Mr. Paul Szabo

Mr. Speaker, the members in this place generally--

Order. I would very much appreciate being able to listen to the hon. member. The hon. member for Mississauga--South.

Mr. Paul Szabo

Mr. Speaker, I also want to raise the issue of recall. The same arguments that we have with this bill relate to the debate on recall. That idea has been floated from time to time with the electorate. Provincially, it has exercised that kind of proposition.

When I suggest the vast majority of members do not have more than half the support from their own ridings, a day after the election people can start a petition. They can say that now they know the results of the election, they think they would do better if someone else was in there, so they come up with a petition and go through this process. That would be an abuse of the opportunity. There has to be more to it.

We also have in Canada rights and laws to which all people are entitled. Let us say that someone is in a particular caucus. I would think that not every issue to come up in a subsequent parliament would be dealt with in the platform of a party or in the policy of a particular party. Things happen. What happens if a significant item comes up such as missile defence? I do not think anyone had that in their last platform. If members felt very strongly about missile defence, could not support the positions of their parties and decided they want to make a change, why should they not exercise their right to have an opinion, their right to vote and their right to take action? It is not an indictment of their disregarding or disrespecting the electorate.

We have hundreds and hundreds of votes every Parliament. I am pretty sure that members do not consult with their constituents on each and every vote. Therefore, why do we rely mostly on the argument that we have to communicate the constituents' concerns? If less than 25% have a plurality of over 50% in the riding, if we cannot possibly communicate with our constituents, it is incumbent on members of Parliament to know their ridings, to know their people and to use their best judgment in an informed and professional way. If they make a vote or a move that in their best judgment does not seem to sit well with someone else, they should have an opportunity to go to their people and explain themselves.

I think we all have had that responsibility where we have voted on a particular item. I know many members of this place had numerous communications with regard to issues like civil marriage, income trusts, missile defence, the war in Iraq. How could we possibly go to our constituents on each and every one of these items?

I can look around this place and see many members of Parliament, notwithstanding their own party's position, who have taken a specific position. We can look at the voting record and see how many members have not followed the party position. Why? Is it because they do not want to be part of the team? No. I think in the vast majority of cases what they really wanted to do was to say that they looked at the situation, they made their best judgment and they were prepared to be accountable for that decision. The accountability of a member of Parliament to make that decision has to be respected.

I am not sure whether we have a situation where all of a sudden if I disagree with something and I feel strongly about it, if I am prepared to be--

Without respecting your voters.

Order, please. The hon. member for Mississauga South.

Mr. Paul Szabo

Mr. Speaker, I take this to heart. I do not dismiss the arguments that have been made by members. It is a good debate. In this Parliament we have had a particular strategic crossing, which makes it all the more interesting, but the bill would not have changed the voting results in that regard. The members specifically involved in that one case will be accountable to their constituents when they go to the electorate, presumably very soon.

When people make decisions, we all have to be responsible for the consequences. We have to give credit to members. By and large, I do not know of any member who did not come here in good faith, wanting to leave a fingerprint somewhere, wanting to make a difference and wanting to serve their constituents. At least two-thirds of the work we do has to do with the needs of the people in our communities.

It is extremely important for us not to discount the value of the rights of members to make decisions and to be accountable for their actions in this place. Some members are a little more aggressive than others and heckle a lot in this place. Nobody really knows about that. It does not show up in transcripts nor on TV, but it is part of the process.

How many members have had constituents say to them that they act like a bunch of children? People base that on what they see during question period, when the media is sitting here, the public is watching and the principal participants questioning people are seeking the headline for the news story of the day. It is not reflective of the work that is done in this place, the important debate that takes place after question period or in committees.

Members of Parliament have to be respected for the decisions taken. We cannot strip members of Parliament of the opportunity to make what they believe is an informed decision. In this case, mandating something would be saying that someone would be locked into a party or otherwise are going to be told that they will be are going into an election 30 days hence. I am not sure that kind of a draconian move is in the best interest of Canadians, or the House or of the rights and privileges of members of Parliament.

Mr. Pierre Poilievre (Nepean—Carleton, CPC)

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today in support of a bill that I believe would restore some accountability around this place. I thank the hon. member across the way for having raised it.

When members of the House crosses the floor, I believe they break a contract, not with their political party but with their constituents. When a member of Parliament is elected to this place, he or she is elected with a party label, having made a commitment to serve with party's label attached to his or her name. Members of the public make their voting decision based on that commitment. Therefore, a contract is formed between the constituent and the member of Parliament.

As was the case for the member for Newmarket—Aurora, when a member crosses the floor, in particular to receive an inducement and be placed into cabinet and be given a promotion and a raise, that is an example of a broken contract with the constituents with whom that person was elected to represent. For example, in this case, the constituency elected a Conservative and it got a Liberal. That contract was broken with the constituents in Newmarket--Aurora.

I want to take this logic further. I have a private member's bill of my own before the House which would further tighten the bond between the constituents and the member of Parliament. It would allow constituents to fire a member of Parliament if that member of Parliament broke his or her word, lied, cheated or stole. It would be conducted through a petition system and would require that 50% of eligible voters sign the petition, in exchange for which the member of Parliament would have to resign his or her seat and the riding would reopen for a byelection.

It would be a very difficult process. We have 87,000 eligible voters in my constituency. That would mean one would need roughly 44,000 signatures on that petition, meaning the individual would have to have engaged in a massive violation of trust. But still, that resource should be there. Why? Because everyone else in the country has to be accountable for the job they do for their employer. All my constituents go to work in the morning and if they lie, cheat or steal, they are fired. For elected officials, it is four years. In what other field could an employee lie, cheat or steal and then be fired only four or five years later? Why should we in the House of Commons, the House of the common people, live above the basic norms and rules that other employees live up to in their work? We should not. We should live by the same guidelines as everyone else.

Let me give a few examples of how this would make a difference.

We have a government across the way that came into office making certain promises. One of them was to protect agriculture. Yet, we see, with the upcoming summit before us in Hong Kong, the World Trade Organization conference, that Financial Secretary Henry Tang of the Hong Kong government has announced his support for eliminating all forms of supply management. The government has not responded. Nor has it made clear what its position would be at that WTO summit in Hong Kong. That means dairy producers across the country, who may have been duped by Liberal promises in the last election, now have at this point no recourse to hold the Liberal government accountable for abandoning them.

The reality is my constituents, who are dairy producers, rely on supply management for their security and their prosperity. That is why our party passed into its policy book the following policy on supply management:

The Conservative Party of Canada believes it is in the best interest of Canada and Canadian agriculture that the industries under the protection of supply management remain viable. A Conservative government will support supply management and its goal to deliver a high quality product to consumers for a fair price with a reasonable return to the producer.

The government has not stated what its negotiating position will be going into these meetings. It is incumbent upon the agriculture minister and the trade minister to indicate clearly to this House and to all producers what they intend to do to uphold our system of supply management at those critical meetings. There has been nothing done so far. The producers are waiting and they have been given no assurances whatsoever.

This is a critical issue. Canada's dairy, poultry and egg farmers indicate that we in this country allow more imports of these supply managed products into Canada than the United States does. We also allow more of these products into Canada than the European Union permits.

Canada has already done its part to open its borders. It is now the responsibility of the United States, Europe and other countries, that are engaging in massive market distorting subsidies, to do their part. Yet, we do not see anything from this government advocating that position and defending Canada's national interest as it relates to agriculture.

For example, if we take the issue of child care. We have a Liberal government that claims it believes in human rights. Yet, the government is enacting a state controlled day care scheme that undermines basic human rights.

Mr. Peter Stoffer

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It is not for me to indulge in the member's conversation, but we are not talking about cows crossing the border. We are talking about MPs crossing the floor. I wonder if you could get the member of Parliament to come back.

The hon. member for Sackville—Eastern Shore knows very well that this is not a point of order.

I have full confidence that the hon. member for Nepean—Carleton knows exactly what we are talking about here this morning. I will let him continue.

Mr. Pierre Poilievre

Mr. Speaker, frankly, I am shocked that the member over there would stand in this House and object to my use of this occasion to speak out in defence of our farmers. I cannot believe that he would take occasion to stand up and speak out against our farmers. Farmers more than anyone deserve accountability in this country. If we are to debate accountability, we ought to take their interests into account as well. I am proud to have done that.

As I was saying, there is another issue. There is the child care issue. The government stands in this House and puts forward a policy that discriminates against the vast majority of parents and children in invoking what will amount to a $10 billion a year state controlled day care bureaucracy. It will not provide any support to stay at home parents, private day cares, home day cares, or religious based day cares. It is an act of discrimination that will be condemned by the United Nations. That is not accountable.

Today, I am proud to have spoken out in favour of some remedies, including support for the member's bill, including a recall of members of Parliament who break their word, and instruments that will protect accountability and restore integrity to our democratic process.

The member moving the motion has a five minute right of reply to conclude the debate. The hon. member for Sackville—Eastern Shore.

Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore, NDP)

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank every member of Parliament who spoke either against or for the bill. I want to give a special thanks to my great colleague and former leader of our party, the member for Ottawa Centre, for his speech on the bill.

His entire parliamentary and political life has been devoted to change this place, to make it more accountable to the people of Canada, so that they can vote in confidence and have faith in their members of Parliament, not just at a federal level but also at a provincial, municipal and school board level. Politics do matter. Ethics matter and the member for Ottawa Centre is a shining light in that regard, so I thank him for that.

However, my hon. colleague from the Liberal Party talked about taking away opportunity. I am trying to take away the opportunity to be an opportunist. That is what I am trying to stop. The member from the other side is very disingenuous to talk about farmers. I remember two years ago when the Conservatives did not even believe in supply management, but the NDP have firmly been behind supply management. However, that is another topic.

We are elected in the House of Commons as members of Parliament of particular political parties. Some of us are elected as independents. If we wish to change that status and go to another political party, I believe we should go back to the constituents and ask them to vote us in, in that other political party, or sit as an independent until the election and then make a choice.

We have had examples of people who have done that. The member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca could not live with the new Conservative Party. He sat as an independent, made his intentions known and did exactly that. We have other members of Parliament who have not done that. My hon. colleague from Winnipeg—Transcona said very clearly, this is not the no tell motel. We do not check in under an assumed name. We have accountability to our constituents.

This is not about one individual who crossed the floor. Members of Parliament from the NDP have crossed the floor and we have accepted that. However, it is time to change that, to end cynicism in this country, and to bring ourselves and our accountability back to the constituents.

If the Prime Minister honestly believes in democratic renewal, if the Conservative Party of Canada honestly believes in democratic renewal, and if my colleagues in the Bloc Québécois believe in being accountable to our constituents, then it should be a unanimous vote in the House on Wednesday. Unfortunately, I do not think that is going to happen.

Mark my words, the Canadian people will not forget. We are held to our word and to our vote. This is a very simple vote. It is not that complicated. Do we want to be accountable to our constituents, yes or no?

It being 12:04, the time provided for debate has expired.

Accordingly, the question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Agreed.

No.

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

Yea.

All those opposed will please say nay.

Nay.

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen: