Procedure and House Affairs Committee on March 21st, 2017

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

Filomena, I believe you're one of the others. You do not need this as well. But that's not for me to coach you on how you plan to form your re-election strategy. All I'm suggesting to you from experience is that this would not be helpful. This will not be helpful. Think about that.

Also think about the fact that we don't have to be here. We can get out of this very simply, if you want to, by observing the tradition that has guided parliamentarians for centuries, and that is, let us all come together, sit down and discuss. What is the art of the possible? What would make Parliament a stronger, more modern, more efficient institution?

You've thrown out some examples, some of which I think I could be persuaded to accept. I would like to listen to some arguments. Some I disagree with, and I'd like to be able to debate those and present the arguments that I have as to why I believe this is a faulty way of thinking.

I started a few moments ago to talk about one of the proposed changes on providing answers to written questions, questions on the order paper, from 45 days firm to an upper limit of 65 days. All that does is it prevents the government from being accountable by 20 additional days. It is in itself an obstructionist tactic. For nine years while we were in government, I saw extensive questions, and we were always able to answer them within 45 days. In the extreme situation where a government is not able to respond in 45 days, there are provisions to ask for exemptions and extensions. You don't have to change the Standing Orders to gain 20 extra days, because all that would allow you to do is delay being accountable to the opposition and to Canadians by 20 additional days. We all know what happens if Parliament dissolves or adjourns and the response to a question has not been tabled in Parliament. It doesn't get tabled over the summertime or over the Christmas break. It can't be tabled until Parliament resumes.

There are many opportunities for the government by merely extending the ability to delay an answer for 20 days to delay it for several months. If there was a question that could have very severe and significant political problems for a government, say, on procurement or some other issue where the government would find itself to be politically vulnerable, having that extra 20 days is a big deal. That's why I feel that suggestion was made, not because the government would be better positioned to give a more fulsome and detailed answer, but simply because it gives the government more time to delay. I could not agree with that. I'd love to have that debate and provide evidence to suggest that your suggestion is wrong-headed, but I don't have that ability not just because of your reluctance, but because of your obstinance to agree to a tradition that has guided parliamentarians since Canada was formed as a nation, and that is, having unanimous consent when dealing with the rules of Parliament themselves.

I look at some of the items contained in your discussion paper. As Candice has pointed out, many of them do not require a change to the Standing Orders. We've talked extensively about the proposal to codify a prime minister's question period. Why do you need to codify it? He can do as he's done for the last couple of Wednesdays: just show up, stand up, and give such non-answers that frustrate the heck out of the opposition, but he at least is there.

You don't need to codify that. The consequence of that, as I mentioned earlier, would be—I will guarantee you—that the prime ministers of future governments would look at that and say, “Well, the requirement is that he shows up once a day, and that's all I'm going to do.” Any action has a reaction, and that is what the reaction would be.

As I point out once again for emphasis, if we were the government of the day and our prime minister only showed up once a day or once a week, you would be furious. When Prime Minister Harper showed up three days a week, you were furious. However, that's what you're attempting to do, or if not, that's the consequence of what you are attempting to do.

Think about that. Think about prorogation. Why do you have to codify that? Your suggestion is that any government that wishes to prorogue must give some justification for doing so. Well, everyone does that now in some fashion. Prorogation is not a dirty word. In fact, it's quite common both at the provincial level and at the federal level, and in fact, it can be quite useful.

In this government's life cycle, you're just about halfway through your four-year term. I fully expect, if he doesn't do it prior to the adjournment of this House, that over the course of the summer your Prime Minister will prorogue and delay the resumption of Parliament until probably sometime later in October. At that time, he will come back with a throne speech. He will hit the reset button. He will outline to Parliament and to Canadians your plans for the last half of your term.

That's natural. That's normal. I would take no issue with that whatsoever. But why do you have to entrench that? Once you do, the manner in which you present it could be abused by future governments and future prime ministers. It is not necessary; in fact, it is dangerous. I keep stressing that word, and I mean what I say. Many of these changes are dangerous to parliaments not just now, but in the future.

I find it interesting that you have a section on time allocation. I told you the history of time allocation: how it was first introduced by Pierre Trudeau, the great furor it caused, and how he had to enact closure to get the time allocation provision codified. That's something which, frankly, not only is worrisome, but also speaks to the fact that Pierre Trudeau's government, in its attempt to ensure it had all the benefits before it that it already had as a majority government, decided to change the rules to make it even more difficult for opposition members to express the problems they had with individual pieces of legislation.

What I find even more worrisome in your discussion paper is how you want to put time limitations on interventions at committee. As some have said before me, this filibuster is about your attempting to deny us the right to filibuster. That's what it is. You're trying to handicap and kneecap members of the opposition. Why? Because you don't find it convenient. You find it decidedly inconvenient that you might have to put up with the opposition denying you the ability to pass legislation in the time frame that you wish.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

[Inaudible—Editor]

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

That's a very apt way of putting it, David.

That is simply not acceptable, and it shouldn't be acceptable to any parliamentarian, regardless of political affiliation or political stripe.

Once again, I offer that if any member on the government side of the table can explain to me why not asking for unanimous consent, based on the historical perspectives, conventions, and traditions that we have seen, is a good thing to do, I would be more than willing to cede my time and listen with rapt attention. The only difficulty is that you won't be able to explain it, because there is no good reason. The reason is not good. The reason is that this will benefit you and only you. It will benefit only the Liberal Party. Even more basic than that, it will benefit Liberals, not just the Liberal Party.

Mr. Chair, I know that regardless of what I say, what my colleagues say, and how passionate and articulate our arguments may be, we will get no acceptance from the members opposite, and I don't expect any. I'm certainly not trying to persuade them to change their minds at this table. If there is a change of heart, that can only come from people with a slightly higher pay bracket than those of my colleagues on the opposite side, but I sincerely hope that we can get to that point.

As Mr. Christopherson said, perhaps during this two-week constituency time when all members are back in their ridings celebrating their religions—some celebrating Easter—and their time with their families and friends, and talking to constituents, the time away from this place will allow cooler heads to prevail.

I know, as I mentioned earlier, that our House leader has reached out on several occasions to the government House leader, but the frustration we have is the fact that those overtures have been not just rebuffed, they've been ignored.

I can tell you that it's not just members of the opposition who are feeling frustrated during question period when legitimate questions are answered with the same lame and banal talking points we have heard for the last month and a half, Canadians are getting very frustrated as well.

If you have a valid point, if your rationale is sound, there should be no difficulty to express that rationale on behalf of the government. There should be no difficulty to explain to Canadians why you're taking the position that you're taking, but you have not presented that position whatsoever. You have talking points: “We want to have a conversation. We want to have a discussion.” Well, we're having one now and it's going to go on for a while, but it's not a discussion as most Canadians would interpret it.

To Canadians, to your typical Canadian, a discussion is where both sides are heard and both sides can make arguments that are reasonable and rational, and it is hoped that at the end of a discussion there can be an agreement. It doesn't happen all the time. Obviously, it doesn't happen in Parliament much of the time. At times the best we can say is that we agree to disagree, but at least discussions are intended to have an intelligent discourse of ideas being transferred from one side to the other. That is not the case here.

It simply doesn't matter what we say, what we suggest, what we recommend. It doesn't matter what overtures we make. It doesn't matter if we are willing to compromise. The inflexibility of this government is astounding.

I honestly believe that if the government agreed to unanimity requirements on changes to the Standing Orders, some of the suggestions the government would make would probably be accepted by members of the opposition.

To the point made by my colleague Mr. Christopherson, I would like to think that we, as individual members of opposition parties, could make some useful suggestions that might be accepted by the government. I won't suggest that the Standing Orders should be considered a living document, but there have been multiple changes, numerous changes, over the years that benefit parliamentarians, that improve the operation of Parliament, and that increase the efficiency of Parliament, which the current government seems so fixated on, but they have always been done with all parliamentarians coming together and agreeing on them. It just stands to reason. Common sense alone dictates that if all parliamentarians agree upon a proposed course of action, it's probably the right course of action.

There will be times in the life of any majority government when the government feels compelled to use all of the procedural tactics at its avail to push through legislation, procedures such as time allocation and closure. I understand that. I was a part of a government that used them. I take no issue with those because that is the way Parliaments have operated for the last 70 years, but I do take exception and great umbrage to the current attempt to change the rules so dramatically and so profoundly that it would tilt the playing field, if we're using a sporting analogy, one way and one way only.

I do not profess to be the leading expert on procedure and parliamentary practice, but I know some stuff. I've learned a little bit over my nine years in that position.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I would say you qualify as an expert, actually.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

I can assure you that those far more learned than I would take great exception to what the government is attempting to do. We've given example upon example already this evening. Once again, I beseech you. If you want to do something meaningful about this so-called discussion paper debate during the two-week constituency break, seek out procedural experts, either in your riding, across your region, or across the country, and ask them their opinion. They are aware of what is happening right now; I can guarantee that. If you can find one acknowledged procedural expert in any jurisdiction in this country who believes what you are doing is proper, bring it back to this committee. But you will not be able to find even one, because what you are attempting to do is an affront to every parliamentarian not on the government side.

I mentioned in my intervention last night in Parliament that, if I had one thing to say to members of the government, through the Speaker, it would be simply, “Shame on you.” I've never said that before in my 14 years. Although I started as most parliamentarians do, as a highly partisan member who wanted to scrap with the members opposite at the drop of a hat, I have found that I have certainly become less partisan as the years have gone by. I find great satisfaction when I'm able to work with members opposite. I found that when I was a member of the government, and I find that now as a member of the opposition. There have been times when that has occurred. David and I have both experienced that. It is truly satisfying.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

It's stimulating. It's interesting, and it's positive.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

It is positive, David.

It's satisfying. It reaffirms my belief that what we do means something and that we are all working on behalf of Canadians.

As a bit of an aside, let me give you two quick examples of how your government and certain ministers in your government have shown to me that they know the difference between right and wrong.

On one occasion, I had a constituent who was in more than just a spot of difficulty. He had some big problems. He was a landed immigrant who had been in Canada for over 20 years. He came from Australia. For some reason—and he readily admitted it was through his own inattention or perhaps negligence—he never applied for citizenship or even permanent residency status. He and his wife had three young kids, all born in Canada. He married a Canadian girl and had three children. They had planned the trip of a lifetime, to go down to Disney World for two weeks. It just so happened that the renewal process was coming up and if he went down to the States he would not be able to come back to Canada. In fact, he would have to travel back to Australia and start the process all over again.

He was beside himself, so he came to me. I said, “Well, we're not in government, but I'll talk to the minister responsible”, who was John McCallum at the time. Luckily, I happened to catch him on a day when he was a minister in a committee of the whole taking answers, so he had his entire staff in the government lobby. I explained the situation. He said yes and handed me off to his parliamentary affairs person, or chief of staff, or someone. We got it done. My constituent was able to go down to the States with his family and not worry about being prevented from returning to Canada. To his immense credit, the minister made it happen.

Another example is with your current Minister of Veterans Affairs. One of my constituents, a veteran, was injured in Afghanistan. He injured his back. When he came back to Canada and the Veterans Affairs doctors examined him, they recognized the fact that his injury was of such a severity that he would have to go on pension—not full pension, partial pension. Over the years, his back condition got worse, but Veterans Affairs seemed unwilling to change the status of his pension. He had multiple doctors certificates, multiple X-rays, and proof that his condition had worsened significantly, but the doctors at VAC didn't want to change his status, so he was still on a partial pension when he really deserved a full pension, because he was unable to work and in extreme pain.

I went to Kent Hehr, the Minister of Veterans Affairs, and told him that I had a constituent in a case where I thought the constituent was getting screwed over. Immediately he said, “Go to my office, give my staff the information, and we'll see what we can do.” I did that. For two months nothing really happened. I was, of course, getting pressure from my constituent, who was in great pain and getting impatient. The bills were piling up because he couldn't work anymore.

I went to the minister once again after a couple of months. I knew that these things take time, but because I wanted to show him a willingness to work together, I said, “Minister, I'm going to ask you a question in question period today, and I'm going to come after you. Here is the question, so you can be prepared to give an answer. I don't want to sandbag you on this one, but I'm going to have to come after you on this. I have to make it public.”

He said he appreciated that, and he gave an answer. To his immense credit, less than a month later, my constituent's case was reviewed and he received a full pension. Trust me, he was one of the happiest individuals I'd ever seen, but nothing made me feel better than the fact that I was able to accomplish something in consultation with a minister who is not in my own party.

I got many things done when we were in government. I was able to get passports turned around in 24 hours. I was able to take care of some immigration problems. My most favourite memory was during a July 1 parade in my little hometown of Regina Beach. It's a small community but it's a resort town, so during the summer months the population explodes. The static population during the winter months, in other words, not cottage owners but permanent residents, is about 1,500 to 1,800. It gets up to around 20,000 or 25,000 people during the summer.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

That's a lot of people.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

It's a massive influx of people because it's a resort town and it's a great place to spend the summer.

On July 1, we have a huge parade in terms of people watching it. Our main street is only four blocks long. We have sometimes 80 to 90 floats in it, so, literally, the tail end is bumping into the front end as they go around the circuit.

On a July 1 parade day two or three years ago, my wife and I, as is our tradition, were in a golf cart with my signage on it, going down the main street, throwing out candy from side to side to the little kids, when all of a sudden halfway down the parade route this guy three deep jogs out onto the parade route towards my golf cart. Now, I'm thinking, what the hell's going on here? Is this guy going to come out and take a swing at me? What did I do to get this guy to the point where he had to rush out, which of course is not allowed, to confront me? Well, he didn't confront me in an angry way. He came up and said, and I quote, “Tom, I just wanted to shake your hand. You saved my life.”

He was a small business person who had been assessed by CRA for $67,000, which he didn't feel he owed. Had he been forced to pay it, it would have bankrupted him and his company. I and my staff went to bat. I spoke with our minister. Our staff talked to CRA officials. We got the $67,000 expunged. He didn't have to pay a nickel and he just wanted to let me know that I, in his opinion, saved his life.

Those are the moments, colleagues, that make me realize we have the best job in the world when we can enact that kind of positive change for people and we can help people to that extent. To be able to do so in collaboration with other members from different parties is something that goes beyond my limited ability to describe.

Again, some of my fondest memories as a parliamentarian are with my colleague Dave Christopherson. We will never agree on most anything when it comes to ideology—

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Hear, hear!

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

—or politics, but I respect the hell out of him. I recall when he got married. I think I might have been the only Conservative to send him an email of congratulations. I said that it was quite obvious the reason his wife married him was his quiet and gentle manner. But I enjoyed working with him.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

She was pregnant.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

But it's times like that when you really think that Parliament can work. Yes, by definition, we are in an adversarial position. That is the way parliaments work. But it does not mean that from time to time we cannot come together, agree on basic tenets of democracy, agree on things that we all know are right, to help individuals, to help constituents. In this case, the constituency is our own.

Once again I will say the government does not have the right to modernize Parliament. Parliament must modernize itself. We are our own constituents. For goodness' sake, if we do nothing else, let us respect that and let's deal with that in a manner that exhibits that respect.

Mr. Chair, with that brief closing, I see my colleague Mr. Genuis is here, who I know has many other words of wisdom. I will cede my time to the next speaker, and I thank you for your attention.

Thank you all.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Thank you, Mr. Lukiwski. It's great to have your experience of nine years on PROC.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

I have a feeling I'll be back, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

We wouldn't anyone not to have a chance to say something.

Mr. Genuis, welcome.

Before we start with our next speaker, could he just tell us how to pronounce his name?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Look, the government has been very clear on this issue, and I'll answer any questions the Ethics Commissioner has.

More seriously, Mr. Chair, thank you for giving me the floor. It's an honour to be back. I have to apologize to members of the committee for having to depart almost mid-sentence last time. There were many points that I had only started to make, and I know people were looking forward to my wrapping up those points the last time. I think I only talked for about 10 hours at that time, so now I have occasion to bring some of those points to a conclusion. The only reason I could not continue the next day was that I had an event I had committed to long in advance, an event at Queen's Park in Toronto. That's why I wasn't here. Since then, I've been trying to get back on the speakers list, but my colleagues have been hogging all the glory here, to quote Ajax from Troy. So now that I have the floor, they're not getting it back, whether they like it or not.

I think it's important to recognize that we have the opposition House leader here, and I really appreciate that. It shows the level of engagement that our caucus has with this issue in general. This is something that we are very much committed to in our party, namely, strengthening the role of individual members of Parliament. That's what this is about. It's not just about the balance that exists between parties. It's also about the role of individual members of Parliament.

I have to say, looking across the floor at some of the Liberals we have here at the committee, that we have some new members who are already very strong in their understanding of the importance of members of Parliament expressing some degree of individuality. I want to recognize Mr. May's excellent private member's bill. It was a private member's bill that he proposed, that all Conservatives voted for, and that passed as a result of the support of the opposition. I think New Democrats supported it as well. The cabinet did not support it, but he proposed it. Many members of the government supported it, and it went through to committee.

That's just an example of the importance of members of Parliament. We're engaged in this conversation around ensuring that there's unanimity of the parties in the study, which will proceed in order to ensure that we actually could protect the role of members of Parliament.

We need to understand that this is not just a fight for a particular party, not just a fight for the opposition. It's actually a fight that should matter to individual members of Parliament on the government side, members of Parliament who have good proposals that may not reflect what the government has in mind.

Our chair had an excellent private member's bill on FASD that I was very pleased to support. Actually, we had people on the front bench who opposed that bill, from both the government and the official opposition. Yet it almost passed because of the support of individual members of Parliament who were talking to each other, saying this was a good initiative, a good bill. Maybe there were some details that could be worked out at committee, but fundamentally it was a good bill.

One of the concerns I have with the government making unilateral changes to the Standing Orders...and by the way, if they don't like the direction that members of this committee want to take with respect to the study, they can pull you right off this committee and put somebody else on. That's something that permanent members of PROC know or should know. It's actually not up to you. The way our system works right now, who sits on this committee is entirely within the control of your whip. Even if individual members sitting here on the Liberal side think they could be reasonable and listen to what the opposition is saying, unless we pass this amendment, which deals with unanimity, unless we have this clarified in the language going forward, it's really only up to the government whip to decide the outcome. Any time the whip doesn't like the proposals or opinions from government members with respect to the Standing Orders, that's it. You can't actually express your individuality on the committee in the same way because of that constant threat. This is something that on the opposition side we're very aware of—the risks and problems.

I recognized Mr. May on his excellent private member's bill. I know Mr. Bittle voted in favour of Wynn's law, which was a great private member's bill that was brought to the House by Mr. Cooper. It was initially put forward in the Senate, but it was sponsored in the House by Mr. Cooper. There was a lot of advocacy that went on around that. The entire opposition supported that bill, and it was able to pass to the next stage because of a number of members of the government who realized it was a good bill and stood up to support it.

I can mention the genetic discrimination bill, on which I think almost the entire government backbench voted against certain government amendments that would have gutted the bill, and then in favour of the bill.

These are important moments in the life of this Parliament, when some individuals in particular, and especially on the genetic discrimination bill almost the entire government backbench, stood up. Sometimes it doesn't seem like the government backbench does, but in certain moments we do see this, an actual appreciation that, yes, good ideas do come from the opposition and also that as members of Parliament you have a critical role to represent your constituents, to advocate on behalf of your own considered judgment with respect to issues, and not to simply go along with the direction that you've been given from on high.

Changes to the Standing Orders that don't reflect the judgment of the entire House, that don't reflect the wisdom of all parties, put in jeopardy the position not just of the opposition, not just of the Conservative Party, but the position of individual members of the government. When we have these conversations as an opposition party, of course we're cognizant of the fact that, hopefully, we'll be in government one day soon. It's looking more and more like it will be after the next election, in light of some of the things that are happening. But whether that's after the next election or the one after that, the rights that we protect in this process will also protect those members of the government caucus, let's say, who are not, in the formal sense, part of the government.

These are important points that need to be made, and I hope that members of the government, even if they can't necessarily, for political reasons, come out and say in this committee, “All right, we agree with you; let's pass this amendment and move on”, hopefully they'll at least take this back to the government House leader, to their caucus, to their Prime Minister, and say, “We have an important role, too, in this place. This isn't just about being a backdrop for the Prime Minister. This is about representing our constituents in a constructive and meaningful way.”

This is a critical part of what we're engaged in. I invite government members to really reflect on that, to consider supporting this amendment as individuals, and to make the case back to their party. Not only would approving this amendment allow us to proceed in a constructive direction, but it would also be a way of actually preserving those rights that members of Parliament from all parties are supposed to have.

There's one thing I want to read into the record as we explore this question. This is from Discover Canada, which is the study guide for people who are looking to become citizens of Canada. It talks about the rights and responsibilities of citizenship. I think it's a great document. It talks about parliamentary democracy and what the principles that need to animate parliamentary democracy are.

I don't think this debate is about a possible end of democracy in Canada. I don't, but I do think that this debate is about the strength of our parliamentary institutions, and really, the ability of the government to move us away from our traditions of responsible parliamentary democracy towards a sort of reimagined quasi-presidential system in which we do have elections every four years, but effectively, in between elections all of the power is with one person, the prime minister. That's not what our system is supposed to have. Of course, presidential democracies around the world do have other kinds of checks and balances, but especially in a parliamentary democracy, where you don't have the same kinds of external checks and balances to that centre of power, it is important that you not allow that centre of power—the prime minister, the prime minister's office, and perhaps, by extension, the whip—to suck all the power in. You need to make sure that Parliament maintains its strength.

I'm not going to read the whole thing, but this is from page 28 of the citizenship guide where it talks about parliamentary democracy:

In Canada's parliamentary democracy, the people elect members to the House of Commons in Ottawa and to the provincial and territorial legislatures. These representatives are responsible for passing laws, approving and monitoring expenditures, and keeping the government accountable.

Right off the bat, we don't see discussion in this guide.... I think it's quite right in saying that members of the opposition are responsible for approving and monitoring expenditures, and keeping the government accountable. It actually says, “these representatives”, all members of Parliament, us as well as members on the other side of the table. We are responsible for doing all of these things, for passing laws, approving and monitoring expenditures, and keeping the government accountable.

Cabinet ministers are responsible to the elected representatives—

Hey, that's a thought.

Cabinet ministers are responsible to the elected representatives, which means they must retain the “confidence of the House” and have to resign if they are defeated in a non-confidence vote.

Maybe we need to have a footnote here that says this is how we want it to work. It goes on to say:

Parliament has three parts: the Sovereign (Queen or King), the Senate and the House of Commons. Provincial legislatures comprise the Lieutenant Governor and the elected Assembly. In the federal government, the Prime Minister selects the Cabinet ministers and is responsible for the operations and policy of the government.

The buck is supposed to stop there on decisions of the government. I'm ad libbing; that's not what it says. It doesn't use language that informal.

The House of Commons is the representative chamber, made up of members of Parliament elected by the people, traditionally every four years. Senators are appointed by the Governor General on the advice of the Prime Minister and serve until age 75. Both the House of Commons and the Senate consider and review bills (proposals for new laws). No bill can become law in Canada until it has been passed by both chambers and has received royal assent, granted by the Governor General on behalf of the Sovereign.

Living in a democracy, Canadian citizens have the right and the responsibility to participate in making decisions that affect them. It is important for Canadians aged 18 or more to participate in their democracy by voting in federal, provincial or territorial and municipal elections.

This is a pretty simple and straightforward but positive description of what a parliamentary democracy is.

Sometimes we need to pinch ourselves and remind ourselves of the kind of basic civics grounding on which we are supposed to be standing. It is one in which members of Parliament are elected by their constituents directly. In fact, it was only relatively recently that party names appeared on ballots at all. Before, yes, people had affiliations with political parties. Those political parties were very important in terms of support, but you still had to rise or fall within your own constituency purely on the basis of your own name. If people wanted to vote for the candidate of a particular political party, they had to at least know the name of that candidate in advance. This is the structure of our system, one in which members of Parliament have the—yes, I say relatively recently; it was before I was born. Lots of things happened before that.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Me too.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

I believe it was during the first Prime Minister Trudeau's government that the change was made in terms of having candidate names on ballots. I'm sure Mr. Reid will be able to correct me next time he's here.

This is the way in which members of Parliament are chosen, and they are supposed to be holding the cabinet to account in all matters. Parenthetically, I'll just say that some of the electoral reform debate describes our system as if we were electing parties or prime ministers, but we aren't. We elect members of Parliament. True, the proportion of members in the House of Commons doesn't exactly reflect the proportion of the popular vote. That's because the way our system is designed, and it's not to say it couldn't ever change, but the way our system is presently designed is for the election of members of Parliament who then hold the government accountable. Any changes to the Standing Orders, I would argue, if anything, should seek to enhance that principle of the responsibility and authority of members of Parliament.

I'm going to talk later on about the discussion paper put forward by the Green Party. It was interesting for me reading through that, because a few members of the government made a point of thanking the Green Party for putting forward this discussion paper. It's actually quite savage with respect to the government's approach on this. It's very direct and very critical of so much of this exercise in terms of what the government is doing. I think if they want to praise the Green Party's discussion paper, maybe they should read it first.

I'm not, by the way, going to defend it in its entirety. I certainly disagree with certain aspects of it. That won't be a great surprise to people, knowing where I come from and also my political philosophy. I don't always agree with the Green Party on things, but I think there are some good points made in the Green Party discussion paper that quite precisely shoot holes in the approach of the government and the way they're going about it.

One of the things that discussion paper looks at and that I talk about when I talk about good changes to the Standing Orders is this: what changes to the Standing Orders would actually recognize and enhance the role of individual members of Parliament? We're not going to get there if we don't actually have a process that ensures that all voices are heard in that process.

If it's only the government that's heard in that process—through this committee, where they can put members in and pull them out at will—then we're not going to have a process that defends the rights of the opposition. We're also not going to have a process that defends a proper understanding of the history of this place, and not only the history but the present reality. The way it's supposed to be, the way it's ideally envisioned, is one in which members of Parliament are the ones who are elected by the people and who control the executive. That's what we mean by responsible government.

It was a fight to get responsible government here in Canada in the 19th century, but it is a principle that is well established and has to be maintained in every generation, in every Parliament. The principle is that the executive must be accountable and responsible directly to members of Parliament. Members of Parliament, not just in theory but in substance, should be at liberty to hold the government accountable, to challenge the government, and to think differently from the government, even when they are part of the same caucus.

Mr. Chair, it's been interesting for me following the discussion and the debate about these issues that have happened in the media ever since this discussion began here in committee. You think you've covered all the angles of it, having gone through the government's discussion paper a number of times, looked at different alternatives, read through the Green Party's discussion paper, etc., but there are always new points that come out in the discussion.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, Ms. Bergen was just taking video footage in the committee proceeding right now. I believe that's wrong.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Thank you very much for pointing that out. I will delete it.

Thank you. I apologize.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Mr. Genuis.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Perhaps that's another issue we can consider in changes to the Standing Orders, of course.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Yes.