Debates of March 21st, 2001

Modernization Of House Of Commons Procedure

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the hon. member for Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge. I know he brings an extraordinary ability to identify important humanitarian non-partisan issues. I have great respect for the work he does in this place.

I have a question along the same lines as the member from Edmonton. I know this particular member has participated in recent hearings on the impartiality of commissioners and individuals who are to serve the House and serve the Canadian public with an arm's length relationship.

Should we be looking at how the financial strings which are attached to cabinet might influence its decisions? What I am referring to is protection for the officers like the auditor general, the privacy commissioner and the ethics counsellor. Should we be looking in some way to distance the resources that are made available to them through the treasury board and cabinet? Maybe we should be tying it more to parliament.

While we are on the subject, should we not have an independent, arm's length ethics counsellor to report directly to parliament? I know the member has followed this issue. Would it not increase public understanding and public—

[The Speaker]

I did ask the hon. member for a short question. We are now going to have a short response from the hon. member for Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I know you want to hear a yes as an answer. I agree with and respect the hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough.

There is no doubt that in order to allow the House to function, those who serve it must also be seen as being able to discharge their function in a way that is at arm's length and in a way that is above reproach. I think this is something that Canadians can trust as being part and parcel of the importance of our institution, which is to ensure that its officers function day in and day out in a way that ensures the level of confidence we have in our institutions, beyond the function of the members of parliament. Everything must be done and seen to be done to do just that.

Very briefly, we need to do this with respect to officers who may have worked within various ministries, portfolios and departments to ensure there is a cooling off period and to ensure that Canadians have that accountability and that trust.

[John Williams, Canadian Alliance, St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am certainly pleased to participate in this debate on parliamentary reform. It has been something that has been near and dear to my heart for a number of years.

When I first came to parliament, the 35th parliament from 1993 to 1997, I worked on a subcommittee chaired by what is now the government whip. We produced a report that is called ”Business of Supply: Completing the Circle of Control”, which was called by the clerk of the House of Commons at that time one of the best reports in 50 years on reforming the House of Commons. It was unanimously adopted by all parties.

It was tabled in the House of Commons. We did not get a response before the election was called in 1997, so we retabled it in the 36th parliament. Even though it had all-party agreement, the government said that there was nothing in it that it wanted to adopt. That is why we are frustrated when it comes to parliamentary reform. I will give some examples of what we are talking about.

The procedure to handle the estimates is a process by which the House approves the estimates and grants the government's supply money to pay the bills of the government. Last night we approved billions of dollars in 30 seconds flat. It is a crying shame. There was no debate, just a pro forma, first reading, second reading, committee of the whole, shall this clause carry on division, shall this clause and this clause, shall it be reported back to the Chair, all in favour, yeas and nays and it was a done deal. We approved $16 billion that fast, without any examination. That cannot be.

If we are to have a parliament that will hold the government to account, we need a real process to handle the approval of supply.

Mr. Speaker, you are one of the more learned members on the issue of supply. For the edification of all Canadians, there is a simple process. If a motion is being debated, it can be amended. When an amendment is moved, we vote on it. If the amendment carries, the motion is amended. A vote is then taken on the main motion. When it comes to the estimates, the process is reversed.

If I put a motion on the order paper to reduce an expenditure by $100, $1,000, $1 million or to eliminate the expenditure entirely, that causes the President of the Treasury Board to reaffirm what she wants to spend. Her motion comes up before mine. After she reaffirms what she wants to spend, how can she say it is impossible to vote against my motion when she has just reaffirmed what she wants to spend? It would be ludicrous to say one thing and then say the opposite. The system is fixed to ensure the government gets its way. This cannot be. That is why we are totally frustrated with the process of the estimates.

In 1996 we talked about such things as evaluation. I complimented the President of the Treasury Board when she introduced a new policy on evaluation a month ago. It is along those lines that we have been talking about.

The government will spend $170 billion this coming year but most parliamentarians do not know what it will be spent on. It spends this money through programs. Since 1996, I have been asking that programs be evaluated by asking simple fundamental questions, such as what is the program for and what public policy is this program designed to address. If there is a need for it, fine, but we should be told what it is.

Once we have figured out what the program is trying to do, the second question would be quite simple: How well is it doing it? We could then measure the success of the program. The next questions could be: Are we doing it efficiently, and can we achieve the same results in a better and more efficient way?

Let me take for example the program that the Minister of Finance introduced just before the election. I am talking about the heating fuel rebate which was paid out to prisoners, people in graveyards and so on. He said that the government would help low income people with their heating fuel bills. That is fine. There is nothing wrong with that. However, he did not tell us the methodology he would use to send out the $125 cheques.

As it turned out, people who live in apartments and do not pay heating fuel bills received cheques. People in prison got cheques even though they do not pay heating fuel bills. People who recently died received cheques. They are in a graveyard and cannot cash it. The money will go to the estate even though the estate does not pay a heating fuel bill. It goes on and on. My son who lives with me received his cheque and he does not pay a heating fuel bill either.

What was the public policy? The public policy was to help low income people with their fuel bills. That is okay. How well did the program achieve that objective? As we can see, there was gross waste in the program by virtue of the fact that far too many people received a cheque even though they did not pay a heating fuel bill.

In 2001, five years after the business of supply report was brought down, the government said there was nothing in the report that was worth adopting. It finally slipped in the idea that maybe program evaluation was not such a bad thing after all, that it might be able to do a little pilot project to see if it could get the thing moving forward. Why did it take five years? That is the point.

On reallocation of funds we have heard about March madness: the money has to be spent before the end of the fiscal year because if it is not spent it will not be there for the next year. Empires will get smaller. There will not be a big raise. There will be staff reductions and maybe even transfers to different departments.

Yesterday at the public accounts meeting we were dealing with the billion dollar boondoggle in HRDC. It is still hanging around. The auditor general had a chart that was the perfect chart for March madness. It showed that $5 million to $8 million a month was the average expenditure, and then in the month of March it went right up to $50 million. In April it went down to some $5 million to $7 million. That went on for a whole year. It came to March of the following year and it went up again to $50 million and back down to some $5 million to $7 million. It multiples by 10 in the month of March. Is that March madness?

We are saying that we should have the capacity to move money from one budget to another. What does the government say? It says it cannot have that, that it would never do and that it would upset the protocol of budgets and so on. I cannot understand why the government cannot see the sense in money being transferred from one budget to another in this modern day and age of computers, budgets, accountants, financial statements and all these things.

We deal with another situation in public accounts. This is how ludicrous it was. The Department of National Defence has a budget to repair houses and it has a budget for new houses. It needed some new houses but there was no money for new houses. It still had some money in the repair budget. It would demolish wrecks of houses but keep one little corner of the basement so that it could build a new house on that corner of the basement and call it a repair. It was a brand new house.

When we talk about statutory expenditures, it is $100 billion a year that does not even get debated in the House. Let the taxpayers know that $100 billion never gets debated but it is spent, and that has to change.

The auditor general talked about the child tax credit. It is an actual expenditure but it gets netted off on taxes and does not show on the books. Loan guarantees do not show up until they are bad. Once they are bad, what can be done? There should be a process by which we can evaluate loan guarantees. I would love to go on for an hour but I know my time has ended.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Pickering—Ajax—Uxbridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a very simple question for the member for St. Albert. I heard him talk about things that I know are near and dear to his heart such as expenditures for the country. I compliment him for his work on the public accounts as chairman there. It is one of the only examples where there is an opposition chair. This should be extended to other committees.

I was quite amazed that on the subject of parliamentary reform he could not see the obvious in his own personage in terms of being the chair of that committee.

I take some exception to the member's comments about home heating fuel. I found them passing strange in that the premier of his province had shown wisdom by extending a rebate to his people, as did the federal government, particularly those who are very poor. He talked about the boondoggles and concerns of individuals with respect to the money being poorly spent. Yet tens of millions have been spent properly for Canadians to help alleviate what was arguably one of the coldest winters, certainly in eastern Canada.

In the one or two minutes he has left, is he prepared to talk about the subject of parliamentary reform, particularly in the context of his knowledge with respect to whether we should have a few more chairmen from the opposition chairing committees?

[John Williams, Canadian Alliance, St. Albert, AB]

Why stop at a few, Mr. Speaker? We could have all the committees chaired by the opposition. There is no reason they cannot be. We are advocating a secret ballot, so that could quite easily happen. There is nothing wrong with that. Is there anything wrong with a parliamentary committee being chaired by the opposition?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[John Williams, Canadian Alliance, St. Albert, AB]

Even the Liberals are agreeing that we could have a secret ballot. He talked about the heating fuel rebate in the province of Alberta. The money was paid directly to the utility company who then took it off the bill. Those who did not get utility bills did not get any rebate.

The Minister of Finance said that anybody with a low income would get the rebate cheque. As I said, they are in the graveyards and in the prisons. They are living in rental accommodations or with their parents and they received the money.

Let us remember the four questions I asked. What is public policy? I did not disagree with public policy. The second question was about how well it was achieving that public policy. The heating fuel rebate is a disastrous waste of money because there was so much spillage over to people who did not pay utility bills. The third question was whether it was being done efficiently. Can we achieve the same results in a better way? These are simple questions.

If we were to have committee chairs from the opposition, perhaps we could have some real intelligent debates in committee where these things could come forward rather than being rammed through.

I remember Bill C-78, which was several hundred pages long. If I had not been there to try to filibuster the best I could, the whole bill would have been dealt with in 30 seconds flat. That is disgusting.

We are here to deliberate, to debate, to analyze, to assess and to check to see that legislation is valid and proper. The government would have taken 30 seconds in committee to deal with a 200 page bill which took $30 billion out of the pension plan of the public servants, the military, the RCMP and so on, money that had been set aside for their retirement. The Minister of Finance said that he needed the money to make his books look good and took it, with no ifs, ands or buts. There was no debate.

It cannot be that way. That is why we want parliamentary reform. Parliament is here to debate and to hold government accountable. If it cannot do its job, the government will be the worse off because of it.

[Charles Caccia, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, because of the time limitation to which the hon. member for St. Albert has already alluded, I will very quickly put forward a proposal for consideration by the appropriate committee and then dive into the main issues that have emerged in the course of this afternoon and evening.

The rationale for the proposal I would like to put forward has to do with the fact that debates in parliament tend to be focused on pressing issues and controversies. They may be issues arising from legislation coming through the system, debates in question period, emerging debates, opposition days, et cetera. Rarely do parliamentarians get the opportunity to engage in debates addressing long term challenges, looking beyond the short term horizon.

The proposal I am putting forward is to allow for one evening debate per week on complex long term issues facing Canadians and perhaps the globe. The purpose of this exercise would be to make parliament more relevant, as it would extend its scope to analyze emerging issues, to examine future challenges and to articulate the public interest. Such debates would inform Canadians, would allow parliamentarians to tackle difficult issues and would allow for thinking outside the so-called box.

Such debates would not deal with issues currently on the legislative agenda, of course. They would likely not be subject to party discipline. They would allow for non-partisan debate in the House, constructive input by backbenchers at an early stage, and they would perhaps provide guidance for the executive.

The procedure would be simple. A committee of parliamentarians, one from each party, would review submissions of topics by colleagues in parliament and by the public, and they would decide the topic for debate. The topic would be presented in the form of a question in order to prompt debate about future trends and long term impact. CBC Radio does this frequently with a program on Sundays called Cross Country Checkup , an open mike program for listeners.

There are many examples of possible topics for discussion. They could include the price of medications, the impact of organizations, the relevance of economic indicators, regulating the Internet, modernization of the United Nations and the security council, Canada's role in peacekeeping, the electoral system, the impact of changing demographics in Canada, the aging population and our social services, and the demand and supply of the energy market.

Daylight savings time could be debated. Food safety is very topical, as is sustaining our forests and fisheries. We could debate setting limits to economic growth. We could look at trends in consumerism or the pace of technological change. The speed of political change would be a fascinating topic to debate, namely the race between the turtle and the hare. We could examine things from reproductive technologies to genetic engineering and the difficulties of the political system to catch up with the speed of technological change.

We could have a debate on social cohesion in Canada, on interprovincial trade, public transit, civil society, members of parliament's salaries if that is the wish, federal-provincial relations, the concentration of power in the media, and so on and so forth. These are possible topics for consideration by the appropriate committee.

Diving into the heart of the debate, which is quite interesting, I agree with a number of observations made by previous speakers, although time does not allow me to be more specific. Following the member from Prince Albert, I will say that in order to engage in thorough debate, particularly of estimates, we would need to look at our own calendar. Examining expenditures at length and in depth used to be the rule in the House until the late 1960s.

We would also need to change our patterns of attendance in Ottawa and probably delete a number of the weeks we are currently able to spend in our respective ridings. We would not be able to do some of the things that have been suggested this evening without changing our calendar.

Moving on to what has been said by those who want free votes and who have expressed frustration, and this seems to have been overlooked this afternoon and this evening, we operate in a party system. We are not a municipal council where it is every man for himself and where each person can vote and develop policy on the fly, so to speak. We have party conventions, we have a party program at every election, we have party associations, we have party caucuses, we have a party leader and there is consistency of policy in that respect. Therefore the vote is determined by our party affiliation.

That explains why there is party discipline. It explains why we have a party whip. Sometimes we vote in a manner that we would not do if we were freewheeling on a municipal council. That is very true. However let me add that we can vote against the government if we are on the government side.

We can vote against our party leader if we are on the opposition side, if we see fit to do so. It is not a pleasant experience, or something one lives with easily afterwards. However it can be done, it has been done and it will be done. That does not mean the system is bad. It is a party system. It is not a municipal council. The system requires discipline to move ahead and get things done.

I am sure every member of the opposition tonight, if they were on this side of the House and we were on the other side, would come to the same conclusion. There must be discipline, particularly on the part of members of the party in power, in order to move ahead and to govern.

Under Standing Order 108(2), committees can be the creators of very interesting reports. Time does not permit me to provide the titles of all of them. A report 20 years ago titled “Equality Now” was a great success. Very recently there was one on pesticides. If there is good will it is possible for a committee to determine a topic and produce reports which, if timely, can influence the course of action of governments.

The member for Winnipeg—Transcona made a number of very interesting points. One of them, which I remember clearly, is that he urged the House to introduce a measure whereby we would debate the ratification of treaties. He is right. We must do that. That is a shortcoming that needs to be corrected. He made a number of observations about which I would love to comment in a positive sense, but time does not permit me.

It is extremely important that we not lose sight of the role of the committee in charge of statutory instruments. It now has a different name but it nevertheless looks at regulations as they are drawn from legislation that is passed by parliament. It is an extremely important committee because a tremendous amount of power is inherent in regulations when they are written and that very often escapes the attention of parliamentarians. The regulations sometimes run in a direction that is not the one intended by the legislation from which they are drawn.

It is important for us, if we are interested in the exercise of power, to ensure that committee is properly equipped, properly staffed and that it has the resources necessary to examine the regulation. The same applies for public accounts.

Someone else has already mentioned the importance of allowing Canadians to see the candidates for the election of the Speaker. I support that idea fully.

I will conclude with the golden rule, which is this. It is for my party, since we are in power. In changing the rules of the House we should not adopt any rule or measure with which we would be uncomfortable and of which we would be critical one day when we might be, perish the thought, in opposition.

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Davenport said he did not have the time to be as positive as he would have liked about some of the things I had to say. I was tempted to get up and give him the time by asking him to continue but I did not want to be that self-serving.

The hon. member did speak properly about some of the committees that have had a great deal of influence over the years. He referred to the committee “Equality Now”, which was a special committee of the House. At the time to which he is referring there were a number of special committees of the House. There were committees on equality, on the disabled and on federal-provincial fiscal arrangements. I think there was one on trade. A number of special committees were struck for specific purposes. They had limited membership and they produced, not all of them but a lot of them, reports that became the basis for later policy decisions and policy development.

I want to reinforce the point the member made because I remember being on one such committee myself. They were called parliamentary task forces in the early 1980s. I was on the one for federal-provincial fiscal arrangements in 1981 which, in trying to deal with some of the federal-provincial disputes over the enforcement of the Medical Care Act, really laid the basis for what later became the Canada Health Act.

Another committee which did a lot of good work, and which the member and I served on, was the Special Committee on Acid Rain. The member may have mentioned it in his speech. If he did, I missed it because I did not hear everything he had to say.

If the member would like more time to reflect on the good committee experiences of which he has been part, many of which were good because he was part of them, then I afford him the opportunity by inviting him to do so.

[Charles Caccia, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we are running the danger here of becoming a mutual admiration society. I can only say that I appreciate the additions the hon. member for Winnipeg-Transcona has made. Yes, he is quite right, the acid rain committee is one that I failed to mention.

In the Trudeau era a number of innovative ideas were introduced. Let the blossoms bloom was the spirit of the time. There was a tremendous amount of parliamentary activity, and that could be with us in this century, in this decade. There is no doubt that the talents are in this House to permit the flourishing of another crop of good initiatives, be they through the standing committee or through special committees. There is not a fixed route.

The important thing is to know that under the rules we have, and perhaps by improving them, by moving them into the 21st century and modernizing them, if you like, or reforming them, to use a term the member for Winnipeg-Transcona used in his speech this afternoon, we could move toward a very productive parliamentary period in which we could eliminate the existing malaise and frustration. We could do so as long as we remember that we operate under a party system.

[Caroline St-Hilaire, Bloc, Longueuil, QC]

Mr. Speaker, despite the late hour, I will try to keep your attention on the debate on Motion No. 3, which reads as follows:

That a special committee of the House be appointed to consider and make recommendations on the modernization and improvement of the procedures of the House of Commons.

There are a number of reasons why I find this debate important and interesting. First, at a time when polls show that a majority of the public believe parliament is operating with great difficulty and that people are not pleased with how parliamentary business is being conducted, we, as parliamentarians, must ask ourselves about the current and future effectiveness of parliament.

The reason this debate is so important is that the public sees parliament as a place of confrontation, rather than a forum where its voice must be heard.

As we know, the outside world sees us as voting machines. People feel that the government does as it pleases, that it imposes the party line when things are too controversial. This, of course, generates frustration not only among members of parliament, but also among our fellow citizens.

We must always keep in mind two terms that are found in the motion, modernization and improvement.

The term modernization means to organize so as to meet current needs, and the needs that we must meet are those of our fellow citizens.

As for the term improvement, it means to make things better and more satisfactory. Again, I believe it is our fellow citizens, not the opposition or the government, who must be satisfied.

Any recommendation for modernization or improvement must, in my opinion, always be made in the best interests of our fellow citizens, so that their voices can be heard through us here in this House.

That said, in recent years there have been a number of reforms. The purpose of some of them was to increase the power of the government to govern more effectively, and very often this was at the expense of the ordinary MPs and watered down their powers.

The outcome of all these reforms was that, while they indeed speeded up the legislative work of parliament, they considerably reduced the ability of members of parliament to make a personal contribution. Examples of this are the reduction in time allocated for private members' business, the increased use of time allocation motions, and the time restrictions in question period.

Today we need to look at what the government has in mind with this parliamentary reform.

In my opinion, what is desirable is to maintain the balance between the government and the opposition parties, the balance between the government's right to govern and the right of the opposition to oppose it.

The objective of the reform should be to enable the entire body of MPs to perform their duties rapidly and effectively, and to truly play their role as legislators. Our rules must guarantee freedom of debate and protect the rights of all parliamentarians.

Unfortunately, the philosophy of the current government tends toward reducing more and more the role of parliamentarians, the ordinary MPs.

The time allocation motions imposed by the Liberal government are clear evidence of its guillotine philosophy, and this is contributing to the decline of the legislative role played by MPs.

When the Liberals formed the opposition during the Mulroney era, they were fiercely opposed to the government's habit of using time allocation, and they spoke out against its abuse of power and affront to parliamentary democracy.

Furthermore, this was what was behind the Liberal party's promise, made in its 1993 red book, to give political parties a greater opportunity to criticize government bills.

At the time, the Liberals spoke about restoring parliamentary integrity by governing with integrity. The red book said, and I quote:

In the House of Commons, a Liberal government will give MPs a greater role in drafting legislation—

For the information of the House and of members of the public listening this evening, it was in this same section of the red book that the Liberals promised to appoint an independent ethics counsellor. We know what happened. They voted against their own promise. It is this kind of attitude, this rigid party line, that is causing citizens to lose interest in what we do.

With respect to time allocation motions, this measure which was supposed to be the exception has now become the rule. Since coming to power, the Liberals have not changed the way things are done one bit. On the contrary, the situation has become worse.

Since time allocation was added to the standing orders, and despite its strong opposition to it during the Progressive Conservatives' term of office, the Liberal government is the government that has used it the most.

Here, now, in greater detail are certain recommendations I wish to make to the committee.

My first recommendation concerns time allocation motions. I have spoken of them, of course, but I stress the point, because they must be used as a last resort, not just after a few hours' debate and, most important, the Chair must intervene more to prevent the government from making excessive use of them.

My second recommendation concerns the electronic vote. It is, in my opinion, high time it was considered. Of course, the votes have to be taken here in this House according to the will of members of parliament, who will want votes to be taken by recorded division in some instances.

My third recommendation concerns electronic petitions, which we must consider too. In fact, we must remember that we are living in a modern world and that parliament must reflect this fact.

A fourth recommendation concerns private members' bills. Despite what I heard from the government House leader a little earlier, they should all be votable, as should the motions for emergency debates.

Finally, it would be a good idea to amend the schedule of House proceedings so that routine proceedings occurs always at the opening of the sitting.

The success of parliamentary reform lies in the political will of the government to improve things. However, reforms of the past have taught us that, as a general rule, the government is much more inclined to make changes favourable to it and ones that do not limit its ability to act.

What is the point of advocating reform of parliamentary procedure if there is no political will to adopt it? What is the point of advocating reform of parliamentary procedure if the government opposes any change that will put it at a disadvantage? What is the point of advocating reform of parliamentary procedure if the Liberal majority is not prepared to do without the procedural tools that give it so much latitude?

In conclusion, parliament must be modern, open and more democratic. While the majority prevails, the minority must be given the right to oppose and to express.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Parliamentery Secretary to Minister of Public Woks and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate concerning the new committee on modernization of parliament or, as some would refer to it, reform of parliament. I had the opportunity earlier to participate to some extent through questions and comments, but I want to take this opportunity to better frame a particular area, that being private members' business.

As a member of parliament since 1993, one of the things that really is very clear to me, and I suspect to most members, is that listening to speeches is okay, but the questions and comments, whether it be in the House or at committees, provide the most stimulating activity for members of parliament.

I am also aware that in parliamentary tradition it is inappropriate for a member of parliament to actually read a speech. How many times have we seen the top of a member's head as he or she continues to read a speech? I am aware that members can certainly refer to notes where they are quoting or where there perhaps was some detail that would be appropriate to ensure accuracy on the record.

However, the following are the types of things I have heard through this debate today. Members are seeking out ways to ensure that the quality of debate in the House is improved, to ensure that opportunities for members to participate are improved and to ensure that we are making the best use of our time. I know most members would admit that there is not enough time to do all the work that we really would like to do and are asked to do.

As I only have 10 minutes to speak—and I do appreciate the opportunity—I would like to move on to private members' business, which to me represents an important opportunity for backbench members of parliament to express themselves in terms of the quality of their thinking and in terms of their opportunities to advance issues and possibly even effect legislation.

Since 1993 when I was elected, private members' business has been an important aspect of my work. I have had the opportunity to present to the House some 20 or 25 private members' bills or motions. That has allowed me to get very familiar with the process we must go through. Quite frankly, I believe we can do better.

Most members know that the process of a lottery and going through a committee that has deliberations in camera to determine votability means that the possibility of a private member's item getting through, whether it be a bill or a motion, is actually quite limited.

On top of that, in my experience there have been other things that have concerned me. For instance, at one time there was a substantial amount of concern about the stretching of the resources available to members for research purposes. Yet it was also disclosed at the same time that the research personnel and the legal people were being asked to do a lot of work on proposed bills by members, and a large number of these bills were never introduced in the House.

The cost of that is very exceptional in terms of monetary value, but it is also significant in terms of utilizing resources that other members could make use of. I would hope that the committee would address the issue of the drafting of bills, the utilizing of resources and the commitments that members make to follow through and at least introduce those bills.

I also raise it because of another incident that happened to me. An opportunity to reintroduce in the 36th parliament a matter I had before the 35th parliament was denied to me because another member had put that item in before I did. When we carry that to its logical extension, we can see that it would be very easy for a particular member to put in dozens of bills on issues which possibly were not his or her own. The fact that the member submitted them for drafting purposes means that all other members would be restricted from having a same or similar bill.

That seems to be a pre-emptive move on behalf of members, to not only be able to take another member's issue away from him, but also to restrict other members from being able to do a very good job on an issue that another member has no intention of ever bringing through. That problem has to be dealt with.

There is the issue of being in the House of Commons, whether it be on a Monday morning or after government orders on Tuesday through Friday, for private members' business. Members know that speakers for private members' business are generally arranged in advance, although they do follow a party distribution for speakers. However, other members who have House duty and who must be here have no recourse but to sit on their hands and listen to debate by other members on issues which may be of interest to them. They cannot say anything. They cannot rise on questions or comments. All they can do is listen.

It seems like a contradiction in terms to say that we call that debate in this place when in fact debate is not really taking place. It is a linear situation. Debate in this place should be interactive.

Earlier today I asked a question of the member for Winnipeg—Transcona. I am not as learned as he is on some of the issues and I gave it my best shot. He answered with a couple of things that I thought maybe indicated a small misunderstanding of my question or my intent, but I did not have an opportunity to rebut.

The question is whether members in committee find that the questions and comments of witnesses, or among committee members when dealing with committee in camera business, are more effective or constructive when there is more than one question, more than one comment and an opportunity for rebuttal? Today I would have appreciated an opportunity to come back with a second question or a rebuttal statement to the issues. Maybe, just maybe, we should consider whether or not we are going to reinstitute debate in this place. By debate I do not mean speeches that people have not read beforehand because they have been provided by someone else, but debate where people have an opportunity for rebuttal and debate where we respect people's time by not being redundant in the speeches. That could go a long way.

The final item regarding private members' business that I would like to remind the committee of, because this is my opportunity to have input, is that there are on the order paper now about 140 private members' bills. Many of those bills are on the order paper on behalf of a member of parliament and that member of parliament has no possibility of having all of those bills dealt with in the current session or in this parliament.

It is sensible to me that there should be some reasonable limit on the number of items that members could put on the table unless they are prepared to withdraw something to put something else on. If members come up with 100 bills so that they can include in a piece of literature that they introduced that many bills at first reading, I am not sure whether or not it is a good utilization of the resources of the House or good utilization of a member's time.

With regard to private members' business and as part of parliamentary reform, we are looking at trying to improve the ability of all members of parliament to participate in a variety of ways to make good use of their time. We are looking at ways to give them ample opportunity to express their views and to allow them to leave their fingerprints on this place. We all know that this is not a forever position. I am somewhat concerned about other issues that I will not have time to get into, but this is a good starting point.

I have heard a lot of talk about reform with regard to the standing orders. The government House leader raised some issues which the committee will have a opportunity to come to consensus on. If this is a successful venture, it may be the starting point for more expansive reform which all members of parliament would support.

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I commend the hon. member on his remarks. I know he has been very active in the debate and follows it with a great deal of interest and sincerity.

My question to him is with respect to private members' business. He spoke of a system where members might be free to remove certain bills. Would he also like to see a system where members might be free to exchange bills between one another if the occasion arose?

Something that has been broadly discussed throughout the evening is having all private member's bills deemed votable so that there would be an expression of the entire House when the bills came before us. This would attach some particular significance to bills. Would the hon. member comment on that?

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the first item my colleague raised. I would also like to respond to his question about making all bills votable.

I had a conversation earlier with the leader of his party about good faith. We talked about all hon. members wanting to do good things. If we presume that members are here in good faith to do a good job, it would be easy to accept all matters as being votable. However our recent history shows that when things go wrong or get a little tight, people look for ways to be disruptive or to delay issues, et cetera. I agree with the member for Winnipeg—Transcona that delay is part of the democratic process.

The member's presumption would have to be that members would not abuse the opportunity and would not be frivolous in bringing items forward. I would much prefer that private members' items would have to qualify under the existing and maybe even stricter basic criteria so that they would not be dealt with at all if they had been previously dealt with.

Right now many bills and motions come forward which are very close to being the same but are a bit different. People who draft legislation say that if they change a couple of words in a bill it can come forward. If the issue has been dealt with in the House already there are also ways to do that.

As a compromise, I suggest that if a member is prepared to go through whatever process is involved to get his or her bill before the House, is prepared to give his or her presentation on the merits of the bill and be subjected to scrutiny and questioning by members of the House, there could be a preliminary vote to determine whether the House has sufficient interest in the matter going any further.

That would deal with the problem of making everything votable. It would have to be three hours and the number of members on it would be restricted. There is an equal disincentive or negative if we have ten excellent bills before the committee but only five could be picked to be votable.

The member is quite right. The private members' issue has many opportunities. We can already do swapping. The House has done that in the past with consent. There are ways that can work but the problem areas to address have to do with efficiency, equity, fairness and transparency. Right now we do not meet all the tests.

[Kevin Sorenson, Canadian Alliance, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in favour of parliamentary and democratic reform. It is not the first time in the past six months that we have spoken to parliamentary reform. We have spoken about it a lot.

In the last general election we probably held close to 25 or 30 forums and public meetings where we spoke about issues such as agriculture, fiscal responsibility and judicial reform. More than anything else we spoke about parliamentary reform.

We spoke about the need to see certain reforms in the Senate. We want to see an equal Senate. We want to see a Senate that is effective and is elected. We talked a great deal about that in the constituency of Crowfoot. We spoke about free votes. The member for Yellowhead so eloquently this evening showed us the need for free votes. I agree with his words. We spoke about referenda, about recall and about citizen initiatives. All these things are fundamental to the parliamentary reform we would like to see.

Tonight we come to the House to discuss parliamentary reform. We are talking about different minor things that can change in certain technical aspects of bringing bills forward. They are probably things that are very important. We are talking about using notes or not using notes. In the past two months I have been here I have heard a lot of people give speeches where they should have used notes.

However, I want to speak about parliamentary reform. There is a country that understands parliamentary reform, a country with a population of less than seven million, with very few natural resources. It has a harsh climate and 25% of its land mass is covered by mountains. It has four official languages, many ethnic subgroups, and large regional economic disparities.

One would think such a country would be riddled with economic and social strife, division and troubles, but nothing could be further from the truth. The country has had the highest standard of living of any other country over the last 50 years. Never has the country experienced more than 1.5% unemployment. Inflation is never higher than 4% and interest rates are always close to 6%. It has an extensive high quality health care, an excellent education system, generous social services which I might add are truly for the needy, and a social service program that looks after those who are handicapped and in need. The country has a world class transportation system.

In proportion to population the country has the smallest civil service in Europe, the lowest tax rates and the smallest national budget. Why does the country enjoy such economic and social success? It is because Switzerland has a recipe for success. The ingredient for success is called true democracy.

The Swiss truly have government of the people, by the people and for the people. Power is literally in the hands of the people, a concept that for far too long has escaped the imagination of those who sit in power here and run this country.

We in Canada have government of the politicians, by the politicians and for the politicians. It is time for change. We in Canada have top down rule. The tendency of this and previous governments has been to increase their own power by employing closed door policies. Only an exclusive few, the cabinet, the executive of government and those influenced by special interest groups and lobby groups, are the ones that come together to decide policies and programs in Canada.

Canadian citizens have effectively been excluded from participating in a forum that decides how their daily lives will be conducted and affected. Effective communication between citizens and their elected representatives has been cut off. Politicians are no longer accountable to the electorate on a day by day basis. Rather than thinking of gaining public confidence through listening and accommodating public concerns, elected officials have spent their time selling their government programs and legislation to the people.

We have seen that in the last week. We have seen farm groups and agricultural people who have come together to say that the programs the government has put forward are insufficient. The response of the government is to come out with hundreds of thousand dollar advertising campaigns selling their programs back to the people of Canada.

Rather than representing their constituents in Ottawa, our federally elected officials are representing Ottawa back home to their constituencies. My colleagues on this side of the House and I are committed to changing this sad fact.

We talked about throughout the last general election. We are committed to changing the autocratic means of decision making by restoring power to the rightful owners, the people. Individuals on the other side of the House are chuckling at the novel idea that we would actually give people power in terms of programs and representation.

Since my colleague speaking before me provided many recommendations on modernizing and improving the procedures of the House for the special committee to consider, I would like to briefly speak about an Alliance recommendation for improving democracy and it is recall. Recall, a procedure that allows the voters to call their representatives to account before the end of their term, is but one step in many to putting power back into the hands of the people.

I do not know of any other job in Canada that will not allow the removal of a person from the job for improper conduct or for not doing his or her job, except for the positions occupied by politicians. We on this side of the House believe the people of Canada should have the right to fire the people that they have hired.

As it stands now, elected officials cannot be fired by the very people who hired them, except at election time. This leaves the impression that politicians are above the rules and the regulations that govern the average Canadian worker. Allowing an elected official immunity for misconduct or incompetence is an absurdity that is added to the current level of political apathy as witnessed in the last federal election when only 51% of the electorate decided it was really worth coming out to vote. Author William Mishler says:

Political attitudes and behaviour are learned. The political apathy and inactivity characteristic of large segments of the Canadian public are not intrinsic to man's basic nature. They are neither inevitable nor immutable. The decision to participate in or abstain from politics is to a substantial degree a conditioned response to the political environment.

Our political system has bred the attitude that the government does not care what the people think or what the people want. Those elected to parliament have lost touch with the people. The political environment has produced a nation of cynics who hold politicians in contempt. Recall would force elected representatives to open the doors of communication with their constituents, thereby enhancing the dialogue between them, a dialogue that lies at the core of the representative process. Recall would also help restore mutual respect between the electorate and the politicians. It would put in place the cheques and balances to remove the monopoly of power held by parliament.

Representatives would be forced to vote on legislation according to the wishes of their constituents not according to party line. We saw some of that on legislation that was been highly contentious, such as same sex benefits and firearm laws.

The Swiss know that if democracy is to be meaningful, it has to be a bottom-up system of popular or grassroots government. The Swiss have had a system of initiative, referendum and recall since 1874. The value of this process is seen in the prosperity of the country.

The official opposition encourages the use of national referendums to give Canadians the opportunity to voice their opinions on issues of a moral or contentious nature. If all members of the House believed in democracy, if they truly believed that the majority ruled in this country, they too would support the use of national referendums. They would support the establishment of a special house committee, as recommended today.

We need to move forward in the House of Commons. We need to move forward in a positive way, where the people would feel that they had better representation, that when they sent their member to Ottawa or to parliament he or she would speak their wishes. We can do that through taking a very comprehensive look at what parliamentary reform means. I suggest that we have heard far too much of what it does not mean. It is time to look at changing a system that is sadly in need of repair.

[Greg Thompson, Progressive Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I was interested to hear the member's comments, especially when he spoke about this subject of recall. I am not sure what the member is thinking and how this would be triggered, because we have heard this before.

One of his own members, as we all know, got himself into some difficulty this week. That would be the member for Edmonton—Strathcona. What would trigger that recall back home, for example, in Edmonton—Strathcona?

We might even take the example of the member for Edmonton North, who came into this House raging against pensions, then swallowed herself completely whole on that issue and is now a pensionable member of this House. She railed against it in the 1993 election, in the 1997 election and in the 2000 election, until she entered the House well after the election and completely reversed her position. Basically she has violated the very people who elected her.

I would say those people would be subject to recall, if I am listening to the member correctly. What are the rules of the game? The only thing I agree with is the best recall in the world is an election every four years, where people can measure over that four year period.

Then there is the cost to the voter. If the member is serious in what he is saying, two of his members should leave this Chamber almost immediately if an election were held back in the ridings today. Maybe Rick Mercer on This House Has 22 Minutes can do a better job on this issue than we could.

Remember the difficulty his own leader got himself into in the election on an ill-thought out plan, in terms of referendum.

This is a road that the populace have gone done for years.

In all fairness to all members, we have to measured over something more than a month or two months.

The other issue is that many of us come into this House elected with a good strong vote. It is what we call a plurality not a majority. For example, in the last election I won by something in the order of 6,000 votes. That was about 49% of the vote in my riding. It means, by definition, that 51% of the people back in my riding did not vote for me. That applies to at least 50% to 60% of the members in the House now with five and six parties running elected by plurality. Has the member really thought through this issue to its ultimate conclusion?

[Kevin Sorenson, Canadian Alliance, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question. I honestly knew that that one was coming.

I believe that when we have policy that it is policy we stand on in the good times and in the bad times. It is policy of which we can be proud. It is policy that brings what we would call, and what perhaps is not understood in the House, accountability to every to every member.

On this side we have a book that we like to term required reading. It is called On the Take . If the hon. member has not read it I would suggest he read it. It is excellent evening reading. In that book he will find countless examples in 1993 and before 1993. It reminds me of Erik Nielsen and his many concerns with the old Progressive Conservative times. He absolutely felt betrayed. He felt that those people should step down and move aside.

We had another former leader from that party who got himself into some difficulty. I think he spoke to a judge at the time. There are examples on every side of the House. It would bring accountability back to this place. All parties need it.

I am quite proud of our referendum that the member was referring to. In areas of contentious debate, where issues have been brought forward, far too often we watched the Liberal government members stand up like puppets, look at their the Prime Minister and vote the way the he told them to vote. The people back home said that was not the reason that they sent their member to Ottawa. They sent the member to Ottawa to represent them.

There were people in the back rows on the government side with tears in their eyes who they voted for the gun law when they knew that their constituents were against it.

We have seen this so many countless times on all sides of the House. It is time we look at a policy that would bring accountability back to each member. I am proud to stand here and say that this party believes in accountability. We believe in recall. We look forward to parliamentary reform with some substance and not the meandering kind that we have seen brought forward here tonight.

[Rick Laliberte, Liberal, Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is certainly an honour to speak tonight.

I came to the House of Commons as a student. I was trying to understand how the country governed itself. The way I understood it was national sovereignty was before us. I must say the member for Davenport is a member of the party structure.

When I came in 1997, there was a speech by the then leader of the official opposition. He announced his intentions today to resign and move on. However he left a mark on me. He said that this place was like a vessel, and we had a captain that guided this vessel on its journey.

We have to look at national sovereignty and our place in this country as symbols. If we look at this vessel, it came from a British parliamentary structure. A depth of tradition came with this building. All these materials, structures and design came from an honourable and noble intent. It is to govern the people and their lands.

I bring with me here today two books. The first book is the entitled “League of the Iroquois Confederacy”. I spoke earlier this week on this. It is very fortunate, Mr. Speaker, you are the one who was receiving the speech on Monday when I delivered it. This existed before this building.

The governance of this land is in these words. It is a story of the Iroquois confederacy on these shores. It tells the story of aboriginal people living in harmony among one another and debating issues of the day for their survival on the land.

The second book is the treaties that the crown of Britain wrote with the aboriginal people. All the numbered treaties are found in here. That is what made the sovereignty of Canada. These two stories created the story of our country. Today we have to debate today where are we taking our children with the wisdom of our elders, with the wisdom of our treasured homelands and our connection to the land? That is what makes our country.

We cannot create this out on the ocean. This is created because of the territories, what we call North America. It is called turtle island in many stories. I look at it as a river system. Look at the basin of the mighty St. Lawrence River system, the Churchill River and the Hudson Bay, the Mackenzie, the Fraser and the Yukon river systems. That is a vast tract of land. How do we govern it?

This is the big challenge we have before us in parliament. How do we capture the vision of a nation, identify its goals and implement them? This is our challenge as parliamentarians in this place and as parliamentarians in the other place, which we call the Senate. In my view, that is the house of elders. It plays a very honourable role in the tradition of the aboriginal people and in the tradition of the Westminster houses.

Then we have parliamentary structures and legislatures in the provinces, which came later. How we relate to them is very crucial. Last night the estimates were approved. A lot of the finances are given to the treasuries of the provinces. We enact them into the local and the municipal governments, the schools, health and the libraries. They are all connected.

This is what sustainable development is about. It is a belief that we can look at the resources, the land, the environment, the means, the food and the water of our people, our land and our nation. We balance it with our thoughts of the people, the culture, the knowledge, the wisdom and the languages. For many people all over the world Canada is their home.

Then there is the economy and money. I still cannot believe where money comes from sometimes. It is a means of transaction that exists today in the world. At some point in time there were beavers piled up at Hudson Bay stores, which were used to purchase muskets, food, lard and bacon. Today it is plastic cards in people's back pockets. These are used for transactions and commerce. Three-quarters of our laws are based on commerce.

The whole context of a remarkable civil organization is required. What do those three words mean? It means we left our mark here and we were civil. This is an organization. A degree of influence is expected of us by our constituents, the people that we speak for. We leave our marks in words and in gestures.

This whole challenge of restructure is a happy time. I witnessed candour here that is very seldom seen between the member for Winnipeg—Transcona, a very noble statesman, heaped in the history of the House, and the member for Davenport. The candour that took place between the two members is rarely seen in the House and it should be exemplified. We should have a sense of humour, we should have a sense of appreciation of what we are trying to do, and we should support each other for what we believe in.

Look at this building. It is square. We are meant to fight. They fight us, we fight them for this country. Why? We have cultures. I have French blood in me. I may also have English blood in me but I know I have Cree.

As an aboriginal person, I see it in a different light as well. I see that we need to bring that strength from this journey. As this vessel continues, we need to bring all our peoples together. This is the time. This is the challenge.

The House of Commons, as we call it, is a place that represents every corner of Canada. Every person, every neighbourhood and every house should be represented here, every kitchen table. We bring our thoughts and our ideas here and then we have the ability to research. The parliamentary library is heaped with research materials. If we have an idea, a specific challenge or a question, people will guide us. In order us to make solid decisions we need the research service, the committee work that is done and the documentation.

I must thank the committee chairs who guided me in the previous parliament. They showed me that we can all work together for a common purpose and that we can challenge each other.

The work of the MP is unfinished. I would love to see a house of representation of this House. Let us say that the Saskatchewan legislature has 200 seats. Why could we not some day send representatives of our House to the Saskatchewan legislature, Quebec's national assembly or the Ontario legislature as Queen's Park in Toronto to debate the issues? Why could we not move around? This country is huge. We should not try to govern ourselves like an island like England. We are not an island that big. We are huge. We have to expand ourselves to the reality of this country. That is why I beg for restructuring.

Let us look in a respectful way to a new relationship with each other. Maybe the library, as the sacred symbol of our unity, should be a third House. Maybe representatives of the original signatories of the treaties of the aboriginal nations should be allowed to sit in parliament and guide this country. Maybe they should hold the sacred responsibility of sustainable development in the future. While we would manage the affairs of the day to day issues, somebody would be taking care of the long term cycle of the breathing, living organism we call Mother Earth, and this country, Canada, is responsible for a big piece of Mother Earth. I challenge Canada to take that responsibility to heart.

I wish all parliamentarians well. I recognize all the people who have taken their seats here and the history that is heaped behind us. Let us not forget it as we challenge the future.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, as a new member, I had not planned to speak tonight. I had planned to just listen to the wisdom of others. However my colleague brought in such new dimensions of interest that I would just like him to go on a bit further.

The advantage of our pluralistic society is that there are other systems that give us wisdom and knowledge. There is nothing to say that our system has everything right, and I think we can learn from that.

As a former president of Skookum Jim Friendship Centre, I was quite interested in the comments of my colleague. I would like him to elaborate on a couple of areas.

When the six first nations of Iroquois were originally warring among themselves and then they came together and organized a system of government, they often took longer to make decisions than we do today. It was a different form of decision making that could also have its benefits.

I wonder if the hon. member could comment on whether that system of government or the systems of government of other first nations in Canada, through the clan systems or through consensus decision making, may have some type of models that we may incorporate in some of the systems that we use here in the House of Commons.

[Rick Laliberte, Liberal, Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, at the outset I think I said I was a student. A study to understand the whole concept of structure and symbolism must be looked at by this committee. If we are going to strike a committee we must look at the basic structures and the purpose for those structures, such as why the House is designed this way. We have to look at those basic needs. We have a huge budget to renovate everything on this Hill, so we can afford to exercise exercise some wisdom and maybe some adventure.

I think the symbol of a circle is sacred. It is unity. The country needs unity in a big way. We have to unite our communities and unite the country for the sake of our future. This building is not designed for unity. It is designed to be adversarial. We are designed not to get along. We are two sword lengths away. We are like little kids who do not want to hurt themselves. We need to become a unified force.

The territorial legislature of the Yukon transferred a new design to the Northwest Territories and now Nunavut called the new territorial governance legislature. It designed a consensual form where everyone is elected with no party structure. The Yukon is a little different, but in the other two territories we all get elected as members representing our ridings and then we decide who will be the government and the executive. Maybe that is a challenge here. Maybe this executive that is elected here should be accountable to the majority of the House. Maybe that is where we should go.

However, we should look at the symbol of a circle. We have a sacred symbol in the parliamentary library. It survived the fire of 1916. Let us use it to keep the country together by putting it in its rightful place with the rightful history, from the Iroquois and all the nations of this country that existed here before. If we put things in their rightful place, we will have the right provisions in our vessel to make that journey into the millenniums to come.

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette-Et-La Mitis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in spite of the somewhat late hour, I am pleased to take part in the debate on Motion No. 3, tabled by the government House leader. The purpose of this motion is to create a special committee of the House to consider and make recommendations on the modernization and improvement of the procedures of the House of Commons.

The motion deals, among other things, with the committee's membership and powers, the unanimous agreement of its members on the report to be submitted to the House, and its power to make recommendations. The motion also provides that the committee shall present its report no later than Friday, June 1, 2001.

From the outset, I want to insist on the terms modernization and improvement. I hope these two terms will have the same meaning for all committee members, otherwise the unanimity rule might prevent us from having a parliament that operates like a parliament should in the 21st century.

The Bloc Quebecois believes that any change to the standing orders should be made for the purpose of improving a democracy that can always be improved. These changes must be based on principles designed to promote useful and constructive debates, in a flexible framework where democracy takes precedence over everything else, and where no one is the possessor of the absolute truth.

At last we can say what changes we would like to see to the standing orders that govern Canada's democratic life. We must face a new reality and organize our parliamentary business accordingly.

Canada has long had a biparty system. Sure, a third party would sometimes manage to make its way into the House of Commons, but the situation recently changed. Since the creation of the Bloc Quebecois and the Reform Party, which became the Canadian Alliance some months ago, regional Canada has made its way here. Opposition parties in the House of Commons have represented and continue to represent at least 60% of voters.

However, unfortunately, the course of parliamentary proceedings does not reflect this situation. In addition, it would appear that, for many members, something has to be done to save democracy largely compromised in the present context.

The changes sought must permit healthy debate and a constructive exchange of ideas in a flexible context where democracy holds sway.

In our parliamentary organization, the party winning the most seats forms the government and manages the affairs of state. The opposition, for its part, acts as watchdog to ensure public affairs are managed fairly and democratically.

The government majority should not use its plurality of seats to impose the initiatives it is proposing every time the opportunity arises.

Let us take the example of government bills. At second reading, each party expresses its opinion with respect to the bill under study and announces the broad lines of the changes it would like to make to the said bill. When the bill is referred to a standing committee for study, the members hear public officials and witnesses, if necessary, before proceeding to clause by clause study of the bill.

I must regretfully inform the House that this whole operation is, in most instances, totally useless. The debates are wasted. The amendments proposed are very rarely incorporated, although in many cases they would improve bills so they would benefit the greatest possible number of people.

We must not lose sight of the fact that the role of the opposition is to ensure that the legislation passed by parliament serves the public, and that the exercise of power by the government does not become a despotic tool for and by a minority.

There is no denying that, since my arrival in the House of Commons, amendments to the standing orders, along with the Liberal Party's way of doing things, are far from advancing the cause of democracy.

Time allocation motions pursuant to Standing Order 78, which are commonly referred to as gag orders, should be exceptional measures used as a last resort. It is good for parliamentarians to take the necessary time to discuss bills introduced in the House.

However the government does not want the media and the public to realize that a bill being debated poses a problem. So gag orders have become the norm and the government regularly invokes them, because people must be objective enough to recognize that, in fact, this is the main tool the government has for limiting debate and the opposition's right to speak.

Before putting a time allocation motion to a vote in the House of Commons, the Speaker should make sure that the motion does not constitute an abuse of House procedure. To help him reach a decision, the minister sponsoring a bill affected by a time allocation motion should come before the House and take part in a question and comment period not to exceed 60 minutes in length, in order to justify why the time allocation is worthwhile, if not actually necessary. It must be kept in mind that this government has made excessive use of this standing order since 1993, and the practice has become commonplace. The government majority ought not to fear such a measure.

It is regrettable that the government got Motion No. 2 passed this last February 27, for that motion is totally anti-democratic in character and gives the government effective control over the opposition. In fact, the government has given the Chair a power that is totally subjective, for it will henceforth be the one to decide on such things as whether an amendment is frivolous or too repetitive.

The opposition is therefore losing a basic tool for improving bills. Its ability to do so is reduced to a bare minimum. This motion muzzles the opposition parties and limits them to a flat and toothless debate.

Moving on to another issue, in the early summer of 2000, I had the opportunity to travel to the United States, along with the House leaders of the various political parties present in this House, to observe the organization of the electronic voting carried out in Washington and Boston, among other places. When I realize that electronic voting has been in use for more than 30 years by our neighbours to the south, I tell myself just how far behind we are.

The government House leader would have served democracy better if he had shown some up to date thinking and proposed a way of speeding up votes, instead of acting as a big bully with his Motion No. 2 with just one object: limiting the introduction of amendments.

The system in place in Boston keeps the significance of the vote and the responsibility of the politicians intact. It is even better than the system we use in the House when we want to speed up the voting process and ask our whips to rise and indicate how their party will vote. I do not doubt that, should electronic voting become a reality here, the Board of Internal Economy would ensure that such a system is absolutely reliable.

It is also important to preserve the unique character of opposition days by providing that the motion that is debated cannot be amended by the party that proposed it. Therefore, Standing Order 85 should be amended accordingly.

When the Speaker authorizes an emergency debate under Standing Order 52, the motion debated should always be voted on, for reasons of transparency and democracy.

If it is deemed that a debate must urgently be held, then it is appropriate that parliamentarians vote on that urgent matter. The debate would then have a much greater significance than it currently does. The criteria to help the Chair rule on the admissibility of such a request should be made more flexible to allow more of these debates.

No changes to the standing orders should result in a reduction of the time given to members of parliament when reviewing government bills at second and third reading.

The role of members of parliament is already quite watered down and must not be reduced even more with the introduction of measures that would allow, for example, the drafting of bills following the tabling of a petition.

There would be many other points to mention or discuss. But unfortunately my time is up. I do hope that this debate will have a happy ending, that it will lead to transparency and a greater desire to promote and increase the participation of elected members to the democratic life of our parliament.

[Rick Laliberte, Liberal, Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, we see the technological change that is happening in our age. It is like what the hon. member said before about the hare and the turtle. There is the speed of the outside world while we are going as slow as molasses. However, we are taking sure steps on some careful decisions that we have to make here.

I ask the hon. member this: what vision does she see in terms of leaving a mark from this time on? We have our system of Houses, our parliamentary structure now. What should we leave behind to keep the country vital for future generations?

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette-Et-La Mitis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, now there is an extremely interesting question. We have entered the 21st century, but we have brought all our old culture along with us.

Earlier, I heard the hon. member's speech, and I watched the opening of the new parliament in Nunavut on television. I realized that their culture and organization were completely different from ours.

I wonder to what extent we would be capable, for instance, of simply transforming this chamber into a semicircle. How would we justify such an action? We would certainly have to have a different vision of politics.

It is often said that there should perhaps be a different approach to politics, that the confrontation and violence should be reduced, and that we should work more for the common good. This certainly bears some thinking about. Although the committee does not have a lot of time, I hope we will be able to see evidence of this concern and that we will be allowed to give careful thought to what we want to become as parliamentarians.

There is no doubt that each and every one of us was elected to represent the public. We belong to a political party but, once elected, our job is to represent all our constituents. The 301 members of parliament represent the 30 million people in Canada, without exception.

Obviously, a major change could be made by trying to come up with procedures that would allow us to work together, around a table, developing a bill for the betterment of our community, rather than having an authoritarian, majority government which thinks it has all the answers, which has its own way of looking at things, and which is completely insensitive to how opposition members might see them, even though we represent, this time around anyway, 60% of Canadian voters.

[Chuck Cadman, Canadian Alliance, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it has been a long day, and I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this very important issue of parliamentary reform. It is the backbenchers who are most affected by the way this place has been operating in the past while.

The fact that we are debating this issue at all is, I believe, a strong indication of the frustration that we are facing in attempting to represent our constituents in this place.

In an effort to place my individual concerns on the record, I would like to take a few moments to outline how I have been personally affected by what has been going on over the past few years while I have had the fortune and the honour to represent the constituency of Surrey North.

A couple of years ago, in carrying out my parliamentary duties and my responsibilities, I was developing a number of amendments to a government bill. It was my understanding that I was working with the staff of the House of Commons in a confidential manner in an effort to bring forth proposed amendments and changes to a government initiative concerning its youth criminal justice law. I found it more than a little disconcerting to discover that the clerk of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights was in possession of my amendments prior to my submitting them to the committee for consideration.

I immediately embarked on a question of privilege in this place. To make a long story short, it appears that there had been a restructuring within the organization of the people whose considerable expertise and valuable assistance we rely on to do our jobs. I also note that after much debate and deliberation the Speaker at the time ruled that my privileges were not harmed by what had occurred.

The government side explained that the restructuring was necessary to enhance and promote the team concept of providing assistance to members of parliament. Let me be clear that I certainly do not question the Speaker's ruling, as he could only decide on the basis of the information that was provided to him at that time. I would be remiss if I did not add that there was subsequently quite an extensive debate and investigation by the procedural and House affairs committee into this operational change that had occurred without the consent or knowledge of the members.

I also note that while everyone involved in the decision making finally decided that nothing was wrong and the members of this place were not disadvantaged by the change, we have since reverted to our former status quo. In short, although it was decided that nothing was broken, we decided to fix it anyway. It is my understanding that now when I as a member employ legislative counsel to draft proposed amendments, those amendments will no longer be placed on a database for numerous employees to use and potentially abuse.

The listener may well question these comments. One could wonder, I suppose, just why I am raising the issue when everything is back to normal and the battle appears to have been won. My concern is that what should have been a fairly straightforward example of breach of confidentiality of lawyer-client privilege was never formally recognized as such. Politics had come into play. The government, the ultimate controller of the staff in this place, refused to accept that harm had occurred and refused to hold anyone accountable for that harm.

We had a manager within this institution who unilaterally changed the operation of the solicitor-client relationship between a member of parliament and House legal counsel. That person was able to avoid censure, and through the failure to properly address what happened, I wonder when something similar will again occur and which member of parliament will be on the receiving end of it. I have had my turn, but I do not wish anyone else to be similarly affected.

As an aside, I should point out that my relations with the clerk of the justice committee at the time were somewhat negatively affected by that situation. It was my sense that he took the position that I was attacking him and trying to cause him some grief for having access to my confidential amendments. I assure members that nothing could have been further from the case. It was the system as it was set up within the legal department of the House of Commons that permitted, and for that matter required, the clerk to become involved as he did. The clerk was not responsible for that.

I would suggest that the standing orders include the concept of solicitor-client privilege to protect the information that passes between individual members of parliament and their assigned legal counsel. Members of parliament are entitled to an expectation of confidentiality with counsel in order to do their job, especially in the political environment that exists in this place.

Another concern I have and would like to discuss has to do with committee work. We hear time and time again about the importance of our committees in threshing out the problems and nuances of all forms of legislation before it comes up for a vote in the Chamber.

I take my committee duties seriously, as I am sure all members do. I am present at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights quite regularly. I also understand the importance of presenting amendments through the committee so that its members are provided with the opportunity to review and debate those proposals. It is, after all, the committee members who are tasked by parliament to conduct indepth review and analysis of legislation through witness testimony, debate, proposing amendments, et cetera. The committee members gain a more thorough knowledge of the issues raised by the legislation and use that gained experience to assist the House with improving the legislation.

It is my opinion in the time that I have been here that some of the best work of the justice committee was accomplished during the time that the late Shaughnessy Cohen, rest her soul, occupied the chair. While we did not always agree, as I am sure members know, she was a most determined individual. I do believe that she always tried to do what was right and what was fair. The fact that the two parliamentary secretaries sat as members of the committee did not appear to intimidate Ms. Cohen. She took control of the committee's work.

Too often I can see that a committee chair can become intimidated by the presence of a parliamentary secretary. Too often I can see that the committee's work becomes a mere formality. It is the parliamentary secretary who gives the government members their marching orders on how to proceed and ensures that no one strays from the government's agenda.

However, I understand that this particular issue will be discussed further by others and perhaps even in another venue; of course I am referring to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

My real concern over committee work relates to what happened during the last parliament with the Youth Criminal Justice Act, Bill C-3. The committee conducted an indepth, extensive review and heard from many witnesses. The committee members then presented a number of amendments, approximately 250 in all, of which about 150 came from the government itself. Instead of dealing with those amendments, the committee sent the bill back to the House unchanged.

To my mind, the committee failed the House, as it did not fulfil its function. It spent a large number of tax dollars to hear from witnesses. It occupied parliamentary staff and tied up government officials for months on an important piece of legislation, but in the end it essentially accomplished absolutely nothing. The House was deprived of the position on the bill from the very people it had tasked to review and return with their advice and experience.

Surely there is something wrong here. Surely it is more than an inconvenience. It is an abject failure. I fully appreciate that there was a filibuster of sorts going on in the committee but filibusters are nothing new in this place or in the committees. They are addressed one way or another. We do not run away from them. The government had the same type of majority on committee as it does in this Chamber. It had a number of ways in which it could have addressed that problem.

By abdicating its duties, the committee forced the reintroduction of all those amendments in this Chamber and we are all aware that the number of amendments then swelled, up into the neighbourhood of 3,000, which had to be addressed by all members of parliament. The actions of the committee made a bad situation worse.

When members of the official opposition, the Progressive Conservatives, the NDP and yes, even the government itself, lose their amendments in the shuffle, so to speak, it is an injustice. For the members of those parties to be denied the opportunity to debate those amendments with their peers in committee is also just not right.

At times I left with the distinct impression that work done in committees was merely a game or a sham. The government was going through the motions to make it appear as though legislation was thoroughly reviewed and analyzed. I regret feeling compelled to adopt this attitude, and that is why I wanted to speak to this important matter of parliamentary reform.

I implore all members to take a serious interest in improving the way we do things around here. We have been elected to represent Canadian citizens. At times the burden can become heavy, but we knew that or we certainly should have known it before coming here. There is much work to be done but we need the right tools to do the job properly. We need significant changes to our procedures to do just that.