Mr. Speaker, I wanted to point out to the hon. member from the Bloc that my motion today has nothing to do with any wonderful or brilliant ideas I might have as a member of this House.
What we are talking about today is representing our constituents in this House. Those are the people we were elected to represent and we are responsible to them.
I appreciate the opportunity to begin the debate in the last hour of Motion No. 89 which advocates the relaxation of the confidence convention and, flowing from that, freer voting as party members of this House.
I have listened with interest to those who have spoken in the debate in this place and I have also listened attentively to witnesses who have come before the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs who have addressed the issue of freer votes.
There are those who argue against the motion of dissent being exhibited through freer voting by the attempt to change the basic premise upon which this motion is founded in order to argue against it. For example, the member for Vancouver Quadra explained that we are not all here as independents elected on our own. I agree. We in the Reform Party realize this fact. We do not want to reduce the House of Commons to chaos and we do not believe that the timely expression of dissent by a few members would do so.
The opinion of those involved in the writing of the McGrath report in 1985 and those who sat on the House management committee in 1993 was that dissent should be allowed to be expressed without fear of retaliation by the leadership of the political party concerned. They thought it would make this House a healthier place where members on occasion would not have to vote the party line on all legislative matters.
It might help members better represent their constituents and it may also allow those constituents to feel that their views were being directly represented on the floor of the House of Commons.
Speaking of representing the views of constituents, I want to thank the member for Hamilton West for referring to this matter in his speech on this motion. He stated, referring to me: "The hon. member opposite is sadly mistaken if she thinks I or anyone else on this side of the House can be blindly led. If I supported a government objective that went against any of my well known principles I would be laughed out of this House, out of this job".
However, at the end of his speech he wavered from this bold statement when he said: "It is not the individual vote, it is the collective. It is the understanding of what we believe to be in the best interest of our constituents, of our riding, of our province and of our country".
I am not sure but I believe this second phrase contradicts the earlier bold one in which the member stated he would support his constituents' points of view against any attempt to be led around by the nose by his party.
I also want to assure my friend from St. Boniface that by the adoption of this motion the kinds of judgments we have to make as members of Parliament will not be automatically replaced by views advanced by constituents. It is the belief of the Reform Party that matters will come along in the life of a Parliament which were not addressed either directly or indirectly during the previous election. There is no prior party position on these matters.
It is our belief that if a member wishes to dissent from the position eventually taken by the member's political party, the member should be able to do so without fear of retribution at the hands of the party leadership.
We are not advocating, as was expressed by the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, that everything be a free vote. I listened to the hon. member when he spoke in this House on May 25 and I appreciate the fact that confidence was taken out of the standing orders of the House of Commons as a result of the first report of the McGrath committee.
However, what I do not believe the member realizes is the fact it was removed made little difference. The attitudinal change on the part of the member so strongly advocated by McGrath has not taken place.
By comparison with Great Britain, Australia and New Zealand, Canada's political parties are the most tightly controlled by their respective leadership. In Australia and New Zealand, while voting against the party line is tolerated, the influence of the private member is greatest when there is a labour government. In that situation the caucus elects members to sit in cabinet and the Prime Minister allocates the portfolios.
As I have said before, this situation leads to constant interaction between leadership and backbench members wherein the views of backbench members have great influence on public policy. Is that not what we want?
In order to be elected by caucus to serve in cabinet one must have the support of those who will not be in cabinet. To be re-elected to cabinet one surely must have demonstrated a willingness to listen to the concerns of caucus members and adjust legislation accordingly. This would result in increased influence over public policy being placed in the hands of backbenchers. That is a good sign.
However, it is in Britain where in recent times backbench independence has been asserted with members voting against the party line and in some cases defeating government legislation.
Professor Philip Norton, an academic on freer votes in Britain, explains that this phenomenon of cross-party voting led to a growing awareness of what could be achieved by such action and a recognition that the consequences expected from government defeats such as resignation or punishment by the leadership did not materialize. They did not perceive it as a threat.
This produced a change of attitude of many MPs as the old differential attitude was replaced by a participatory attitude. Backbenchers became involved in and were influencing government policy. This situation continues today in Britain.
Finally, I want to refer to the evidence given by Professor Robert Jackson when he appeared before the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs a few weeks ago. He does not believe in freer voting by members and he is a strident critic of the McGrath report, a report that is really accepted by members in this House. His main concern was that freer voting would result in chaos, with the government virtually unable to govern. This is absurd.
We are only advocating limited dissent expressed from time to time without fear of repercussions from the leadership. We in the Reform Party want to see the House express itself positively on this motion and therefore we accept the amendment advanced by the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell.
However, in recognition of the fact that freer voting or the expression of dissent from the party line rarely occurs in this place I wish to make a further amendment.
I move, seconded by my friend from Calgary West, that the amendment be amended by adding immediately following the word "continue" the word "increasingly" so that the motion as amended would read:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should continue increasingly to permit members of the House of Commons to fully represent their constituents' views on the government's legislative program and spending plans by adopting the position that the defeat of any government measure, including a spending measure, shall not automatically mean the defeat of the government unless followed by the adoption of a formal motion.