Are widely-signed statements of grievance the key to concrete action?
Illustration via Britannica.com.
Petitions have become a popular tool for civic engagement, allowing Canadians to voice their opinions on issues ranging from political accountability to social justice efforts. In the digital age, petitions have the possibility to go viral and acquire nationwide support. But do these petitions actually lead to legislative action, or are they simply symbolic gestures that fade into obscurity?
Petitioning is actually a centuries-old tradition which started in the British Empire in the thirteenth century. The first medieval petitions were written to the Crown in order to put forth the grievances of the people. Although there have been multiple changes in how petitions operate, for example the transition from “grievances” to requests for law amendments, petitions have long been a part of Canadian politics.
Today, parliamentary petitions in Canada must meet specific criteria subject to government consideration. According to the Clerk of Petitions at the House of Commons, the petition must clearly identify the addressee (the House of Commons or the government), the petitioner (who is making the petition), a statement of grievance, and finally, the signatures and addresses of the petitioners.
On top of that, the petition must address matters under the authority of the House of Commons or the federal government, and the subject line should not violate sub judice convention — which legally restricts the publication of statements that could influence court proceedings.
An electronic petition must be certified with a minimum of 500 signatures, while paper petitions only need 25. Once certified, a member of parliament can present the petition to the House of Commons, triggering a 45-day period for the government to table an official response.
Some of the most recent viral e-petitions include e-5345 and e-5353, which call for Canada to refuse entry to the American President Trump, and for Canada to revoke Elon Musk’s Canadian citizenship, respectively. Member of Parliament Charlie Angus has moved both petitions forward — the first has over 60 000 signatures, and the second has over 370 000 signatures.
These petitions and others on independent platforms such as Change.org and Avaaz only allow citizens to rally public support for causes. Petitions, even those certified in the House of Commons, rarely lead to policy change — they merely ensure public awareness of an issue, since petitions certified by the House of Commons require a government response.
Many petitions that gain massive support fail to achieve meaningful outcomes. For example, e-petition e-4649, signed by over 286 000 people, called for the Canadian Prime Minister to “take the necessary measures to address the Israel–Palestine conflict.” The Minister of Foreign Affairs answered the petition with a statement, saying that “Canada remains committed to working with allies and partners toward a just and enduring peace in the form of a two-state solution, where Israelis and Palestinians can live securely within internationally recognized borders.” Even if a petition reaches decision-makers, there is no mechanism that forces them to act upon it.
Although petitions may not directly change laws, they can apply pressure on policymakers by bringing issues into public discourse. Some petitions, such as those advocating for human rights and environmental protections, have been able to contribute to legitimate policy change — for example, the Ecojustice petitions, which helped pass the Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act into law in 2021, and helped strengthen the federal Impact Assessment Act and new Fisheries Act in 2019. These petitions, according to Ecojustice, were effective because they had clear demand statements and targeted those who had the power to act on the demand.
Petitions are best used in conjunction with other advocacy strategies, such as direct engagement with Members of Parliament, media campaigns, and grassroots organizing. For example, the petitions by Ecojustice were also backed by sustained advocacy efforts, and media campaigns.
According to the House of Commons, “Petitions today may be described as a vehicle for political input, a way of attempting to influence policy-making and legislation and also, judging by their continued popularity, a valued means of bringing public concerns to the attention of Parliament.”
While they are not a platform that guarantees legislative reform, they can be a catalyst for advocacy efforts. Petitions might not rewrite laws alone, but they can help set the stage for meaningful change.
