Debates of Sept. 19th, 1996

Committees Of The House

[Mac Harb, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I wonder if we could seek the unanimous consent of the House to take a few minutes so we could introduce petitions and then come back to the motion rather than waiting until the debate collapses. This way we would be able to get petitions finished and get back to the motion.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[René Laurin, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if we immediately move to the presentation of petitions, it will leave us less time to debate the committees' motion. Is this indeed the case? I would first like to know how many petitions there are. They could always be presented at three o'clock.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

I appreciate the involvement of the chief opposition whip, but the House did not give its unanimous consent. We therefore resume with the questions and comments for the last speaker.

[Jim Silye, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have a comment and a question for the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell.

In the member's commentary he spoke for a long time and virtually said nothing of substance except to praise the status quo, which is not what we are here to do. We are here to bring about positive change. The member also made an implication as to my role when I was whip and about free votes. Let me explain to him very briefly what free votes are all about in the Reform Party.

A free vote means that we vote the party line, the platform and policies that we represent to the people, unless we have clear evidence from our constituents, even those who did not vote for us, to vote otherwise. The way we find that out is to do polling, talk shows, town halls, surveys through householders and scientific surveys. I did that on gun control. I live in an urban riding and there is a greater mix there. Therefore, I voted the wishes of my constituents which were with the government on that issue. My colleagues are proud of that. That is a free vote.

That is the way we would do a free vote if we were government, not the way the member claims a free vote should work, which is that on private members' bills we have free votes. That is a sham and that is not what free votes are about.

On sexual orientation, I did the same thing. I voted with the government because there was a clear indication from my constituents to vote with the government on that bill instead of with my party. My party did not kick me out of any position. I resigned the position of party whip voluntarily and freely.

For the member to use an argument of convenience is once again misleading the public which not only he is doing today but the finance minister and every minister across the way has done, except for the current human resources development minister. He is doing the best job of all.

I will now put my question to the hon. member. As the whip for the government, as a man who bragged about his 20 years of experience in the system, as a man who has honesty and integrity, as a man who I know will tell me the truth to this question, as a man who I know will not shirk from his responsibility to answer this question, does he, when these committees are set and struck, tell the members of his committees who are assigned to those committees how to vote and whom to vote for in terms of vice-chairs? Will he answer that question with conviction, honesty and courage on chairs and vice-chairs? On public accounts we cannot have a member of the opposition party as a chair. On that issue, would he give me the benefit of his 20 years of experience and be honest with me?

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let us start with the issue of the wishes of constituents before I get to the second part. The hon. member just told us how he did the right thing by voting on gun control because it was the way his constituents wanted him to vote.

However, there is something wrong with the proposition here because his leader said that even though his constituents wanted him to vote for the bill that he was going to vote against it. What the hon. member just told us is that he did the right thing by not adhering to the party line. He has to at the same time recognize that he has told his leader that he has done the wrong thing because he did the opposite to what his constituents wanted. That is the proposition that has just been-

[Jim Silye, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

And I will be held accountable.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

He just told us now that his constituents will probably kick him out. That may be so but that is not the point. The point is that the hon. member has just said that a rule applies to him and he followed it and that the rule was the rule of the Reform Party. However, the leader did not follow the rule which he has just himself invoked as being the rule for the Reform Party. We have to admit that there is something inconsistent in that.

Let us get to the second part. The member has asked me how I do my job of whip in the Liberal Party. I hope I do it with honesty. I hope I serve my country, my party, the Prime Minister of this country and all of us in the House of Commons properly. I believe that is how all of us should behave in our jobs.

The hon. member was the whip of his party; the hon. gentleman performed this function for his party for some time and he did it very well. He will note that whether the issue was the timing of a vote or any other issue, he consulted with his colleagues and with his leader and then took a decision. After making that decision he would take action on whatever issue.

I do not know whether in his party it was he when he was whip or his leader, who selected the critic, which is roughly the equivalent on the opposition side of what the chair or the vice-chair is on the government side. I have no idea how this selection process occurs. Maybe they draw straws. Maybe the leader selects them. I do not know because it is an internal caucus matter on their side.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley East, BC]

Committees are supposed to be independent, Don.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

And the hon. member says that committees are supposed to be independent.

We just appointed the members to the committee. The member across is not going to tell me that he did not appoint them. His signature is on the report we tabled in this House a few minutes ago. Obviously determining the composition of committees is not

an independent process. Under the standing orders it is done by the whips of all political parties.

The member cannot say that he has no knowledge of the rules. He was, after all, the whip for some time, and I know the whip knew the rules.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Before I call for resumption of debate, just so we all understand the rules of debate on this motion, I will look to the Bloc Quebecois then the Reform Party for their participation.

The time allocations are all the same with 20 minutes and 10 minutes. Then we will revert to the normal rules of debate, going from one side of the House to the other.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as always I enjoyed the speech of the government whip. He is always very entertaining. He always gives us a nice little political story to go with his speech, but he often does not answer the question. The question that was put to him today was point blank: Does he or somebody else in the leadership of the Liberal Party instruct the members on those committees how to vote on the committees as to who will be chair and vice-chair?

A committee is supposed to be independent of the House. In other words, it supposedly has an agenda of its own. It calls the witnesses and comes to conclusions independently of the House. It runs its own affairs, organizes itself and if it has to spend money, it will ask the House for permission.

What we are trying to get from the government whip is the answer to the question: Do committees really have that much independence or is the government whip or someone in their hierarchy actually holding them down under their thumb and telling them what to do?

As we head into the election of the chairs and vice-chairs it will be interesting to see what happens. The government whip would not answer that question because the truth is that members are told how to vote in committee. They are told who the chair will be and they are told to vote for the Bloc Quebecois members, the separatists, for the vice-chairmanship in every committee. They are told that, they are instructed to do that. If they break the rules, they pay the price.

That is the kind of discipline we are trying to break in this House of Commons. It is the kind of thing we say should be the prerogative of individual members. They have worked with one another for several years now.

I cannot say how much it boggles my mind to say that the vice-chairmanship of the Canadian heritage committee should be a separatist who wants to break up the country. On foreign affairs we want to have somebody who represents Canada and Canadian views, who portrays the Canadian perspective on international issues. So what do we do? We put a separatist, a person who wants to break the country in half, in the vice-chairmanship, the steering committee as it were of that committee.

That is a shame. It is a shame because it is instructed from the government side by the whip, the person who would not answer the question of our former whip. He knows the answer yet he tries to get around it. That is one of the things that is wrong with the committee system.

Why are we debating this today? I can tell you why. We are debating what is wrong with the committee system.

I should have mentioned before I started that I was dividing my time.

There are two broad headings we are going to be discussing today from our perspective as to what is wrong with the committee structure. First, there is too little independence from the governing party. I already mentioned an example and I will talk a little more about that and what is wrong with the partisan process in the committee structure. The second part ironically is that committees are too independent from Parliament. They are too dependent on the party hierarchy and too independent from Parliament. I would like to expand on that a little bit in my time remaining.

To use an example, I was on the committee debating Bill C-64, the employment equity bill. When it came time for amendments, of course, I had many amendments to the bill from my perspective of what should be done to improve it. But the amendments given on the government side were not amendments from the committee people at all. The amendments were brought in by the cabinet minister, laid on the desks of committee members and people started making amendments. Unilingual English speaking members were making French amendments to the bill. In other words, they did not have the faintest or foggiest idea what they were amending. If we brought that to their attention, well of course they had no say in the legislation at all.

The bill went to committee, sure. We investigated it, sure. But the word came down from on high: "These are the amendments that the cabinet minister wants. Do it, or else". That is not independence and it is not what we had hoped for, which was some true independence from the governing party.

That partisan process, the fear that the members in these committees have of what might happen to them if they break party lines, is hindering the political process. It hinders the independence of the committee process. It hinders the ability of individual members to have an impact on the governing of our country.

At times it gets to the farcical stage, it gets really bad. For example last year the chairman of the defence committee would not allow our members to question the defence minister when he was before the committee. The reason? Well, he was our guest and we do not ask nasty questions of our guest. It is partisan, highly

partisan. The chairman was chosen beforehand and did not have the confidence of the committee and has not proven herself on that committee. Instead, she was using her absolute authority to tell people what they could or could not do.

If only the government would realize that if it cut the apron strings, the partisan strings to the committees, the committees would suddenly blossom on their own into useful, powerful and dynamic committees. They would have the independence required to get individual members of Parliament some influence into actual government business. Instead of being a voting machine, they would be a policy making machine. That is all that has to happen.

It is the same thing that was wrong with the parliamentary system 20, 30 or 40 years ago and in essence it has not changed. Whether a bill is referred on first reading, second reading or third reading, we all know the truth: The committees do as they are told. And that, regardless of how we try to change it is what the government insists on.

The second thing is about too much independence from Parliament. Committees are dependent on the party partisanship in order to make them function because of the way that party over there runs things. That is too bad and it should be broken in order to free up all backbench members who sit on these committees to have some real influence.

Parliamentary committees are too independent from the rules of Parliament. The rules are made in the House of Commons, our standing orders. They give order and civility to debate. That is why I address you in the Chair, Mr. Speaker, instead of calling somebody by name across the way.

The Latin phrase that guides this parliamentary system is lex rex. It means the law is king. In other words, the rule of law, the way we handle ourselves, the way we conduct debates, the questions you can ask and so on are decided by law or parliamentary procedure by order as to what can happen and in what order.

The committee system is a law unto itself. When the government majority decides to do something it is king. In other words, the party is king. I do not know what the Latin for that is but the party is king. Instead of the rule of law being king, instead of having predictable standing orders for the committees, it does as it wishes when the going gets rough.

On May 17, 1995 the human rights committee was studying this same employment equity legislation. During this supposed investigation I made a point of privilege. Let me read my point of privilege, a little of what happened during this debate. I brought into the House of Commons the following observations.

First, I brought amendments to that committee in English and I was not allowed to table them because they were in English only. The chairman would not accept my amendments. They were all in proper order but they were in English and he would not accept them. This is totally out of order in a country that accepts both languages, and yet who cares? The chairman hammers the gavel and he is king. The orders came from on top. The chairman's ruling was challenged but it was supported entirely by the government whip and others who were there to make sure the chairman was the king. He had all the authority.

When we had some of the amendments come forward amendments were passed in that committee without a vote. The chairman said: "I do not want to hear anymore about this". Smack, amendments carried. We said: "But we have not even tabled the amendment". He said: "It does not matter, it is carried". That is the new openness, the new co-operation.

The committee moved then to time allocation. It said it would debate it all right, five minutes total time allocation per section. You could not even read the sections out in five minutes, but that is the freedom that we have in committees.

The problem remains and it is two-fold. The partisan system drives it from the top, it drives it from the party hierarchy in the Liberal Party and demands strict obedience to its rules. On the other hand it does not have a law except the law of the jungle. The people it appoints in those positions do the bidding of the hierarchy. It is wrong, it is an effective committee system and all backbenchers from all parties should be outraged at the way that works.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, several of the examples provided by the hon. member are true. We have to review the way committees operate, including the election process within committees, but the issue today is really that of the party line.

I believe the party line is indeed a foundation of the British parliamentary system, as can be seen when a general election is held. Candidates try to get elected on the basis of a platform, a party line. Why, once elected, should they no longer adhere to the party line? These people can run as independents if they wish. If they get elected, they will have their own line. It is up to them. Reformers claim to have ideas, a program, something to offer to Canadians. They would get elected based on that platform, but then they would do away with it? It does not make sense.

The real problem is that this new party has a great deal of difficulty adjusting to the way the House operates. Let me give you an example. Once, we spent an evening here voting on a series of amendments tabled by a Reform Party member, who voted against his own amendments. The House was unanimous; everyone voted

against the amendments that the member had proposed. This is quite something, but we should tell it like it is.

I took part in the negotiations on the establishment of the committees when this Parliament first opened, in January 1994. We discussed the issue of offices. It took me two hours, on behalf of the Bloc, to select the offices of Bloc members. It took about ten days for members of the Reform Party to do the same. They even chose a closet for one of their members. I think there is a problem at some level.

I suggested to the Reform members that they could co-chair five committees, a first in the history of the Canadian Parliament, here in Ottawa. They said: "We insist on having finance, commerce, agriculture, justice and industry." And a cherry on top, I suppose. I do not see what else they could ask for.

It does not make any sense. These people do not know how to negotiate and then they complain that things do not work well. I, for one, think that they should adapt to how things are done here. We are a sovereignist party. We, of course, have major disagreements with the party in office, but we agree on how to disagree. We can agree on the rules and say: "Here is how things will be done." Then, of course, the going gets tough, but we have agreed on the rules.

There is always some way we can work with these rules. We have done it before and we are a sovereignist party. We are able to work with the rules of Parliament. I do not see why a federalist party like theirs has trouble functioning here. The problem is not with the rules. The problem is with that party.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am interested to hear the strong defence of the rule of law. I hope the members opposite will, during any referendum debates, ensuing negotiations and that kind of thing, stand by and say that nothing will happen to Canada except by the rule of law and observance of the Constitution. I hope they would do that, although I will not hold my breath. The rule of law seems to be a convenient thing for them.

One of the things I am talking about is that in committee, certainly we can obey the rules. Certainly we will observe the rules. The trouble is that there are no rule in the committee. Some committees only act as a law unto themselves.

Sometimes there is a good, experienced parliamentarian at the head of the committee. The member across the way is a fine example. We disagree with him in many ways. We disagree with many of his policies. We disagree with a lot of what he says and stands for.

Even on the gun control debate, a very heated and protracted debate, we had absolutely no problems with how he handled himself and how he handled the chair. That is not the case by and large.

There are inexperienced people, people being paid off or people who are being rewarded somehow who get to chair these committees and ramrod things through following the wishes only of the party leadership. That is not right.

The member opposite, a former justice minister with many years of experience, whether I disagree with him politically or not, is at least fair in committee and I do not have a problem. It is interesting that when he votes against the government, when he stands up for what he knows is right as he did a year ago, he lost his chairmanship. We do not have the benefit of his experience any longer. That is a shame.

[Ted White, Reform, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure to debate this issue today on committees.

Although it is a debate about committees, it could almost be a debate about democracy itself. It is really a debate about the definition of democracy in a way that it fits our committee structure.

I could talk about committees in general. My colleague has already brought up specific examples of committees. I could speak about them in general but I will start with some comments about a committee that is probably the worst committee on the Hill. It is perhaps the best example of what I would call manipulated democracy.

That committee is the committee that decides whether private members' bills will be votable. Just before the summer break in June 1996, a member from the government side of the House, the member for Mississauga East, had her comments about the committee that had just decided that her private member's bill would not be votable quoted in the Hill Times : ``I am not suggesting that it is a kangaroo court. It is more like a cockroach court. You cannot see them at work and then they run away''.

It is a really good description of what that committee stands for. The member from the government said had a private member's bill that would have ended concurrent sentences and forced rapists and murderers to serve consecutive sentences for multiple crimes. That bill was made non-votable because the government side had decided it did not want that issue to go to a free vote in this place.

Can a member of this House get an explanation of why it was non-votable? Can she or he find out what happens in that commit-

tee? No. There are no records kept. There are no notes. It is all done in secret behind closed doors with no records kept. No wonder the member for Mississauga East called it a cockroach court. As she said, we cannot see them at work and then they run away.

That member's experience is not unusual. It has happened to me. Every single one of the private member's bills and motions that I have put forward has been made non-votable. Maybe there were good and logical reasons for that to happen but there is no way that I could get an explanation for that. That for me certainly and perhaps anybody in this place who has put forward a private member's bill is the worst committee on the Hill.

As the member for Mississauga East said, if she had a bill that offered better treatment for criminals it would race through the place in a week, but if you have a bill that wants to side with the victims or correct obscene injustice in our system you can expect resistance and many years of effort and debate. To that member, welcome to the club, because that is what this side of the House is fighting the entire time.

Last year there were a total of 16 private members' bills which would have toughened up the justice system and not one of them could get past the system that is put in place through these committees to prevent it from ever becoming law. Even the ones that are made votable by that cockroach court committee that end up being passed in this House by the members get referred to committees which then stonewall them, delay them and keep them there under the orders of the ministers until they disappear completely off the map.

We see those examples over and over again. The bill that would have rid section 745 from the Criminal Code passed in this House and yet the committee and the minister are defying the will of the members here. It is contempt of Parliament in our estimation.

The members on both sides of this House are demanding more and more that all of our private members' business should be made votable and that the committees should stop interfering with the process. We should be permitted to bring the will of the people to this place and to put it through and turn it into law. I certainly hope we will soon see the disbanding of this cockroach court committee which has been a major problem for us.

The problems of the committees are really symptomatic of a load of problems that go right through the system which operates here, that makes this place almost just frosting. The real issue, the real cake, all happens behind closed doors. Everything is predecided and this is just the charade that happens on the top.

An example is I write letters to ministers about important issues about these committees. Months go by. A letter written to the justice minister remains unanswered after two months. A question on the Order Paper in this place, put here on October 5, 1995 with a 45 day answer period asking what sort of money the Squamish Indian Band gets in my riding has been sitting on the Order Paper since October 1995 and never answered. That is just another symptom of our constant problems.

My colleague from Fraser Valley mentioned the employment equity committee. I was sitting with him on that committee when the employment equity bill was considered last year. We were told that bill would be referred to committee before second reading so that members could have meaningful input to shape the bill prior to coming back for second reading in the House. What an absolute sham that was. It was unbelievable. When we describe it to people in the outside world away from this place they can hardly believe that it is true, what we tell them.

There was a time limit-arbitrary rules created by the committee-to discuss any clause. It did not matter how long it was, how short it was. Five minutes included the time it took for the government member to read it out and describe what it was all about. My colleague from Fraser Valley and I were denied the opportunity and ability to even ask questions of expert witnesses who were at that committee, experts from the government side. We were not even allowed to question them. We had questions from our constituents and we were denied the right to put them. That bill was rammed through the committee after hours, at short notice, when it was impossible for us to get witnesses to come to the committee. This is an abuse and a manipulation of democracy. It is unacceptable.

One example my colleague from Fraser Valley gave was how the chairman decided he had had enough discussion and just passed something by himself. We had another example where we managed to catch a few of the government members napping and got a particular clause through and the chairman reversed it by himself. He changed the vote. The vote was yes and the clause passed. He said it was no and it had failed. We were unable to get that reversed. Days later when we came back into this House and appealed to the Speaker for justice to be served and these decisions at the human resources committee to be reversed, we were told that the committees were their own masters.

I have another example. I sat on a small committee which was looking at the boundary changes in North Vancouver. There were only three members on that committee, two from the government side and myself from the Reform Party. There were about five clerks there, one to watch translation, one to watch what's going on and others whose jobs I do not know, five people and the three of us. We had to elect a chairman. One of the government members asked me if I minded if he nominated the other government member to be the chairman. I told him I knew how it worked around here and he should do what he had to do. So he nominated the other Liberal member to be the chairman. Then they both look

at me to second the nomination. Can you believe it? "Not a chance" I said, "you can't expect me to do that, it is not democratic". They looked at one another for a moment, looked at the clerk, and the clerk said that we could always change the rules, so they did. They changed the rule so they did not even need a seconder to elect the chairman.

The whole committee system is a disgrace. I could go on for an hour giving examples. I see my time is up and I welcome questions and comments. I will just say that this needs changing badly.

[René Laurin, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, like my colleague from Laurier-Sainte-Marie who asked a question a few moments ago, I also agree that we can support some of the arguments put forward by the Reform Party. It is indeed difficult to work in committees where the majority of members are on the government side. Since the government exhibits a certain amount of ministerial solidarity within committees, it is difficult for us to win every time. It is part of the game of democracy.

In this context, it can be very frustrating for the Reform Party, as well as for the official opposition, to have requests or proposals rejected sometimes.

I would like the member to tell us what changes he thinks should be made to improve the committee system. Before knowing if we can support their position and if we can denounce the government's attitude on this issue, I would like to know what alternative the Reform Party is proposing for these committees. What democratic system would it like to see put in place in order to be able to achieve its aims, because I suspect that under all this lies a feeling of frustration with regard to proposals that were not supported by the majority in committee? What mechanism would Reform members suggest be put in place to ensure that other members who do not belong to their party would get the respect they deserve in committees?

[Ted White, Reform, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his question about the operation of committees. There has been some discussion about the British parliamentary system. There is a lot of tradition involved in the operation of this place. That is absolutely true.

However, all it takes is the political will to change these things which have been in place for a very long time. Most of these things were put in place to fit a time that has long gone, a time when the people were not well-educated and when communications were not very good.

When Edmund Burke said: "You don't do your constituents any favour by representing their will", that was 200 years ago. Today we live in the information age. Our constituents are exceptionally well-informed. They know what is going on in the world. They can find out the minutest detail about what is going on in this place.

I am sure all members have experienced from time to time constituents who know more about a particular bill and its possible problems or benefits than they do. There is a member over there from the islands who said that he never reads the bills. There are constituents out there who take a direct interest.

The suggestion from Reform is that we can run on a general mandate of what we stand for but within that we must have flexibility to suit the information age and the flexibility to adapt that agenda to comply with the will of the people, the people who, after all, are paying our salaries. This means that when a committee goes travelling across the country taking submissions, it should truly take democratic submissions so that it is not a predetermined outcome and that it truly wants to know what Canadians want and is prepared to have the political will to adjust its agenda and get away from partisanship.

It does not happen very often. If we look at the past three years in this place, I have had to vote three times contrary to my party mandate in order to represent my constituents' wishes on government bills. Therefore, it is not something that happens every day. It is on very carefully considered issues. I do not suffer any consequences from being able to do that.

It is a new democracy. All it takes is the political will. I would urge members to get behind these changes so that we can get real democracy in this place.

[René Laurin, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I regret to have to say in this House that it seems to me that the Reform Party has chosen a topic for debate this morning that would have been more appropriate for a supply day.

The hon. member from the Reform Party did not reply to the last question I asked him. I threw the ball into his court by asking him, through you, if he could tell us how he would like us to operate in committees. He did not answer the question.

What is at the bottom of all this is the Reform Party's frustration at not occupying the position of official opposition in this Parliament, and at not being able to obtain the number of vice-chairs that it would like in committees. That is the real issue.

Under the guise of a free vote, the Reform Party would have us believe that it allows its members to vote as they wish, that they do not have to toe the party line. I would like to hear from them what happened to Jan Brown, what happened to her? I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, I ought to have used the name of her riding.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

I am sorry, but nobody can hear you right now because my microphone is on, not yours. Only one person may rise at a time. The member corrected himself, but I would like to remind the House that when speaking about our colleagues we must use the name of their riding or their department.

[René Laurin, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

As I could not be heard, I will correct myself now that my microphone is back on and say that I should have said the member for Calgary Southeast. I would like the members of the Reform Party to tell me what they did with the member for Calgary Southeast when she decided to vote freely, when she decided not to toe the party line, because she found it too radical, too extreme?

That MP was not allowed to remain in the party, she was expelled. Today, they are telling us, with a "holier than thou" air, that they advocate the free vote within their party. Granted, but on certain minor bills only. If, for instance, the Reform Party were to introduce a bill on the use of cow hair in mortar, I do think it could let its members vote freely on something like that, but on fundamental and vital questions which were part of a party's election platform, it is important for solidarity to be maintained, and that must extend to the committees as well.

I also have doubts about how sincere the Reform Party members are, because we have seen them in action in committee. In the three years since we were elected, every time committee chairmen and vice-chairmen are selected, the Reformers opposed having a Bloc Quebecois member as head of the public accounts committee, for example, or as vice-chair of other committees-because, traditionally, a member of the party in power heads committees except that the public accounts committee is chaired a member of the official opposition.

The Reform Party would have liked to be the official opposition, but unfortunately the voters decided to give them two seats less than the Bloc Quebecois. Terribly frustrated by this, the Reform Party decided to try to change the rules, to change tradition. True, this is not a Standing Order, but it has always been parliamentary tradition to have a member of the official opposition as the vice-chairman of a committee.

The Reform Party ought to have put more effort into its election campaign so that more of its candidates could have been elected. Then it would have been recognized as the official opposition and would have had that privilege. With all their talk of democracy and British tradition, Reformers ought to know that democracy and British tradition recognize that the majority rules.

As it happened, the Bloc Quebecois won more seats than they did, but they refuse to accept this, and that too is just another excuse, because the real reason they are making such a fuss about how vice-chairs, how Bloc representatives are chosen in committees, is not that Bloc members are involved but especially because Bloc members are sovereignists.

We are sovereignists because that is what our platform is about. We presented our platform to the people of Quebec, who democratically elected to send us to Ottawa with a majority to represent them. The people of Quebec chose so wisely that, as a result, we became the official opposition. Quebecers owe themselves a vote of thanks now because they are well represented.

Reform Party members would like to see this sovereignist position, this political option prevent us from having the democratic right to sit on committees. Because we are sovereignists, they would like to see Bloc members denied the right to be vice-chair of a committee.

If we did not have that right, why would we have the right to have a member on the committee? If we have no members on the committee, where does that leave our democratic rights? Is this not about the most elementary respect for democracy?

The most elementary respect for democracy means accepting the decision made by voters in a riding, in a province, to send representatives to the House of Commons. That is the most elementary respect for democracy. Denying someone a vice-chairmanship because it is not convenient this time around is not a good reason. A person holds opinions we do not share, and as a result, we deny him the right to be vice-chair of a committee. If it were like that, we would not get very far in a democracy.

We saw the attitude of the Reform Party in the committee that dealt with the Jacob case, for instance. Oddly enough, they showed a great deal of solidarity at the time. The Reform Party members on that committee did not seem to be allowed much latitude to express their views. They all had to think the same way, otherwise they were not allowed to sit on the committee. If one member did not work out, they would substitute another.

And today the Reform Party tells us, with a "holier than thou" air, that it wants more democracy in committees. I agree that we are sometimes pushed around by the party in power which has a majority in all committees. I agree that the party in power, which has a majority and decides to exercise its solidarity, can beat us every time.

[Pierre Pettigrew, Liberal, Papineau—Saint-Michel, QC]

That is what the people want.

[René Laurin, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

That too was the result of a democratic decision. I wonder what the Reform Party would do if it were in office. I would be curious to see if its position would be: "From now on, you are free to elect whomever you want to chair the committee, in spite of the fact that we have a majority".

Angels act like that, not the Reform Party, in spite of its "holier than thou" air. If it came to power, the Reform Party would be the first to insist that rules of democracy that are to its advantage apply; it would want to use them and would fight anyone opposed to their use.

I am sorry but the real subject matter of the debate today is the Reform Party's frustration at not being the official opposition, and that is how their remarks must be taken.

[Bob Ringma, Reform, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to offer a comment based on what I have heard here this morning on the rule of law. My colleague, the member for Fraser Valley East, was very specific about it. He said this Chamber operates under the concept that law is king. He said the Latin for that is lex Rex.

He went on to describe what committees do, that this is not the rule of law. He said instead, committees seem to operate under the rule of politics, that the political system is Rex, is king. He did not know the Latin for politics is king.

I have done a little research and I have this to offer to the House. I believe the Latin translation for that as it applies to the committee system is tyrannosaurus Rex, which comes from the dinosaur era.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

I do not know if the hon. member for Joliette wishes to comment on his colleagues' remarks.