen if we had those rights. As parents, we need to know who in the school systems, for example, may be threatening our children or perhaps those in schools associating with our children that they need to be careful of. The only way to ensure the safety of our children and grandchildren is to provide the names of these children.

Also the bill does not, and I believe it should, allow the names of drug dealers to be put on that list. This category of offender has wrongly been missed in the new legislation.

Many Canadian schools, including public schools, are faced with serious troubles. We had representation from the school trustee boards that came around and visited with many members of parliament in the last week. They expressed the need to know who the students are in the school systems that perhaps have been through violent offences or are in trouble with the law.

Drugs are a serious problem in schools. According to a 1999 special edition of the province in Burnaby, British Columbia, police are seeing 13 and 14 year old kids selling crack cocaine. The report went on as well to say that girls of the same age were trading sex for drugs.

The same report revealed that 75% of high school students in Coquitlam, B.C., experiment with drugs. An estimated 10% of them misuse drugs on a regular basis and up to half of them have become addicted.

We as parents have the right to know who our children are associating with. We have the right to know if a convicted drug dealer is attending school with our children. We have the right to know if there is a violent young sex offender living three or four houses down the street.

We have the right to know. We must have the right to protect our children. That is why we on this side of the House believe that the names of violent offenders, including drug dealers, should be published.

With regard to lowering the age of criminality to 10, Professor Nicholas Bala of Queen's University, who appeared before the standing committee on justice, summarized a Statistics Canada survey of 27 police forces in Canada.

The data indicated that offending behaviour by children under the age of 12 was very significant. Despite this fact, authorities are powerless to hold these children legally responsible for their criminal actions. Although a number of provinces have a child welfare system that can and does deal with these children adequately, many provinces do not have such a program. Repeatedly witnesses came before the standing committee on justice and bore witness to the fact that violent offences with a welfare response was inappropriate.

Lowering the age to 10 does not mean that there will be a huge influx of 10 and 11 year olds into the system. It does not mean that we will be inundated with 10 and 11 year olds as they are drawn into the justice system. The system can divert most children of this age away from any formal response, particularly with the support of alternative measures or community based programs.

By amending the age we will in the very few cases of violent offenders have the means to provide these children with the rehabilitation they need. As it stands now, the minister has abandoned 10 and 11 year olds who by committing criminal acts signal that they are in need of help.

As we researched a speech for an earlier debate in the House we noticed that many criminals were taking advantage of the fact that 10 and 11 year olds were not touched by the justice system. They were drawing them in to be drug runners in other ways. If these people are falling through the cracks they need to be helped.

Appearing before the standing committee during its indepth review of the Young Offenders Act, in reference to lowering the age, a representative from Citizens Against Violence said:

Preferably I would like to see the age in the Young Offenders Act lowered to 10, because there's a mindset among today's youth who are becoming well educated in the criminal field that they cannot be touched under the age of 12—We would like to see the age lowered so that the kids themselves know they have to face responsibility for their actions.

The last recommendation I should like to touch on today is the need to differentiate between non-violent crime and violent crime for the purpose of sentencing. We on this side of the House recommend that the minister restrict the use of alternative measures or community based programs to non-violent offenders who pose no threat to society.

We firmly believe that only through lengthy periods of incarceration, where there are effective rehabilitation programs including education, will violent offenders cease to be dangerous.

[Health, March 23rd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, farmers are plagued with enough problems negatively impacting their ability to produce the safe and high quality food products Canadians have come to expect. We certainly do not need to import more trouble.

I therefore call upon the government to ensure that the most stringent and effective precautions are taken to stop foot and mouth disease from entering into and spreading in the country.

The single largest source of income in the Alberta agriculture industry is derived from the cattle industry. It would be absolutely devastating if foot and mouth disease were to strike my province.

Knowing this, my constituents are anxiously calling my office expressing concerns and asking that British soldiers not be deployed to camps Wainwright, Suffield and Cold Lake until the disease is contained in the United Kingdom.

School trips to the United Kingdom are being cancelled. Although greatly disappointed, our students respect and understand that this sacrifice is necessary to protect the livelihood of their families and neighbours.

I commend the leadership demonstrated by the school boards, the teachers and particularly the students of Crowfoot. I call upon the government to—

[Judges Act, March 22nd, 2001]

Madam Speaker, we have seen other judges acts over the last four years since 1998. In 1996 we saw a Judges Act, the name or number of which I am not familiar with right now, but there have been four such bills. As we go through the bill, it is all about compensation. There are probably 10 or 15 pages on annuity scheduling.

The bill gives judges close to a 12% raise. In 1998 they had an 8.3% raise. The salaries of judges are indexed yearly. Could the member enlighten us a little more on remuneration? When we look at different sectors of criminal justice we see that in 1998 and prior the Royal Canadian Mounted Police had its wages frozen for five years. For five years the police forces had their wages frozen.

Then in March 1998 they were awarded a 3% increase, retroactive to January 1. In April they received another 1% and later on in October, three-quarters of 1%. Over the past six, seven and eight years, our police forces have seen marginal salary increases of up to 4% or 5%.

Are we seeing a higher level of concern or importance respecting the remuneration of higher levels of the public service? We have seen close to a 26% increase over the last few years when we factor in the indexing. I wonder if it is a higher level than other public sector employees are receiving. Why is it that the government seems to be paying such close attention to high level public servants when frontline police forces are seeing such nominal pay increases? Could the member enlighten us on that a little?

[Modernization Of House Of Commons Procedure, March 21st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question. I honestly knew that that one was coming.

I believe that when we have policy that it is policy we stand on in the good times and in the bad times. It is policy of which we can be proud. It is policy that brings what we would call, and what perhaps is not understood in the House, accountability to every to every member.

On this side we have a book that we like to term required reading. It is called On the Take . If the hon. member has not read it I would suggest he read it. It is excellent evening reading. In that book he will find countless examples in 1993 and before 1993. It reminds me of Erik Nielsen and his many concerns with the old Progressive Conservative times. He absolutely felt betrayed. He felt that those people should step down and move aside.

We had another former leader from that party who got himself into some difficulty. I think he spoke to a judge at the time. There are examples on every side of the House. It would bring accountability back to this place. All parties need it.

I am quite proud of our referendum that the member was referring to. In areas of contentious debate, where issues have been brought forward, far too often we watched the Liberal government members stand up like puppets, look at their the Prime Minister and vote the way the he told them to vote. The people back home said that was not the reason that they sent their member to Ottawa. They sent the member to Ottawa to represent them.

There were people in the back rows on the government side with tears in their eyes who they voted for the gun law when they knew that their constituents were against it.

We have seen this so many countless times on all sides of the House. It is time we look at a policy that would bring accountability back to each member. I am proud to stand here and say that this party believes in accountability. We believe in recall. We look forward to parliamentary reform with some substance and not the meandering kind that we have seen brought forward here tonight.

[Modernization Of House Of Commons Procedure, March 21st, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in favour of parliamentary and democratic reform. It is not the first time in the past six months that we have spoken to parliamentary reform. We have spoken about it a lot.

In the last general election we probably held close to 25 or 30 forums and public meetings where we spoke about issues such as agriculture, fiscal responsibility and judicial reform. More than anything else we spoke about parliamentary reform.

We spoke about the need to see certain reforms in the Senate. We want to see an equal Senate. We want to see a Senate that is effective and is elected. We talked a great deal about that in the constituency of Crowfoot. We spoke about free votes. The member for Yellowhead so eloquently this evening showed us the need for free votes. I agree with his words. We spoke about referenda, about recall and about citizen initiatives. All these things are fundamental to the parliamentary reform we would like to see.

Tonight we come to the House to discuss parliamentary reform. We are talking about different minor things that can change in certain technical aspects of bringing bills forward. They are probably things that are very important. We are talking about using notes or not using notes. In the past two months I have been here I have heard a lot of people give speeches where they should have used notes.

However, I want to speak about parliamentary reform. There is a country that understands parliamentary reform, a country with a population of less than seven million, with very few natural resources. It has a harsh climate and 25% of its land mass is covered by mountains. It has four official languages, many ethnic subgroups, and large regional economic disparities.

One would think such a country would be riddled with economic and social strife, division and troubles, but nothing could be further from the truth. The country has had the highest standard of living of any other country over the last 50 years. Never has the country experienced more than 1.5% unemployment. Inflation is never higher than 4% and interest rates are always close to 6%. It has an extensive high quality health care, an excellent education system, generous social services which I might add are truly for the needy, and a social service program that looks after those who are handicapped and in need. The country has a world class transportation system.

In proportion to population the country has the smallest civil service in Europe, the lowest tax rates and the smallest national budget. Why does the country enjoy such economic and social success? It is because Switzerland has a recipe for success. The ingredient for success is called true democracy.

The Swiss truly have government of the people, by the people and for the people. Power is literally in the hands of the people, a concept that for far too long has escaped the imagination of those who sit in power here and run this country.

We in Canada have government of the politicians, by the politicians and for the politicians. It is time for change. We in Canada have top down rule. The tendency of this and previous governments has been to increase their own power by employing closed door policies. Only an exclusive few, the cabinet, the executive of government and those influenced by special interest groups and lobby groups, are the ones that come together to decide policies and programs in Canada.

Canadian citizens have effectively been excluded from participating in a forum that decides how their daily lives will be conducted and affected. Effective communication between citizens and their elected representatives has been cut off. Politicians are no longer accountable to the electorate on a day by day basis. Rather than thinking of gaining public confidence through listening and accommodating public concerns, elected officials have spent their time selling their government programs and legislation to the people.

We have seen that in the last week. We have seen farm groups and agricultural people who have come together to say that the programs the government has put forward are insufficient. The response of the government is to come out with hundreds of thousand dollar advertising campaigns selling their programs back to the people of Canada.

Rather than representing their constituents in Ottawa, our federally elected officials are representing Ottawa back home to their constituencies. My colleagues on this side of the House and I are committed to changing this sad fact.

We talked about throughout the last general election. We are committed to changing the autocratic means of decision making by restoring power to the rightful owners, the people. Individuals on the other side of the House are chuckling at the novel idea that we would actually give people power in terms of programs and representation.

Since my colleague speaking before me provided many recommendations on modernizing and improving the procedures of the House for the special committee to consider, I would like to briefly speak about an Alliance recommendation for improving democracy and it is recall. Recall, a procedure that allows the voters to call their representatives to account before the end of their term, is but one step in many to putting power back into the hands of the people.

I do not know of any other job in Canada that will not allow the removal of a person from the job for improper conduct or for not doing his or her job, except for the positions occupied by politicians. We on this side of the House believe the people of Canada should have the right to fire the people that they have hired.

As it stands now, elected officials cannot be fired by the very people who hired them, except at election time. This leaves the impression that politicians are above the rules and the regulations that govern the average Canadian worker. Allowing an elected official immunity for misconduct or incompetence is an absurdity that is added to the current level of political apathy as witnessed in the last federal election when only 51% of the electorate decided it was really worth coming out to vote. Author William Mishler says:

Political attitudes and behaviour are learned. The political apathy and inactivity characteristic of large segments of the Canadian public are not intrinsic to man's basic nature. They are neither inevitable nor immutable. The decision to participate in or abstain from politics is to a substantial degree a conditioned response to the political environment.

Our political system has bred the attitude that the government does not care what the people think or what the people want. Those elected to parliament have lost touch with the people. The political environment has produced a nation of cynics who hold politicians in contempt. Recall would force elected representatives to open the doors of communication with their constituents, thereby enhancing the dialogue between them, a dialogue that lies at the core of the representative process. Recall would also help restore mutual respect between the electorate and the politicians. It would put in place the cheques and balances to remove the monopoly of power held by parliament.

Representatives would be forced to vote on legislation according to the wishes of their constituents not according to party line. We saw some of that on legislation that was been highly contentious, such as same sex benefits and firearm laws.

The Swiss know that if democracy is to be meaningful, it has to be a bottom-up system of popular or grassroots government. The Swiss have had a system of initiative, referendum and recall since 1874. The value of this process is seen in the prosperity of the country.

The official opposition encourages the use of national referendums to give Canadians the opportunity to voice their opinions on issues of a moral or contentious nature. If all members of the House believed in democracy, if they truly believed that the majority ruled in this country, they too would support the use of national referendums. They would support the establishment of a special house committee, as recommended today.

We need to move forward in the House of Commons. We need to move forward in a positive way, where the people would feel that they had better representation, that when they sent their member to Ottawa or to parliament he or she would speak their wishes. We can do that through taking a very comprehensive look at what parliamentary reform means. I suggest that we have heard far too much of what it does not mean. It is time to look at changing a system that is sadly in need of repair.