Recall and Direct Democracy

Remarks by Hon. David Kilgour, MP for Edmonton Southeast

Ontario Provincial High School Debate Tournament

Room 209 West Block, House of Commons, Ottawa

2 April 2004

Check against delivery

The subject we are debating, recall of elected officials, is one that I find interesting.  It gained much prominence this past winter when California Governor Gray Davis was recalled and subsequently replaced by actor Arnold Schwarzenegger, in a race that featured a myriad of interesting candidates. 

Are any of you from British Columbia?  It is the only Commonwealth jurisdiction to have recall legislation, which has been quite busy in recent years, particularly following the election of a new government in 2001.  There was even a campaign under way- "Recall them All"-- essentially, an attempt to unseat all 77 of the sitting Liberal MLA's. 

On dira bien ce que l'on voudra, mais l'idée d'un projet de loi sur la révocation des députés repose sur des principes importants, tels que la représentation démocratique, la volonté de la population et les responsabilités afférentes à l'exercice d'une charge publique.

At the heart of recall legislation is the assumption that politicians are the true equals of those who elected them in the first place.  Accordingly, the argument goes, mechanisms should be enacted to ensure that voters maintain the right to "un-elect" a politician part way through their mandate if he or she does something illegal, unethical or inappropriate.  Like so many things in life, recall legislation is far more complex than it seems.  I'd like to briefly outline some of the pros and cons that come to light in most discussions of this topic.

Recall Legislation: the democratic tool of the people

Many of those in favour of recall legislation point to its role in the bigger issue of direct democracy.  Along with initiatives like fixed election dates and voter-initiated referenda, recall legislation is an attempt to give ordinary citizens more power.  Essentially, the simple act of voting every four or five years is not enough of a mechanism for genuine citizen engagement-citizens deserve better tools in order to hold politicians accountable.

Recall allows citizens to continue to hold their elected officials to account during the term of a parliament or provincial assembly without having to wait for an election call.  It allows constituencies to get rid of an unpopular politician at their discretion, as long as there is a substantial level of agreement.  By many accounts, a good politician should have nothing to fear from the implementation.  If he or she is doing their job in representing their constituents well, theoretically recall will never be initiated.  Those who support recall initiatives often point out that they succeed in making the system seem more transparent to the electorate, as well as shifting the balance of power between the electors and the elected.  

Democratic Deficit

Much has been said recently about the "democratic deficit" between members of Parliament and the electorate at large.  Voter turnout is down (59% in the 2000 national election), especially amongst young voters (only 25% of those aged 18-25 voted), and there is a growing sense of disconnect between citizens and MPs.  Many argue that initiatives like recall will do much to solve this problem.  Give people the tools to be a part of the process and they will care about becoming involved.  Allow for stronger accountability measures and citizens will be more inclined to trust politicians and have faith in the system.  In essence, advocates for recall emphasize the importance of strengthening the link between citizens and politicians, and ensuring that the will of the people remains supreme.

Ce n'est qu'un bref résumé des arguments invoqués par les partisans de la révocation. Qui donc pourrait s'opposer à l'idée d'accorder plus de pouvoir aux citoyens? Pour tenter de le savoir, revoyons quelques-uns des arguments présentés à l'encontre de la révocation.

Recall Legislation-time-consuming, costly and dominated by special interests

When considering the alternate viewpoint to this particular issue, I think it's fair to say that there are not many people who disagree with the theory of recall legislation as holding politicians to account is one of the cornerstones of our democracy.  The disagreements arise more from notions of practicality and implementation.  Recall efforts can be prohibitively expensive. 

The recent recall campaign in California was done at an estimated cost of between $53 and $66 million.  Even in British Columbia, a much smaller jurisdiction, recall efforts cost between $120-150,000.  This is taxpayer money that could be spent elsewhere.  Recall is also time-consuming.  In BC, where voters can initiate recall petitions on any sitting member (including cabinet ministers), nine petitions were initiated in a one-year period.  Each petition must be verified by hand, taking up time and resources.

More importantly, because of the first-past-the-post electoral system used both in Canada and the United States, recall can set up some interesting scenarios.  During the campaign in California, someone pointed out to me that Grey Davis would be recalled if 50% plus one of those voting opted to do so, but that his successor, running in a race with over 10 candidates, could feasibly be elected with only 10 or 20% of the votes cast.  One has to ask whether this truly represents the people's choice!

The tradition of strict party discipline in Canada makes recall difficult.  How can electors blame a specific policy on their particular member when it is likely a decision made by Cabinet or caucus as a whole?  Recall may well be an excellent tool to use to rid oneself of an incompetent, dishonest, unethical or irresponsible MP, but there will always be situations that can't be seen in stark black and white terms.  Perhaps an unpopular federal decision is made that affects a certain region of Canada-for example, the National Energy Policy in my home province of Alberta.  It is more than likely that regional MPs fought very hard in caucus to prevent the adoption of this policy. 

Should they be recalled simply for being outvoted by their party?  In order for recall to work effectively, we must differentiate between MPs caught in difficult decisions and MPs who are simply not up to the job.  An MP who is embroiled in a conflict of interest should quite possibly be recalled.  But what about one who can't stop a mine from closing in his or her hometown?  Or one who takes the fall for an unpopular government policy?  These are questions we should all consider.

Conclusion

I believe the best compromise is to provide recall legislation with a significant threshold, say a requirement that 40-50% of registered voters sign a petition, and regulations surrounding the extent of a recallable offence.  Recall legislation should attempt to balance the need for voters to be able to unseat an MP who has done something corrupt or dishonourable with a pragmatic and practical approach to ensuring the process is not used frivolously.

In closing, I want to thank you again for the invitation to speak with you all tonight.  As I mentioned earlier, voter turnout and participation among young people is at an all time low.  It gives me great encouragement and hope for the future to see you all here and to know that you are interested in politics and the debate of ideas.  I'm sure I'm surrounded by countless future lawyers, teachers, politicians and even Prime Ministers.  Best of luck to you all in the future and be sure to continue to ask questions, be curious and maintain your interest in politics and public life. 

Thank you.

 -30-