Debates of Feb. 6th, 1998

Customs Act

[Jake Hoeppner, Reform, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Mr. Speaker, what I see happening today is that a lot of times governments will use certain law enforcement officers to fulfill their mandate or to proceed with a mandate. I know in my riding, and in Manitoba especially, customs officers have become known as the enemy of farmers. They have begun to prosecute farmers for selling their grain at a better price than they can get in their marketing system.

I do not blame the customs officers. They do a tremendous job. They try to do what is right. However, when they get orders to enforce an act such as the wheat board act instead of prosecuting farmers on the act itself, then they are manipulating these people and the act. That is very dangerous for our country. That is not the way the justice system is supposed to work.

I support this bill. Customs officers are a very important part of our democratic system. When we travel to places like the Soviet Union or Mexico we really know what a customs officer is worth, what he can do for you, what he can help you with. He is very important.

I say more power to the customs officers. They should work at arm's length from government. That will make them efficient and they will be a real benefit to Canadian society.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few words about this whole question.

We are always told that Canada is a wonderful country. It is a wonderful country for one wrong reason among all the extra fine good reasons. The wrong reason is that it has become a haven for a lot of people who engage in different kinds of criminal activity. There is too much trafficking in things like illegal credit cards. We have people smugglers. Some people come to Canada to work illegally. People are trafficking in illegal substances.

Anything that can be done to strengthen the enforcement of our criminal law at the border should be supported.

One of the areas that the government should look at very closely is the increased use of automation, whenever possible. There are many high tech devices available to detect illegal substances. I would like the government to do an honest assessment of the effectiveness of some of this equipment. If it is effective, it should introduce it and use it in greater measure.

The other concern I have is with the training of customs officers. They have to be trained technically. They have to know the law. They should also have a good amount of training in how to deal with people. This is a matter of considerable concern. Clearly it is a large concern because a lot of people are moving across our borders, transporting goods. It is very important for us to strengthen the integrity of our borders so that illegal activities are not attracted to this country. We need to do that more efficiently.

In that regard, even though this bill has some flaws, I would be willing to support the positive changes in it. I hope there will be more in the future.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[An hon. member]

On division.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed)

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that you seek the unanimous consent of the House that we read the clock as 1.30 p.m.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Does the House give its unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

For the benefit of the visitors in the gallery, of whom there have been quite a few, we proceed now to Private Members' Business which normally begins at 1.30 p.m. Because we finished with the bill at hand earlier, we see the clock at 1.30 p.m so that we can proceed to the next order of business for the day.

The House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

Pairing

[Ted White, Reform, North Vancouver, BC]

moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, the practice of vote pairing should be abandoned and the standing orders be amended to establish an absentee proxy voting system which would permit a party cast properly authorized proxy votes for no more than 25% of its members.

Mr. Speaker, thank you for explaining to those watching either from the gallery or on television why we have advanced the clock. It is always a great source of amusement to people these strange and antiquated rules we have here.

This motion I am putting forward today deals also with another one of these strange and antiquated rules that have come to be part of the procedures in this place.

I would like to read the motion one more time because it is an important motion:

That, in the opinion of this House, the practice of vote pairing should be abandoned and the standing orders be amended to establish an absentee proxy voting system which would permit a party to cast properly authorized proxy votes for no more than 25% of its members.

In a moment I will go into describing what vote pairing is and why we should change it. First I would like to mention that unfortunately this motion is not votable. Even though it talks about amending the way this very House works and it would affect potentially every single member of this House it has been made non-votable.

I have a very good friend in the New Zealand house. As many members know, I am from New Zealand. The New Zealand deputy speaker, who also has the name Ian, is a good friend of mine. I was visiting New Zealand recently and I told him that some private members' business is non-votable. He was astounded because in New Zealand they are all votable. That gives a sense of accomplishment to members to at least get their material votable. It is very sad that this motion is not votable, because I am going to read from a portion of a 1994 report of the standing orders committee from New Zealand.

The reason I introduced this motion is that it is a part of a package of motions that I put forward based on some changes that were made in the New Zealand house in 1994 which proved so successful that they have been adopted as permanent changes.

On the issue of proxy votes, I will read a paragraph from the report, because it describes for everybody what vote pairing is and why there should be a change: “Parties in New Zealand have for many years operated a system of pairing where the effect of a member who is absent from the House is cancelled out by a member from another party agreeing not to vote while the other member is absent. Initially it was an arrangement entered into privately, but since 1951 in New Zealand it was recognized as part of the proceedings of the House. Paired members were recorded in Hansard for any division that is taken in their absence. The primary use of pairs was to ensure that members could be absent from the House to carry out public business in relation to their portfolios or constituencies and that ill members did not have to attend the House for close divisions”.

The system worked effectively for the two main parties of the House but the committee believed in New Zealand that it would be good to introduce a proxy system.

Under the recommended proxy system, instead the pairing members would be required to give proper authority for a proxy vote to be cast for an abstention to be recorded in their name. It must state, among other matters, who is to exercise that proxy. In practice what happened in New Zealand was that generally members would give the proxy to their party whip and the whip was able to exercise that vote in their absence. A member not wishing to vote with his or her party, in other words a dissenting vote, could be given to a member of any other party as long as it does not exceed the 25% limit.

The limits are policed fairly closely. As I mentioned, after having run this now for close to four years it was determined last year that it should be made permanent because it had worked so well. It has enabled members to fulfil their requirements in ridings and to attend conferences related to their critic roles or particular areas of interest. It has enabled ministers, for example, in close governments which the New Zealand government has to attend important conferences like the Kyoto conference without having to worry that there may be some sort of urgent vote where they suddenly have to be told to race back because it could be a close vote. It is just a very civilized way of handling necessary absences from the House that do occur.

There is no absolute requirement for the party to use its entire 25% but that figure was adopted in New Zealand and found to be very satisfactory.

As I mentioned, it is part of a package of changes that were introduced on a whole range of issues. Another thing they have done in New Zealand—and I have put another motion in on it—is that they have compressed the sitting days of the House into three days, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, so that Mondays and Fridays are free days for members to have extended weekends in their ridings. This is working very well.

For members of this House who are from Ontario and Quebec it would be extremely convenient. Even for those of us who have to travel long distances, to have those extra days to do riding business would be very valuable. That is another change that was introduced in 1994.

We really should learn from houses that have gone through the process of studying these changes and have found that they are very good to introduce.

The New Zealand House has also dealt with the issue of quorum and, one that interests me, question period. The changes to its standing orders require reasonable answers to questions. If the speaker rules that the answer to the question was not actually an answer to the question, the minister must appear at the end of the day and re-answer the question. That has had the effect of tightening up the entire question period into something meaningful.

To get back to the basic motion I introduced today, it reads:

That, in the opinion of this House, the practice of vote pairing should be abandoned and the Standing Orders be amended to establish an absentee proxy voting system which would permit a party to case properly authorized proxy votes for no more than 25% of its Members.

I defy any member to say that it would not be an advantage to be able to have that percentage available to a party whip for members to be necessarily absent for some purpose. It is an absolutely sensible position to take. It is very distressing that the motion cannot even be voted on when it is something that is important to the operation of this place.

Because the House has the power to do anything I would like to ask at this time for unanimous consent of the House to make the motion votable so that members would at least have the opportunity to indicate whether or not they think it is a good idea. I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to make the motion votable.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

There is not unanimous consent.

[Ted White, Reform, North Vancouver, BC]

We can see who does not support democracy, but I am still astounded that any member of this place would not want to vote on something that affects their working conditions. I am absolutely astounded.

I hope members who are bullied into voting a certain way by their whip or somebody else will at least work behind the scenes to have the issue considered in more detail.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Motion No. M-28 regarding absentee proxy voting. I thank the hon. member for presenting the motion. As he indicated, it allows us to discuss some of our fundamental responsibilities as members of Parliament.

Canadians have elected us to represent their interests, to propose and debate motions and laws on how best to meet those interests, and to vote at the end of debate. The Fathers of Confederation expressed this principle in the Constitution. Section 49 of the British North America Act states:

—questions arising in the House of Commons shall be decided by a Majority of Voices other than that of the Speaker, and when the Voices are equal, but not otherwise, the Speaker shall have a Vote.

Voting is fundamental to what we do in the House. As all members know, the pairing of votes noted in the motion refers to the practice whereby two members on opposite sides of a question agree not to vote on a specific issue. As a result, paired votes cancel each other out and do not affect the outcome of a vote.

Pairing is essentially a convenience to members of Parliament which allows a member to be absent and have his or her vote protected. The roots of paired votes go back to Great Britain in the time of Cromwell. Pairing is a common international practice. For example, the United Kingdom, the United States and Australia all have arrangements for pairing.

The first paired vote in Canada was recorded less than three weeks after the first parliament began to meet in 1867 under the terms of the British North America Act. Pairing is therefore a longstanding practice in Canada although its use has varied over the life of this House.

In one recorded vote in 1946, for example, 124 members were paired. On the other hand, between 1949 and 1957 pairing became a rare event. One writer has suggested that this was because the government of the day had a very large majority so the issue of pairing became less of a priority.

The arrangements for handling pairing have also evolved since Confederation to protect the parties involved and to ensure the efficient functioning of the House of Commons. Codes of procedure were developed including informal arrangements between whips. This culminated in the introduction of Standing Order 44.1 which was adopted as part of the changes to the standing orders made in 1991.

Standing Order 44.1 states:

(1) The Clerk of the House shall cause to be kept at the Table a Register of Paired Members, in which any Member of the government party and any Member of an Opposition party may have their names entered together by their respective Whips, to indicate that they will not take part in any recorded division held on the date inscribed on that page in the Register; provided that independent Members of Parliament may sign the Register in their own right.

(2) On any day on which one or more recorded divisions have taken place, the names of the Members so entered shall be printed in the Debates and the Journals , immediately following the entry for each of the said divisions.

The purpose of that procedure under our existing standing orders is so that pairing is transparent, so there is public accountability for members who pair, so the arrangement between two members on each side of the House is a matter of public record.

The standing committee on House management stated in April 1993 that these 1991 amendments on pairing were built on long established experience in Canada and other jurisdictions.

The committee observed that the introduction of a register of paired members at the table was an attempt to revive an earlier practice of the House where a procedure had existed for registering pairs.

The committee also noted that members often have other commitments which prevent them from being in the House on a certain day and pairing is an attempt to accommodate those members.

This brings me to proxy voting which is the other arrangement for members who, as suggested by the member, cannot for one reason or another be in the House.

While pairing is a common procedure among parliaments in other countries, some jurisdictions, as the member has indicated, have sought to address the issue of absence in other ways. One of these ways is to vote by proxy whereby a parliamentarian who is present may cast his or her own vote as well as the vote of an absent parliamentarian. This is the absentee voting suggested by the Reform member today.

Representatives of the French National Assembly, for example, can vote by proxy. Indeed the French constitution itself provides that votes can be delegated in exceptional cases by one member to another member. The cases in which members are authorized to delegate are laid down in law.

On the other hand, proxy voting was proposed in the Netherlands but was rejected because the terms of its constitution did not allow it.

If members look at the overall international experience with proxy voting they will find that proxy voting is an exceptional practice.

Voting by proxy, as far as I know, in addition to the case cited by the member is only allowed in Brazil, Cameroon, Comoros, France, Gabon, Ivory Coast, Luxembourg, Mali, Senegal and the United Kingdom. In a number of these cases I would add that proxy voting is only allowed under certain conditions such as sickness or absence on official duty.

In the United Kingdom, for example, a proxy vote is only allowed if a member is incapacitated by illness and provided he or she is in the House precincts.

The international consensus is against proxy voting. Why is this so? The basic objection to proxy voting is that a member cannot exercise his or her fundamental duty if he or she is unaware of the issue being voted on, as frequently has been shown to be the case if the member is not present in the House of Commons.

International experience shows that proxy voting encourages absenteeism. I hope the Reform Party does not want to encourage members of the House to be absent while the House is in session.

Finally, I would point out that proxy voting has led to abuses in other jurisdictions which have undermined public confidence in parliamentary institutions. One writer, in commenting on the widespread use of proxy voting in Great Britain's House of Lords during the Napoleonic wars, stated:

—any one whose conscience did not forbid him to legislate without listening to debate could delegate his power to a peer present at the voting, and it was customary for—indolent men—to assign their votes to the leader of their party.

I hope the Reform Party is not encouraging indolence in the House. I urge members to look for other ways of improving our voting procedures.

I thank the hon. member again for raising these important matters. I would suggest that in considering the motion members take note of the traditions and experience of this House of Commons. I would urge that we look at issues related to voting in a larger context which would include the possibility of other options to address any concerns that members of the House have with respect to our voting procedures.

I would point out that pursuant to another part of the standing orders of the House of Commons we are required to have a full debate on our entire standing orders between the 60th and 90th sitting days of any parliament. Shortly there will be an opportunity in the House to address all our standing orders, including our voting procedures. I hope the member opposite and all members here will use that opportunity to re-examine our standing orders.

The member is to be commended. I think he realizes that without regular reviews such as that provided for by the debate in our standing orders, the basic rules of this House of Commons could easily become, whatever his expression was, strange and antiquated. It is important when the debate on the standing orders comes forward that we all participate fully.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by simply reminding this House that democracy is not something static, something that exists unchanging. Democracy is a principle which must be defended and cherished every day. But it evolves. It is transformed.

The democracy within which we operate here in Canada in this House of Commons is, in a way, the heritage of numerous generations of parliamentarians who passed through these hallowed halls before us and who made Canadian democracy what it is today. Similarly, it is our duty to keep on with this work so that the evolution will continue.

In that spirit, I believe that the suggestion from our Reform Party colleague is most worthwhile, but only if it serves as a point of departure for an in-depth examination of all of the rules governing this House, as the parliamentary secretary has suggested.

When I look at the specific wording of the motion by the Reform Party, I cannot help but recall that, when this party first appeared in the House in 1993, it arrived with the avowed intention of changing everything. They came here as the Reform Party and, as such, they wanted to reform everything.>

For a while, they tried to operate without a whip, without a House leader. For a while, they tried to change the rules for oral question period. But, as I have just said, the British parliamentary system is not something that dropped out of the sky completely formed. It is something that has been built up over many centuries. It is an evolving process. It is what I would call the outcome of lengthy reflection which had produced our institutions as we know them today, operating, functioning, in the way that they do.

I note some frustration on the other side, but when I saw our Reform Party friends finally re-adopting practices that are very common in the British parliamentary system, such as having a whip and a House leader, such as maintaining oral question period as is in Canada, I said to myself they have somehow understood that this is how the system is, that they must operate within the specific framework the system calls for.

That does not, of course, exclude the possibility of our looking at potential changes to the Standing Orders, but let us go back to the wording of the motion. As the text of the motion indicates, the proposal is to replace the pairing system with a proxy system.

As the parliamentary secretary rightly pointed out, the Constitution, which forms the basis of the institutions we are part of, speaks clearly on the subject of voting by members of Parliament. In order to vote, a member must be in the House and cast a vote.

The pairing system was set up at the outset, as the parliamentary secretary mentioned, at the time of Cromwell in the United Kingdom, in England, to allow members with opposing opinions not to vote and be recorded as such in the record of divisions.

The advantage of this measure is that it preserves the inviolate aspect of the vote while allowing members who have not voted to indirectly express how they would have voted. Voting by proxy could definitely have a detrimental effect on our democracy.

Does this mean that a member wishing to vote in the House could do so some way from his riding office in New Brunswick, Ontario or the Yukon? What is the direct effect of such a practice? The direct effect comes when the institution representing democracy in a country informs the public that proxy votes are permitted. Will we end up with the public voting by proxy in an election? If we allow the representatives of the people to vote by proxy, will the people have the same right as parliamentarians?

We have to think about that, and I think we should consider the principle of voting. Nevertheless, the problem remains for the time being. It remains because allowing members to vote from outside the House could have the deleterious effect of weakening some of the dynamism of this House through the acceptance of less rigorous requirements for attendance in the House.

The member quite rightly pointed out that the duty of a parliamentarian naturally includes not just the work of a lawmaker, which must be performed here in the House, in the form of voting, but also the work of representing the public, of serving as the link between the public and government organizations. As society evolves, this requires that parliamentarians spend more time in their ridings.

Earlier, it was mentioned that parliamentarians in New Zealand sit only three days a week. A bill is now in the works to consider whether it would not be possible to set aside one day a week for parliamentarians to spend more time in their ridings. This is another matter that we must consider. But until then, does vote pairing not answer this very concern of the member that parliamentarians be allowed to do their work in their ridings, to perform parliamentary duties outside the walls of the House, and still have the opportunity to make their voice heard here in the House?

The answer is yes. As I was saying earlier, when two members of opposing views do not vote and their absence is recorded in the record of the division, implicitly we know how the member intended to vote. But to allow proxy voting would, I think, be to go against the notion that the vote is a solemn, sacred duty.

As things now stand, since no more thought has been given to this issue, and since we will probably be called on to reflect more generally on all the rules of the House, I can only urge my colleagues to reject this motion and to give careful consideration over the coming weeks and months to a possible reform of the rules of the House.

[John Solomon, NDP, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the New Democratic Party to say a few words on this Reform motion which calls for ending vote pairing. The motion also asks that we establish an absentee proxy voting system which would permit a party to cast properly authorized proxy votes of no more than 25% of its members.

As a member of the House of Commons, I am as open and embracing of new ideas as are most members in this House regardless of their party. I am always anxious to hear new ideas particularly from my colleagues in this House.

However, I do not want to give the impression that I support this motion because it has some very interesting implications. I agree with the member for Peterborough. He said that with proxy voting, members voting from a distance on issues, on amendments to acts and amendments to motions and bills would be hard pressed to know what they were voting on.

As whip of the New Democratic Party and someone who has been a member of this House for over four years, I can share the following with my colleagues. Even when members of all parties have been in the House full time during the week and have paid attention to the debates, the amendments, the motions and the committee work, they sometimes still do not have a clue what they are voting on unless their whips tell them to their faces what it is they are voting on. Sometimes there are 20 or 30 votes in the matter of an hour and a half in the House.

It is up to the leadership of the caucuses to make the decisions in co-operation with their caucuses and to advise others who were not at the meetings of how their caucus is going to vote or how their individual members might want to vote if they wish to have an independent vote from the caucus.

This proposal would further weaken and diminish the authority of the member of Parliament. It would certainly weaken and diminish the authority with which a member would be voting. I flag that issue.

I am quite surprised with the Reformers. They talk about democracy. Reform members should learn the meaning of parler, or Parliament which is a derivative of parler. It means to speak. We come as representatives of the thousands of people in our constituencies to speak in the House of Commons in Ottawa on behalf of our constituents. We are here to parler, to speak on behalf of our constituents on issues that are important to them. Voting happens to be one of the responsibilities of a member of Parliament after giving speeches or listening to the debates.

I am surprised that Reformers would want to promote democracy and the opportunity for members to have free votes while they say that the House of Commons is not important to them, that they will go back to their ridings and visit with whomever they want and not come to Ottawa to at least earn their paycheques. That diminishes democracy. It diminishes Parliament. It certainly blows into shreds their argument that they believe in democracy. Time after time the evidence shows that they believe in the contrary. The record should clearly show that.

If Reformers want to stay home in their ridings to vote, they should resign from Parliament and run for office in municipal or provincial government. They could stay in their cities, their towns or their villages or their rural areas in their provinces and they would not have to worry about coming to Ottawa. They have options if they do not like coming here. They can resign or they do not have to run next time, which I think is the option preferred by millions of Canadians for Reform members who believe in this sort of anti-democratic move.

This is just another example of the Reform Party wanting less government. Reformers do not have a great deal of respect for the institution of government. They do not believe that government works. They say to everybody in this country “Vote for me and I will prove to you that government does not work”.

In Saskatchewan we have had the evidence of the Reform Party proving to Saskatchewan people that Reform policies do not work. In 1982 a Reform style politician, Grant Devine, said the same thing as this Reform member is saying today, that they do not want to have involvement in government. “Government does not work. You vote for us, Saskatchewan people, and we will prove to you that government does not work”.

Saskatchewan people were tricked and they voted for this Reform style politician, Grant Devine. He had 10 consecutive deficit budgets in nine years. He went from a zero debt to $16 billion in debt for the one million people in the province of Saskatchewan.

Twelve of his colleagues in that government have been charged and most of them have been found guilty for criminal acts while members of the legislature. That is the Reform style kind of government.

Reformers promise less government. They say they believe in more democracy and of course they end up giving all the assets away in the objective of less government to all their friends who then take away the assets and leave the debt with the people of Saskatchewan. I am kind of surprised at this motion and why the they would promote this.

My very major concern in the New Democratic Party is that technically this motion is preceding ongoing meetings and ongoing decisions being considered by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs that the member for Peterborough ably chairs.

We are discussing the very nature of modernizing parliaments. We are looking at electronic voting and all sorts of things that would modernize our system. While modernizing, we are not looking at diminishing democracy or the role of members of Parliament. We are actually looking at enhancing the role of Parliament and making sure that Canadians have a voice in this assembly regardless of their being in Ottawa or not.

My final words are that the Reform Party also surprised me with the fact that it wants to let the government off the hook. For the record, the NDP has never supported officially the pairing of votes. To this day we continue not to support that.

We believe that if elected, members should be here, be accountable and be responsible and should be on duty like many of my colleagues here today on a Friday afternoon. I give them all credit for being here. It is an honourable thing and a very important thing to be doing.

I am surprised because the Reform Party, whose members want to hold the government accountable, now wants to allow 25% of the Liberal MPs not even to be here to ask questions. I do not think that defines democracy or more accountability.

What Reformers are doing is encouraging the stampede away from the House of Commons. They are encouraging the authority of the House of Commons to be so watered down that members may as well not come to Ottawa to vote. They may as well all vote by proxy from their various constituencies.

I am not sure if I oppose this but the arguments that I put forward I think persuade me that this recommendation by the Reform Party member is not well thought out. It is anti-democratic. It reduces the effectiveness of the House of Commons and really is another effort by the Reform Party, very supportive of Liberal policies, to provide the Liberal government with yet one more opportunity to avoid being accountable, responsible and answerable to the people of Canada.

[André Harvey, Progressive Conservative, Chicoutimi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to congratulate my colleague, who introduced this motion in the House. I think it important to emphasize all the effort that goes into introducing a motion. You will understand, however, that I am not necessarily congratulating his party. I will come back to this in a few moments.

I would like to commend the parliamentary secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House, as well as our colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois and the New Democratic Party, on the quality of their speeches.

If it has done no more than clarify certain important principles, I think this motion was important. It gives us an opportunity to reflect on our role as parliamentarians, on the principle on which our fellow citizens rely and on which our work must be based if it is to meet the expectations of the public.

I am, nonetheless, a bit surprised at this motion, which alludes, among other things, to the formal disappearance of vote pairing and, obviously, to proxy voting. It is a bit worrisome to recall, but sometimes it is important, that, during the last election campaign, the Reform Party wanted to see the seven million Quebeckers and the eight and a half million French Canadians across the country all but unrepresented in the House. They practically wanted to exclude Quebeckers and French Canadians from the Parliament of Canada.

When there are suggestions such as this one about voting by proxy, we are aware that there are some things in life not properly done without direct contact with our colleagues, those within our own party first of all and then comments from MPs in other parties. A vote in the House of Commons represents a rather special dynamic.

There must be reflection. There must be exchanges with our colleagues. In our caucus meetings I am glad to be able to exchange views with my Newfoundland colleague, a former minister in the Peckford cabinet, who makes a huge contribution on certain specific issues, particularly natural resources, fisheries in particular.

Our Reform Party colleague must realize that the formula we have at the present time, of having an official register of paired members, is a very acceptable formula. If there is one important privilege for Members of Parliament, it is their attachment to their personal vote. The MPs' votes are not the responsibility of the whip, the party leader, or the Speaker of the House.

Members of Parliament must endeavour to be present here in the Parliament of Canada, both for the official vote and for all the proceedings leading to it. A vote is not carried out without reflection, without exchanges with our colleagues.

Huge progress has been made in this House in the past 15 or 20 years in speeding up votes. New parliamentary habits have developed. Thought is being given to electronic voting. Let me point out immediately that electronic voting does not mean remote voting. MPs must be physically present on the Hill for the proceedings leading to a vote and for the recorded vote itself, and this is a process about which our fellow citizens have strong feelings.

We were not elected to this place to let our whip vote for us. What would happen if there were surprise votes? Would the whip pull out his list of proxies and record the votes? That is totally unacceptable. I, as a whip, consider that this would be too much power.

The practice of pairing is a matter of honour and respect between MPs. Even if our colleague's motion were formally adopted, I am convinced that this privilege could not be taken away from MPs. That would be a change to the Standing Orders of the House of Commons which would be unenforceable and unacceptable. Even if it were adopted, it could not have any legal force.

I am convinced that my colleague, who is a conscientious member of Parliament, will reflect upon this. There is no way that two MPs could be prevented from working out a pairing arrangement.

The reality is that an MP is the only one responsible for his vote. It is not transferable. It would be quite unusual for a vote to come from a whip. The vote belongs to the MP, not his or her whip. It is a privilege conferred upon us by our fellow citizens. We may not transfer responsibilities to others, particularly not the responsibility to vote.

Proxy voting reduces MPs' freedom to vote. It could even go so far as to lower the quality of voting.

Nothing is more effective than contacts between parliamentarians of all parties, except between parliamentarians of the same party in order to take a stand on an important issue or even a less important one. I personally think that they are all important and that many members feel the same way. Mr. Speaker, because I know you, I know that you share this viewpoint.

There is a very special dynamic on Parliament Hill. Many meetings are held to ensure that members voting will do so in full knowledge of the facts of the matters, which are often very complex. Voting cannot be done at a distance, and, because of its importance, cannot be left to others.

It would be easy to argue on the subject of voting by proxy that it could mean significant savings, since members would not have to travel from Vancouver or Whitehorse simply to come and vote in Ottawa. If this is the intention of the motion introduced by the member for North Vancouver, I would submit that electronic voting would achieve the same result.

And so, if one day electronic voting becomes acceptable, I am sure that voting from elsewhere will be out of the question. This is where we vote. We must certainly not vote electronically from somewhere else and especially not hand over the responsibility to the whips or to others.

Be assured that I and my party will always be here to defend the importance of the privilege of pairing with a colleague. This is one of the members' important privileges. We will be here to defend the importance of being physically present on the Hill and in Parliament in order to vote, to take a stand on behalf of our colleagues and especially on behalf of our fellow citizens.

If there is one party that frequently speaks of its constituents, because they take a stand in voting, it is the Reform Party. It is an honour for them, I admit, but it involves being physically present here in Parliament.

I thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak on this important issue, which will be followed with interest in the coming months by all my colleagues.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to use just a few minutes to give a few of my thoughts because I want to give my colleague from North Vancouver ample time to sum up.

A couple of observations have come to my mind as I have been listening to the debate. I find it rather ironic, and if I can dare use the term hypocritical, among members here. I use hypocrisy here in the good sense where members are trying to portray something where really it is not an accurate representation.

All the members who have spoken after my hon. colleague in the Reform Party on his private member's motion have spoken against this motion. They claim that it is because of a diminishment of democracy.

If pairing does not diminish democracy, where you agree not to vote, how can one then argue that by giving your actual vote and simply asking someone else to deliver your actual vote is a diminishment of democracy compared to what we have now? To me that is not a valid argument. I respect these other members for their point of view but I also respectfully say that is not accurate.

I would also like to point out that in a sense our standing here this afternoon and debating this is a diminishment of democracy. We are trying to persuade each other of a point of view but there will not be a decision on this.

Just before Christmas I had a motion in the House that all private members' business should be votable. It is ludicrous that we should stand here and persuade each other but that the members themselves voted I think almost unanimously and said they do not want to vote. They want to put forward a private member's bill but they do not want to vote on it.

I would call it a total lack of democracy. Freedom of speech is an important factor, which is diminished by the eight pages of words we cannot use, so I am very restricted now in being able to express myself.

It is one thing to be able to speak, but is it not the essence of democracy that we actually get to vote and make decisions? That is a very important missing link.

I hope that we sincerely go about changing this Chamber. I hope we change this place of democracy, this place of debate and votes so that it truly works on behalf of Canadians.

I am in my second term as a member of Parliament. I discovered very quickly that it is a full time job twice. One should be here 100% of the time to look at the bills and the motions, analyse them, work together with staff and communications people. At the same time there is a full time job in the riding. People want to be heard. They want to have access to their member of Parliament.

Whenever I go home I go to meetings. People are eager to give me their ideas on the issues facing our country.

We are not being realistic when we pretend that everyone is going to be here all the time. The House sits five days a week. Maybe we ought to look at that and make a provision so we can all do our jobs better by having more time to be in our ridings.

We cannot be here debating issues in the House and at the same time be in our ridings doing that work which is so very important.

It appears to me that the way it works right now is that the members, by pairing, are really abdicating their democratic ability because they are agreeing not to vote. It is just like they said in the private member's motion I presented before Christmas, that they agree they do not want to vote on private members' business.

We need to really think hard about these things.

[Denis Coderre, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I must say that, as a young member and newcomer here, this is the type of situation one must often deal with. Still, I cannot believe that members from other parties can possibly think that to vote under an absentee proxy system would enable them to do a better job and to better serve democracy.

I fully support the comments made by my friend, the hon. member for Chicoutimi, by the parliamentary secretary and by Bloc Quebecois and NDP members. When I got elected, it was to represent my constituents and, of course, democracy must go hand in hand with voting. When I am here, when I am representing my constituents by voting on legislation, I have no intention of waiving this responsibility and letting my whip or someone else vote on my behalf. I believe that one serves his or her constituents by assuming one's responsibilities, and assuming one's responsibilities means to be present when a vote takes place.

The practice of vote pairing is totally irrelevant. We all know that, most of the time, there is no vote pairing. When we must vote, we are here in this House. As my friend, the hon. member for Chicoutimi, pointed out, vote pairing is a tradition based on an honour system involving two members, and we must respect and preserve that tradition.

I am also pleased that the subject of electronic voting has been raised, because, obviously, we will have to look at what enables us to do our work effectively as parliamentarians. But I do not think the two should be mixed.

My constituents are happy to see that their member for Bourassa is not only present in his riding but also physically present in the House. I think a lot of people follow our debates on television, and when I vote, the entire riding of Bourassa votes.

I do not think that this practice is hypocritical or that it undermines democracy. On the contrary. However, we should look very seriously at the time of voting. We should set aside a specific time for voting every Tuesday or Wednesday.

I know that this is negotiable, that we could sit for four days rather than five. I work Saturday and Sunday as well, so Friday, Saturday and Sunday we could work in our ridings.

There exists a form of technology called the telephone. It permits great efficiency on the days we have to be in Parliament to resolve certain issues. I think everything lies in the way things are orchestrated. There has to be a work plan.

Personally, I think we should be focusing on the number of days we sit in the House. I agree with my hon. colleague from the Reform Party that our constituents want to meet with us, to come and talk to us. They expect us to be physically present not only in the House of Commons but also in our ridings, because they need us. Proxy voting will not solve anything.

I add my voice to that of all my colleagues who opposed this motion. I think that not only is this a false debate but it undermines democracy and makes this institution appear even more cynical. Perhaps we could fulfil our duties differently and come up with a better system in the House, but there is no way I will give anyone a proxy to vote in my place.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

As is customary, we will give the hon. member for North Vancouver, who moved the motion, an opportunity to sum up.

[Ted White, Reform, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, all the members who stood mentioned democracy. The last member who stood also talked about opposing the motion. However, the point we have been trying to make here is that we cannot even vote on it. This place is so undemocratic that there is not even an opportunity to vote at all.

The member from the NDP got up and talked about democracy but all he could talk about was representing the NDP's position. He talked about this motion as if it were a Reform motion. This is Private Members' Business. It is the business of individual members of Parliament. If a well experienced member like the member from the NDP has not caught on yet that this is supposed to be a period of free voting for members then he has a lot to learn about democracy at this point.

Pairing is something also that Reform does not support because it does not work for a party like Reform which has written into its party constitution that we have an obligation to represent the majority will of our constituents in this place, as I have done on three separate occasions, voting against the line of my party.

Therefore it is impossible for pairing to work for new style parties. It is great for the old line parties that refuse to change. That is one of the problems.

For the members who stand and say that a vote in this place actually belongs to the member and that he is representing his or her constituents is not only naive, it treats Canadians as if they are fools, as if they do not know what happens in this place. Everyone over there is instructed by the Prime Minister how to vote and everyone down at this end is instructed by their leaders how to vote. Every single one of them is instructed how to vote. When we talk about democracy and freedom it is just not true.