Scott Reid

[Infrastructure, April 26th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to draw attention to the ongoing status of highway 7. This is the most direct route between Ottawa and Toronto. It is also the natural gateway for the explosive growth of Kanata into Lanark county.

Highway 7 should be a divided four lane highway. The province is seeking to expand this and other highways into four lanes. The mayor of Carleton Place has worked tirelessly for this expansion, but it is nearly impossible for a cash strapped province when the federal government will not contribute any revenues from the excise tax on petroleum. This tax is being paid by motorists who use highway 7. Why is the government—

[Canada Elections Act, April 26th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if unanimous consent was gained because hon. members realize I will have 10 minutes less to speak, but at any rate I am grateful to the other members present for giving their consent.

I want to start today by making a few general observations, by dealing with some philosophical points, by creating a larger framework, and then perhaps by delving a little into the details of the bill.

Our parliamentary system in Canada is derived partially from that of the United Kingdom and partially from that of the United States. This surprises some people who think it is entirely derived from the United Kingdom, but we have a written constitution like the Americans, a Senate with set membership like the Americans, and a charter of rights similar to the American bill of rights.

We can learn about the motivating spirit of our democracy by dipping into the writings of the great constitutionalists of both of the world's streams of democratic thought. From the British, for example, we can read Bagehot, Dicey, Acton and Sir Henry Maine. We can go back in history and read Blackstone. When it comes to the Americans we can look and learn from the writings of Madison, Jefferson, John Taylor of Caroline and of Alexis de Tocqueville.

I draw the attention of the House to a particular well known statement made by Thomas Jefferson. He made the observation once that the natural course of things is for liberty to give ground over time to tyranny. He then tried, through his great student Madison who was present at the constitutional convention in Philadelphia in 1789, to build institutions which would prevent that natural course of events from taking place.

I should point out that Canada's constitution was designed with exactly this purpose in mind, but unlike the Americans we had a wealth of experience upon which to draw. We had the British example and we drew upon that extensively and wisely.

The Fathers of Confederation also drew extensively upon the American example, so much so that A. V. Dicey, the great British constitutionalist, made the observation that although the preamble to the Canadian constitution, the British North America Act, talks of a constitution similar in spirit to that of the United Kingdom, the word kingdom could have been withdrawn and the word states put in its place and it would be equally true, according to Dicey. We could learn from both these examples and from what has been said by the great scholars of both these traditions.

Some of the protections in the American system for individual liberty and freedom that we built into our own system are federalism, being the most obvious and powerful example, and a Senate with a fixed membership and regional representation. Of course the British house of lords does not have a fixed membership and it does not have any form of regional representation built into it.

The dates for elections could not be postponed beyond five years. That was written into our constitution without very substantial consent within parliament itself, whereas in Britain parliament has always had the unilateral right to change the period between elections without notice. This was done in the 18th century when the period between elections was changed from the traditional level of three years to seven years which remained throughout the 19th century. It was then changed again to five years. In Canada the five year level was set.

These are all indications that we looked at the British model and saw much that was wise there, looked at the American model and saw much that was wise there, and together tried to integrate them to build truly profound protections for liberty to ensure that Canada would be the freest country in the world. To a large degree the Fathers of Confederation were successful.

We also gained, in our initial constitutional arrangement, certain benefits for liberty that were taken from the British model. I would like to cite some of those. Initially judicial review of our laws was placed in a non-resident institution, the house of lords and typically the judicial committee of the privy council. That was done to ensure that we could not have any kind of political control ultimately over rights. There was an institution that would protect us from that.

We were subjected originally to the colonial laws validity act which was designed to ensure that no law repugnant to the laws of Britain could be passed in Canada, or indeed in any of the other countries that in those days were characterized as British colonies, which would take away rights from individuals. That law was subsequently removed in 1931 by the statute of Westminster. Again, it is an indication of the number of protections that we thought were important for liberties and democracy in the country.

The most important protection in the eyes of our founders for liberty in the country was that we were a monarchy. We had a monarch chosen by the lottery of birth who, as Bagehot said, would bear the dignified portions of the government, whereas the efficient portions of governance would be carried out by the House of Commons and our Senate. This was seen as a way of ensuring a tremendous respect for liberty and a protection that would go beyond that which was available either in Britain or in the United States.

I take a bit of time to make the point that our tradition is one which is very respectful of democracy, of liberty and of the full right of participation for all Canadians regardless of their political views in the process on a level playing field. It seems to me that in recent years we have seen an erosion of some of these rights. That concerns me a great deal.

We have seen, for example, a persistent effort on the part of the current government to ensure that third party advertising is restricted as much as possible. This has been pursued with a tremendous amount of tenacity by the government in order to ensure that private parties are unable to participate in the electoral process and that competition is largely shut down.

We saw a refusal to implement legislation that would permit citizen initiation or review of legislation on the Swiss model. We saw the erosion of rights of members of parliament. We saw the extreme use in this place of votes of confidence. Everything is a confidence motion. That has had the effect of enforcing rigid party discipline and taking away the ability of members to speak their own minds freely in a way that would reflect the will of their constituents and of the Canadian people.

We also saw an absolute refusal of the government to make non-partisan appointments to the Senate or to recognize Senate elections. There was a very reluctant willingness on the part of the prior prime minister, Mr. Mulroney, to allow one elected senator from Alberta, the hon. Stan Waters, to take his seat as the voters had decided. Similar respect for the voters of Alberta has not been shown in its choice of Professor Ted Morton and of Bert Brown, who were fairly elected.

When we looked to the United States, which at one point had an appointed senate, we saw that the process of developing elected senates started when the state of Oregon elected its senators and the senate itself allowed them to sit. This led to a rapid spread of senate elections and eventually an amendment to its constitution. These are all valuable changes that would make the country more democratic. Preventing them from occurring keeps the country less democratic.

In addition to the prevention of an expansion of democracy, we see an actual clamp being put on free democratic expression and the ability of parties to compete on an equal playing field. This is what we see when we turn to the present piece of legislation and the ancestral pieces of legislation passed over the prior eight years by this government and the prior government.

There has been a systematic attempt to cut off the privileges of minor parties. If we go back to 1993, legislation was passed at that time which was clearly designed to make it impossible for two new parties, which at that point did not have substantial representation in this place, the Reform Party as it then was and the Bloc Quebecois to compete on a level playing field.

The legislation said, among other things, that if there were less than 50 candidates on the ballot the name of the party could not be placed on the ballot. The party could not issue tax receipts. The party could not have assets. Its assets would be forfeited immediately to the Receiver General for Canada and money could be spent only on activities that related to that forfeiture.

This did not of course have the intended impact which was to ensure that the Reform Party and the Bloc Quebecois could not contest an election on a level playing field or indeed on any terms at all because both parties were able to produce more than 50 members in that election. Even though the two parties for which this was intended managed to overcome the hurdle, the law remained in place and was clearly a pernicious law.

Let us consider an example. There are 75 seats in Quebec. The Bloc Quebecois naturally had more candidates than the minimum amount permitted under this legislation. However let us say there was a smaller region that wanted to put forward candidates to represent its interests, for example, a maritime rights movement. I remind the House that in the 1920s there was a maritimes rights movement which was very active and represented some very legitimate interests.

Let us say for the sake of argument that advocates of the maritime rights movement wanted to put forward candidates. There are not 50 seats in the maritime provinces, therefore they would deprived of the right to issue tax receipts, put their name on the ballot, to have assets and function in any way as a party. Yet that would be a legitimate interest.

There could be other regions of the country where the same thing could occur. I will return to this a little later, but it is interesting to note that right now the 50 candidate rule still remains law for certain provisions of the original law and has not been struck down by the courts. It is still impossible to issue tax receipts. This law does not deal with that.

No longer does a party has to forfeit its assets if it has less than 50 candidates. That is not because of anything this government has done. The original court ruling that dealt with the Figueroa case struck down that provision of the law and the government realized it was constitutionally indefensible chose not to appeal it. However it attempted to appeal the ruling that the name could go on the ballot with less than 50 candidates but it was struck down again. This time the court said a lower number had to be put into the law within six months.

The government waited until three days before the six month period and let an election go by which ensured parties could not function during that election under the new rules mandated by the court. It then puts forward an absolute minimum rule, which is applied in the minimal manner possible with the court's ruling, and allows 12 candidates as the standard for getting a name on the ballot. However it has done nothing else which the court has not forced it to do. That is clearly highly objectionable.

The minister spoke very eloquently in favour of the merits of using 12 as our number. An equally eloquent argument can be made in favour of two. However there seems to have been a consensus among small parties before the court case that 12 would be okay.

If that is such a good rule for putting names on the ballot, then why on earth is it not also acceptable to issue tax receipts, or having access to advertising that is set aside by the Canada Elections Act, and for all the other privileges? The only reason I can think of is that there is still an attempt to freeze out small parties. We have the parties which exist now but perhaps there are future problems that could arise for the government. I think the government wants to keep on ensuring that no one else can enter into this place. It wants to make it is impossible for other parties to get in.

I should point out that this is a pattern we see occurring elsewhere. It is a regrettable pattern. We are not unique in the world in having this.

I want to point out some of the dangers that can occur if we go too far down the road of trying to restrict the free right of small parties to contest elections on the same terms as the major parties.

Let us look at the United States for example. The tangle of election laws in the United States has ensured that incumbents in the house of representatives enjoy a 98% re-election rate. They are nominally the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. On some issues they differ but in many respects there are critics who say it is really one party, the incumbent party. When it comes to dealing with electoral law that is a fair statement to make.

The whole focus of American electoral law reform for the past 30 years has been to ensure that independent candidates cannot make it in. That is if a Republican is the incumbent in the seat it is hard for a Democrat to make it in and if a Democrat is the incumbent in the seat it is hard for a Republican to make it in. Therefore congress becomes a cozy little club in which there is a great deal of collegiality. It is a club in which democracy is not operating as it should, as Madison and Jefferson would have wanted it to operate. Both of men would have been absolutely appalled by this spectacle.

We can see how this works. From the point of view of a ruling party, the ideal is to have a permanent division of seats in which the smaller parties are ensured some representation and some privileges. However they never actually contest the ability of the dominant party to control at least half the house and therefore 100% of the legislation in the house. This is absolutely contrary to the beliefs of our founders, the Fathers of Confederation. This is a terrible shame.

While I do not think it is intention of the government to take us down the same road as the Americans, the danger is there. The government ought to reconsider very carefully what it is doing. We are well on our way down that road.

I do not think Canada wants to head in this direction. I would never impugn that kind of motive to anybody. The danger is a country could wind up with the kind of situation that existed in Poland in the mid part of this century, from the late 1940s to 1989, with the de facto one party rule.

There were three parties represented in the Polish Sejm, that is the Polish Diet or legislature. The three parties were the Polish United Workers Party or the Communist Party, then the United Peasant Party and the Democratic Party which were smaller parties that had a limited number of seats, no influence on legislation and served essentially to provide the illusion that there was a functioning multiparty democracy.

That is the extreme. I do not believe Canada is heading that far but that is the model we have to avoid. The government should be proactively saying what it can do to ensure that smaller parties have the right to contest elections on exactly equal and fair terms with the larger parties like the Canadian Alliance, the Liberal Party and the other parties represented here.

When we heard the testimony that was given at committee by the leaders of the Christian Heritage Party, the Communist Party and the Green Party, we heard tremendously eloquent and thoughtful people. They were presenting points of view that were not the same point of view that the minister nor I share. However they were profoundly intelligent points of view that deserved to be heard by the Canadian people on exact and equal terms.

If Canadians decide that they should put their trust in one of those parties, the parties should have the right to receive that trust. Those parties must have the right to present their case on exactly the same terms that those of us who are here today enjoy. Anything less is undemocratic, unfair and unacceptable to the spirit in which our constitution was crafted and to the spirit that is the heart of every Canadian, which is that this is a truly free, truly democratic, truly pluralist country in which every point of view is valid unless it is intolerant or hate filled. None of the people who represent those parties have that kind of sentiment or intolerance.

We need to set an example that shows that we are, as our founders intended us to be, the freest and most generous country in the world. Anything less is unacceptable and that makes this bill unacceptable. I urge every member of the House to consider those facts and to vote against the bill.

[Canada Elections Act, April 26th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I will be dividing my time with the hon. member for Surrey Central.

[Health, April 6th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, an outbreak of foot and mouth disease would shut down Canada's beef exports and that could cost the country billions of dollars.

The CFIA is only now developing a communications plan with Canadian travellers. It has failed to communicate its contingency plans to Canadian livestock producers. Good communications is one of the most valuable tools for keeping this disease out of Canada. It is crucial to contain foot and mouth disease if it arrives on our shores. Why has it taken the government so long to develop any communications plan?

[Health, April 6th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency tells us that it has put together a comprehensive plan to deal with an outbreak of foot and mouth disease in Canada. Unfortunately it has not advertised and circulated this plan to industry stakeholders. This means that municipalities, local veterinarians and farmers do not know how they fit into contingency plans to contain an outbreak.

Yesterday at committee the CFIA stated that its plan would be put on its website before the end of the day. It was still not available this morning. Why is the CFIA still failing to adequately inform all industry stakeholders about its responsibilities in the event of an outbreak?

[Canada Elections Act, April 5th, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to speak today in favour of the amendment put forward by my hon. colleague, the member for Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière.

The member suggests that the committee reviewing any possible electronic voting or voting changes would only seek consultation from the Senate and that the committee of the Senate would not exercise a veto over any proposed changes to the voting.

This is an excellent idea. A similar amendment, which I thought was a good idea, was proposed by members of the Bloc Quebecois in committee. I believe the suggestion was actually an improvement over what was suggested when the bill was being reviewed in committee because it allowed the committee of the Senate to actually provide some guidance.

We can benefit from the wisdom in the Senate. The Senate was originally understood to be, as we all know, a chamber of sober second thought. In fact, this might be sober first thought, as it were, but nonetheless a sober commentary, not an actual veto. I think that is a very profitable thing to do.

However, giving a veto over changes, which is the way the relevant section of the proposed law is currently worded, would give a committee of an unelected chamber actual control under the law of Canada over a part of the election law of the country. I think that is a precedent that has already been set, but it is a slippery slope down which we do not want to continue where unelected people have greater and greater control and those of us who are elected, and therefore those who elect us, are less and less in control of the political agenda. This is particularly true when we are speaking of the actual election law of the land, surely the most sacred of all our democratic institutions.

The suggestion I would make is that the Senate actually would have a valuable role and a Senate committee ought to have a veto over any election law changes if the Senate itself were elected. When the amendment came up at committee meetings, I raised the point that it would be very advantageous if in the future we were to allow for greater control from the Senate if it were ever elected. I know I differ from my colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois and the New Democrats in favouring an elected Senate as opposed to the abolition of it, but there is a valuable role a second elected chamber can play, particularly when it is elected on a different basis from the House of Commons.

Many countries around the world have an elected second chamber. I am thinking here for example of Switzerland, the United States, Australia and Germany which use different systems. We forget sometimes that prior to 1867 the united province of Canada did have an elected second chamber. Perhaps one of the greatest steps backward that occurred at the time of confederation, when so many other good measures were put forward and set in stone, was that we went from an elected to an unelected second chamber.

My colleagues from the Bloc Quebecois are particularly sensitive to the problems of having an unelected body practising a veto over the electoral law because of the fact that Quebec has not that long ago had the experience of having its own unelected second chamber. It was only in the 1960s that a constitutional amendment was passed removing that unelected second chamber in Quebec.

I recently had the experience of going through an old issue of a magazine, I think it was the French version of MacLeans published around 1965, which listed all the then incumbents in Quebec's second chamber. It included the dates members were appointed and their ages. One member on that list had been born in the 1870s, a man practically as old as confederation itself. This was an unelected member sitting in that chamber and serving out his time. As it turned out, he was a very long lived gentleman who had been appointed back in antediluvian times and continued to serve as a member of that chamber. I have no idea of his attendance record or of his mental state but he continued to function and, along with a small group of colleagues, to have the ability to block all the laws of the province of Quebec.

In fact that upper house sometimes did block laws when its own privileges were being attacked. It was very concerned about its own privileges. I do not think we want to see that kind of power, which already exists to some degree in the Senate, in Canada. We do not want to see that kind of power being used by committees over business that relates purely and entirely to this Chamber.

It is very important that we have that distinction as long as this is the only democratic Chamber in the country. As long as the country does not have any form of referendum law, citizen initiative, recall law or any of the basic accoutrements of a democratic society, as found in the more democratic societies of the world, then surely we do not need unelected bodies having direct control over changes that would make this place more democratic and the manner in which members are elected to this Chamber more democratic.

I want to briefly refer to the concept of electronic voting and other types of voting that was suggested in the original text of the bill. That is actually a very valuable provision. We should be considering the possibility of electronic voting for citizens.

When I was seeking election there were a number of people unable to cast ballots because they were ill, incapacitated or out of the country. Proxy voting allows to some extent for this problem to be dealt with, but it is an awkward system. It is possible that it could be improved upon. I know all members would want to see any improvement in access to voting for Canadian citizens to go forward. The idea of having some provision that permits for the potential for electronic voting for Canadians is something that should be encouraged.

[Income Tax Act, April 4th, 2001]

Madam Speaker, I am rising to follow up on a question that I asked on March 14 which dealt with the ongoing existing crisis in Canadian agriculture.

Today I want to turn to an incipient crisis, a crisis that all Canadians and parliamentarians of all stripes want to avoid and to prevent by any means available to us. I am speaking of the potential for the foot and mouth outbreak in Europe to spread to this country. The risk from foot and mouth disease can scarcely be overstated. The economic impact the disease could have if it were to spread to Canada can scarcely be overrated.

Just looking at the province of Ontario 1996 production figures, we see that 24% of all farms in Ontario were beef farms and that 14% were dairy farms. Looking at my own riding of Lanark—Carleton, 60% of the farms in Lanark county, which make up about half the riding, were either beef or dairy. There were 130 dairy farms, 364 beef farms and 28 farms described as livestock combination and probably included one or the other.

In the part of my riding that has now been incorporated into the megacity of Ottawa, the township of West Carleton, a little over 50% of agricultural production is in beef or dairy. A disease that affects ruminants would have a tremendously damaging impact on my riding.

Looking at the 1952 outbreak in Saskatchewan of foot and mouth disease, which very fortunately hit only 42 farms before it was contained, caused $7 million of damage in today's dollars. However things have changed. The impact of this disease would be far more severe if it happened in Canada today because beef is such a prominent export for us. We could expect that borders would be shut for exports of Canadian beef.

Some countries, if faced with a foot and mouth outbreak, can continue to supply their domestic market, but in the case of Canada such an enormous amount of beef is exported that it is a crucial part of our industry. We would see tremendous damage done if there were to be an outbreak here. As a result I take this issue very seriously.

I attended the debate last night and listened with great interest to all speakers. I was involved last week in a press conference in which a number of Canadian Alliance MPs spoke to the issue. This week I am running ads in two newspapers in my riding on the subject to advise farmers of some of the things they can do. This includes alerting them to the government website that deals with taking preventive measures on their farms.

What I see being done is excellent in terms of slurry mats at airports, the turning back of British military vehicles and so on. However I am very concerned with the consistency with which these measures are being applied. We hear reports that they are not applied across the board. That worries me greatly as I know it does all members.

What is being done to ensure consistency of the application of these measures? Moreover, what is being done to ensure that information on measures individuals can take is being disseminated to Canadians?

[Bélanger-Campeau Commission, March 23rd, 2001]

Madam Speaker, first, I would like to say a few words about the Clarity Act.

The question of the clear majority was mentioned by the hon. parliamentary secretary. That provision of the law, it deserves to be said here, is very unclear. It is important to point that out because the law is often presented as a model of clarity. However that part of the law does not specify what a clear majority would be. It only says that we would hold hearings after a referendum has occurred and after 50% has been achieved in deciding whether a majority has been clear.

When I was a private citizen about this time last year, I came as an expert witness before the committee looking at Bill C-20. I made this observation and suggested that provision of the law be changed. I regret that my advice was not taken.

I suggest, however, that what the government has done is given more credibility to the 50% plus one model while taking away from that sense of validity. The government has, therefore, in passing this law, perhaps achieved the opposite of its objective.

I will also read the motion we are debating today, because I want to make a point with regard to it:

The motion reads as follows:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should recognize the conclusion of the Bélanger-Campeau Commission, which proposed, in 1991, that the National Assembly of Quebec adopt legislation on holding a referendum and the offer of a new partnership, and that no federal legislation or regulations should be incompatible with achieving this conclusion.

That is not quite historically accurate. The last part of the motion which follows the last comma does not accurately reflect what was said by the Bélanger-Campeau commission in its report.

The Bélanger-Campeau commission made four pages of recommendations. The four pages were primarily in the form of a proposed law to be put before the National Assembly of Quebec. Part of the proposed law, which was adopted by the national assembly, called for the establishment of a parliamentary commission of the national assembly for the review of an offer.

I can find nothing in the recommendations that suggests no federal law or regulation ought to be adopted contrary to those recommendations or contrary to the offer to be made. We ought to be clear that we are not debating an historically accurate motion today.

The hon. parliamentary secretary had a good point when he said that the real function of the motion was to suggest that the clarity act was illegitimate. It is an awkward way of approaching it. If I were to regard it as illegitimate, I would attack some of the contents of the act, such as the part to which I just made reference. I find other parts of the act to be quite valuable, particularly the requirement that a clear question be asked.

The subtext of the motion makes reference to or hints at a proposal put forward by Jean-François Lisée in his book Sortie de Secours . He proposed to put forward one part of the supreme court's decision in its reference, Renvoi relatif à la sécession du Québec, and I will read the section:

A clear majority vote in Quebec on a clear question in favour of secession would confer democratic legitimacy on the secession initiative which all of the other participants in Confederation would have to recognize.

This has been read by Mr. Lisée as meaning that not only could a proposal on secession put forward and voted upon by the people of Quebec be taken to the Government of Canada as grounds for mandatory good faith negotiations, but so too could a proposal for some form of new partnership.

It is an interesting reading of the court's reference and not one the court intended. The court is always happy to make readings of the constitution that bear no resemblance to the meaning put there by the original writers of the constitution, so perhaps fair is fair.

It seems Mr. Lisée's intention is to have a referendum question on a new partnership put before the people of Quebec, one that would seem reasonable to the people of Quebec but would be worded in such a way that it would not appear reasonable to people in the rest of the country. It would create some form of negotiations that would be impossible to resolve, much like the negotiations that took place during the Meech-Charlottetown period in our history. This would cause the kind of crisis that the Parti Quebecois government is having so much trouble generating on its own, no matter how many comments about red rags are made by the premier of Quebec.

We must be aware that the subtext is in the motion. If it were a votable motion, we would have good grounds to vote against it and to reject its proposals. I also want to make reference to the fact that there is something legitimate in what is being said.

I will turn to another group that is proposing changes to the Canadian constitution. I am referring to the group led by Stephen Harper, Ken Boessenkool, Tom Flanagan and others known as the Alberta 6. In its open letter to Ralph Klein about two months ago, it proposed that Alberta:

Use Section 88 of the Supreme Court's decision on the Quebec Secession Reference to force Senate reform back on the national agenda. Our reading of that decision is that the federal government and other provinces must seriously consider our proposal for constitutional reform endorsed by “a clear majority on a clear question” in a provincial referendum.

Referring directly to the premier, the group said:

You acted decisively once before to hold a senatorial election. Now is time to drive the issue further.

It is saying that provinces need to have some sort of means to force on to the national agenda issues which are currently only on the provincial agenda but which are legitimate. That is a legitimate point they are making.

That point would be equally legitimate in the case of the concerns of Quebecers. Their concerns are unable to make it on to the national agenda, largely because they get tangled up in the whole question of separation versus remaining in Canada, and the partisan divide that exists in Quebec, as it does everywhere, because of our highly partisan political structure.

Referendums do break through that. We saw that demonstrated brilliantly when we in fact had a crisis in the country. It looked as if the crisis would drive the country apart. A referendum was held nationwide in October 1992, largely because of the Bélanger-Campeau commission recommendations.

Canadians realized that it was a great deal more complex than they had thought it was. The issue was not simply a matter of those rotten separatists, those rotten people in Ottawa or in the rest of the country who would not listen to us and give legitimacy to our positions.

We realized that the constitutional proposals offered were in a vast unworkable package deal. A majority of Quebecers voted against those proposals, as did a majority of people in a number of the other provinces. The issue itself faded away and the unity crisis that could have broken up the country also passed.

It is my own reading of that time. I was an active participant on the no side in that referendum. We were in greater danger as a country in 1992 than we were three years later in 1995 when the provincial referendum in Quebec was held.

While I am a supporter of direct democracy, I am probably the strongest supporter of direct democracy in the House, with the possible exception of my hon. colleague from Vancouver Island North. Nevertheless, I have some reservations about this sort of back door method of introducing the concept of direct democracy, and of putting regional concerns through a referendum on to the national stage.

I would suggest reasons for this kind of reservation by way of reference to one of the great constitutional thinkers in the British parliamentary tradition. I am referring to Albert Venn Dicey who wrote the brilliant work Law of the Constitution in the 1880s. It was then updated until his death in 1915.

He talked about the role of referendum and plebiscite in the British parliamentary system and whether it was compatible with the system. He suggested that the plebiscite, as practised in France, was incompatible with it. This is the kind of referendum we are talking about here. What he meant by plebiscite was: initiated by government usually on some vague proposal as opposed to specific legislation such as an order to negotiate.

By contrast, he suggested the Swiss model of citizen initiated referendum on a specific legislative means. That would be the most productive way of achieving the kind of goals that might unite us all, including my hon. colleague who suggested the motion.

[Figure Skating, March 22nd, 2001]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday in Vancouver, Jamie Salé and David Pelletier were crowned world pairs figure skating champions.

This inspiring example of perseverance and determination shows what a fellow from Quebec and a girl from Red Deer, Alberta, can accomplish when they decide to work together.

I have but one comment: Congratulations.

Indeed last night the figure skating duo of Salé and Pelletier beat the Russian and Chinese teams to become the world figure skating champions.

They showed Canada and the world what great things can be accomplished when people from Quebec and people from Red Deer, Alberta, get together and work hard toward their goals.

I congratulate them in the name of all Canadians and tell them that they have done well and we are proud of them.

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member talked about how this place is very democratic and how he worries that, and I believe these are his words, there would be anarchy if we did not have the status quo. I may be wrong but that is my understanding of what he said.

I will make a few observations about this place and then talk about some other places that do not have the kind of party discipline that exists here.

To date I have seen very few occasions on which members on any side of the House, and that would include Liberal and opposition sides, have not voted the will of their party. There have been very few. It is our understanding that there was pressure applied yesterday to a member on the opposite side to make sure he voted with the government, because he has voted against the government too often and it has become an embarrassment. We all know there are tremendous pressures put on members by the party whips. I wonder how that can be described as democratic.

When we had a system of open votes in Canada there was tremendous pressure on people to vote with the governing party. Sometimes people were paid by being given alcohol. That is why liquor sales were prohibited on voting day. It was the first attempt to deal with the problem. The secret ballot was introduced, but methods were found to ensure voters would still reveal their ballot.

Someone might have been given a ballot by one of the parties as he or she went into the poll. The pre-marked ballot would be handed in and the ballot that had been issued upon entering the poll would be returned to the party operative waiting outside. A bottle of liquor would be given as a reward.

Counterfoils such as numbered ballot sheets and so on were developed to promote genuine democracy by creating a system of fairness and secrecy. That seems far superior to what we have here.

Literally thousands of other legislative bodies in the country do not have party discipline or parties, and there is no anarchy there at all. I am thinking of our municipal governments. I fail to see any anarchy there.

Looking at the 10 municipal governments plus a county council that exist in my own riding of Lanark—Carleton, I see that they are far more efficient, collegial, effective and frugal bodies than is this place and this government.

I look as well at the governments in two of our territories, which are run not on a partisan basis but on a collegial basis. That seems superior to the method in which the House is run. When I look at Britain's parliament in the 19th century, the golden age of parliament, although there was a party system it was in fact a very loose system.

I wonder if the hon. member would agree that perhaps there are alternative models that are superior to this one and that perhaps our model is not quite the paradise he has painted it as being.