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.