Debates of March 21st, 2001

Modernization Of House Of Commons Procedure

[Ken Epp, Canadian Alliance, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If the member goes over his time we should arrange it so that the other person's time is reduced by the same amount so that together they get 15 minutes.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Lincoln)]

The member has two and a half minutes for questions and comments.

[Rick Borotsik, Progressive Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I will not take the full two and a half minutes, so perhaps it could be tacked on to the intervention of my colleague from St. John's West.

I have one very quick question and the member just briefly touched on it. As one member across the way said, it is contempt of parliament. Recently we have talked about ministers who prefer to go to the news media, to a press conference, and to outside organizations to make policy announcements that should be made in the House.

Could the member expand on that a little? The time for questions and comments could then go to my good friend from St. John's West.

[Bill Casey, Progressive Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I will just use the example I mentioned. Yesterday the Minister of Foreign Affairs announced a change in our policy toward India. That affects the foreign affairs committee but we were not told.

We were not given any advance notice. We were not given any opportunity to comment, question, criticize, advise or maybe make improvements to the policy. It did not come to parliament. We had no opportunity to deal with the issue in the House.

It has become pervasive. The government does it more and more. It makes announcements in the media. It does not bring them to the House. It does not give us a chance to comment. It is a very serious issue. It is moving away from tradition and precedence.

[Loyola Hearn, Progressive Conservative, St. John's West, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to participate in such a discussion this evening. It is a pleasure to partake in such an interesting exercise. Today is a great day to have such a debate because it is international day for the elimination of discrimination.

Many of us are wearing multicoloured ribbons representing the different nations within our country. I wonder, as many of Canadians watch the debate this evening, what they are saying about us? What do they say about us every day when they watch this honourable House? We must remember that people outside the Chamber only see what is portrayed on television and only hear news reports. Quite often it is not very pretty.

It was an honour this evening, Mr. Speaker, to listen to you, to listen to my leader earlier, and to listen to the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle. If my French serves me right, qu'appelle means what calls. The question we might ask is what is calling us to be here tonight? Unfortunately there are not too many of us, but why are we here?

[An hon. member]

You are whipped.

[Loyola Hearn, Progressive Conservative, St. John's West, NL]

It is not because of our whip, with all due respect to my colleague. Some of us who are in the Chamber at this late hour, and some who will stay even later, believe in the institution. We also believe that perhaps tonight we can make some difference.

What concerns us is who is not here. I know we cannot draw attention to individuals but let us draw attention to classes. The people who hold the power may not have the same concerns about what happens in this great Chamber as those who perhaps are abused by the power that some people hold.

[Dennis Mills, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

They are listening.

[Loyola Hearn, Progressive Conservative, St. John's West, NL]

We hope they are listening and we hope that they learn. All of us have learned tonight from all those who have participated.

We could ask for many things to be changed. Practically all of them are on the record already. We could talk about ministerial statements that should be made in the House so that there is a chance to respond and people across the country understand what has been announced, particularly if those statements refer to policy and financial items.

We should see ministers here during the late show when we have questions but are not satisfied with the answers we receive. We ask for more deliberation so that they can understand what we are talking about. We should not have their parliamentary secretaries rushing in with a prepared text to slough off members with an answer prepared by someone else. That is not learning about the problems which confront the country and problems which they as government ministers should be doing something about.

We are also looking at the time it takes to pass legislation and comparing it to the time wasted in this honourable Chamber. Tonight I returned from having dinner with a group of young students who are here in a forum of young Canadians. I asked them as they sat at my table what they thought of their visit to the House. They were impressed, as anyone would be who comes here, but they also said that the decorum is certainly not what it should be and that we waste a lot of time.

Prior to the dissolution of the House when the election was called I saw all the bills that died on the order paper, particularly bills like the employment insurance one that left a lot of people in dire straits for the fall and winter. I wonder how many of these bills could have been passed if we did not procrastinate.

I know my time is short but let me say that despite all the suggestions being made by everyone in relation to the work of the committees, the performance of ministers, the methods and mechanisms of pushing through legislation, if we are to attain change in this honourable Chamber it has to come from the heart of each and every one of us.

We need the intelligence and the imagination to envision what this Chamber should be and what it can do. If each and every one of us, elected by our constituents, does what we were elected to do, we will not have to worry about parliamentary change. It will happen automatically.

[James Rajotte, Canadian Alliance, Edmonton Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member on a wonderful speech. What really deserves credit is the fact that he described his affection for parliament. That is very important.

It is very important for those who do not want parliamentary reform to understand that those who want parliamentary reform do it from an affection, a love and a respect for this place. We do not do it because we do not respect parliament. It is in fact the exact opposite. We respect and love this place and want it to be what it should be. That is why we ask for parliamentary reform. I very much appreciated that comment in the hon. member's speech.

I want to ask him a specific question about quorum. He mentioned that we should probably increase quorum so that we have more members in the House and the debates are livelier and more deliberative. This place should be a national debating body. The whole notion of deliberation, of give and take, of debate back and forth, and of the tension between the opposition and the government side, is what produces good governance. Would he comment on whether we should increase the quorum requirements of the House of Commons?

[Loyola Hearn, Progressive Conservative, St. John's West, NL]

Mr. Speaker, a number of years ago I came from the government side of a legislature where our leader gave us a fair amount of flexibility. I then spent three years in opposition where I saw premier number one pull the plug on Meech Lake despite the wishes of the majority.

I also came from the same legislature where I saw the same leader lead a vote of non-confidence in the speaker because he was caught short on quorum. I have seen many people try to make good speeches and nobody listened. That was unfortunate. How can we individually react and do anything about the problems in the country or parliamentary reform if we are not even listening or we are not even concerned with what is going on?

I agree with the hon. member that we should always have a large number in the House so that the give and take will lead to positive results.

[Dennis Mills, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was inspired to come to this community and ultimately participate in electoral politics back in 1980 by the Right Hon. Pierre Elliott Trudeau. I remember one day in debate in 1983 when we were chatting about certain issues. He stood in the House and said that the essence of the Chamber was to speak for those who did not have a voice and that the essence of our work was to support those who needed our help when they needed it most. That has been my compass.

Before I get into my direct comments on why this place needs to be more effective, Mr. Speaker, your courage and your inspiration are very similar to those of Mr. Trudeau. Your speech earlier tonight in the House of Commons on how we need to reform to make this place more effective and more relevant very much reminded me of Mr. Trudeau.

On June 5, 2000, I wrote an article for the Hill Times in which I talked about parliamentary democracy. I know a couple of times today I have been quoted on the fact that we are nothing more than voting machines, that the place is irrelevant and that it is a car with a broken engine. I stand by everything I said on June 5.

Tonight I celebrate the fact that the leadership of all parties has finally made a public confession that it is time to take the engine of this place into the repair shop and make it more relevant. That is a great thing.

When I stand here tonight I think of my constituents. They are kind wondering about committees, special motions and all the different rules of the House. They do not understand any of that. They elected me to come here and work on the issues that I ran on in the last election.

One of those issues, for example, is the whole struggle that we are having to get more affordable housing in the downtown Toronto area. I know it is a national problem but I am speaking to my constituents tonight. They wonder what is going on, that after I ran on a certain issue, the government ran on a certain issue, the Prime Minister takes a lead on a certain issue, I was elected on November 27 and then I come up here and nothing happens. They do not get it. They cannot figure it out. I have to confess that I also cannot figure it out and I have been here for 13 years.

To be brutally frank, and I say this to all members of the House, I am totally fed up with the current system. I am not fed up because it will make any difference to me personally. What bothers me is the contempt that the entire machinery of government has toward each and every member of the House of Commons. I do not care what party it is, it is contempt. Those are strong words but I stand by them.

I have, through access to information, documents in my possession showing that departments of government have passed on memos saying what they will feed up to the minister or to the MPs so that they will stop bothering them. That happened when I tried to serve my constituents.

Mr. Speaker, we go back 13 years. I pray and hope that under your watch we can make this House of Commons work the way it is supposed to work. It has to start. I worked my guts out in 1984 to help the Prime Minister become not only the leader of my party but the Prime Minister of Canada. I have immense love and respect for him, but I do not have respect for the 800 men and women in the Privy Council Office who, in no way shape or form, reflect the experience of the populist approach that the Prime Minister has had throughout his 35 years of serving parliament and the country.

I support all the recommendations from my colleague for Lac-Saint-Louis but I want one other amendment to come to parliamentary reform. I want one day a week, or maybe one day a month if that is all we can get, to be contempt for parliament day, a day where MPs can bring to the House examples of where they have tried to serve their constituents on issues that are government policy but could not get a response, of where they tried to get service for their constituents but the bureaucrat's response was that they should call the minister's office. Does that mean that a public or city councillor can call the bureaucrat but a member of parliament cannot call him or her and get service without going through a minister's office? That is crap. That is not the way to run a country.

I do not think parliamentary reform will ever take root until we create an environment where the machinery of government, the public service, responds to all of us as we try to serve the public and our constituents. I submit to the House that this is not happening today.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is good to see you in the chair. I know that parliamentary reform is something that is very much on your mind and on the minds of many members here tonight. Throughout the coming days and weeks I am hoping that we can keep this spirit alive.

Many members have engaged in the debate throughout the past number of hours. I commend the hon. member from Edmonton who has a long career ahead of him as a parliamentarian and has shown a great many insights already that will serve us well.

I would like to put a question to the hon. member for Toronto—Danforth. As he has pointed out, he is a long serving member and he has expressed very eloquently a frustration that many members feel from all corners and all parties. He has focused in on one of the key problems that we are wrestling with and finding some difficulty in articulating, the bureaucratic influence that exists.

It appears that the levers of powers given to elected representatives have somehow been stripped away, watered down or diminished. A simple example the member used was of a member being able to access information on behalf of a constituent. It would normally take weeks or months to get a response. We would normally punch in a telephone number of one department only to be sent off to another department or to another province. We may have called our local office only to get another city in another province. He knows the problem. He has encountered it as have many of the members here.

How do we change this institutionalized attitude that appears to exist? It is a non-partisan issue because it has evolved, as have a lot of the problems, but how do we change the mindset or the attitude that seems to exist within the bureaucracy? Should we limit terms for members and senior civil servants? Is there a way we can police the bureaucracy more effectively?

[Dennis Mills, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my recommendation in our list of parliamentary reforms is that we have a contempt for parliament day. On that day, the clerk of the Privy Council would sit here and be responsible for the complaints on behalf of constituents that come to the clerk. He could then fan them out to his deputies. We could then get a better service to the public. I do not see it any other way.

[Ken Epp, Canadian Alliance, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am intrigued by the speech that the hon. member has just given. Without being personal, I will make this statement so general that it will not attack an individual member here.

Surely he must agree that the way things work around here, and specifically with respect to the PMO and Privy Council, that this is a function of the executive branch of government. It has to be within their ability to change that and to reign it in.

Is that not where we should be working in the House of Commons instead of blaming bureaucrats?

[Dennis Mills, Liberal, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we are not here tonight blaming anyone. We are here tonight renewing ourselves. All of us in the House have to blame ourselves for the way we have allowed the pendulum to swing away from us. I put myself at the top of the list. I have turned the other cheek too many times on behalf of my constituents. I should have been tougher many years ago.

There is one thing all my colleagues must learn, which I learned a long time ago when I used to work in the Prime Minister's office. A highly respected senior bureaucrat once said that if we allow resistance, we will get resistance. I must confess that over the last number of years I have allowed too much resistance when I should have been more forceful on behalf of my constituents.

[Rob Merrifield, Canadian Alliance, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we are having an interesting debate today and it is absolutely vital for me, as a new member in the House, to be able to speak to it.

The House of Commons, as far as I am concerned, has to return to the people of Canada. Parliamentary reform has taken far too long and is long over. The rights and responsibilities of members of parliament to represent the views of their constituents has disappeared. The government seems much more concerned about maintaining power than representing the will of the people.

The House of Commons is the people's parliament. It is the voice of the common people of Canada. We must make it responsive to the people of Canada.

I took my seat here only a few short months ago and I have already come to recognize, despite the efforts of hard-working individuals from all sides of the House, that this place is no more than a voting machine. Last night I witnessed 16 motions being voted on in a few minutes, rubber stamp laws that were mainly drawn up by unelected bureaucrats from the Prime Minister's office.

It is up to the members of parliament, the government and the opposition to take parliament back. We must take parliament back.

I came believing that I could offer some constructive input on pressing legislation and engage in serious debate on important issues. Instead, I saw an example yesterday of where we turned our back on a very important issue, an economic fibre of our country, the agriculture crisis. Many members were not even allowed to debate on it. However, we can go all night tonight on this one.

The mechanism of government was inherited by a proven British parliamentary system created by the Fathers of Confederation. They answered the great question: Should the chief power of the country be the king or parliament? They determined that they would be governed by the people and not by the will of one man. It is an illusion if one thinks that Canadians live in a democracy. We are controlled by the Prime Minister.

My grandfather fought in both world wars. He went to war defending the rights of democracy so that we could stand in the House today to debate. He fought for freedom. Young men and women, aged 18, 19 and 20 years old, gave up their lives so that we could be here to debate. It is sad for me to think that the people of Canada have been conquered by a dictator without a shot being fired.

We can change that by free votes. We can work toward reforming parliament. There are a lot of things that have been talked about today, all of them very worthy of note, but for me the greatest change would come with the free vote of every member in the House, because it is up to us to vote the will of the people who sent us here.

Have governments forgotten that only four short months ago the citizens of the country elected each one of us into our seats? In four short months we have forgotten who we represent. We need to shift how government works and to be responsive to those who put us here.

As I see it, we are bribing Canadians with their own tax dollars, and there is wasteful spending on unnecessary programs and unaccountable government. Cabinet is barking to the tune of the bureaucrats and special interest groups. Free votes will set us on a path for parliamentary reform and that is a path that we need to get on really quickly as far as I am concerned.

A real interesting concept is that government members believe that if the government introduces a bill that is defeated or if an opposition bill, motion or amendment is passed it would bring down the government and they would have to resign. It is beyond me where that idea comes from. It is archaic.

The Prime Minister coerces backbenchers into believing that voting the will of the constituents would bring the government down. That would not bring the government down at all. Voting for their constituencies and constituents would make the government stronger and Canada stronger.

Liberal backbenchers have been forced into something that the Prime Minister wants. He has been bullying them around, sort of like a schoolyard bully, but bullies are only powerful as long as no one stands up to them and no one really challenges them or thinks around their bullying.

I know that the hon. members across the way are truly hard working people. I have talked to many of them. Now is their chance to stand up. Not many of them but a few of them are in the House right now. They can talk to their colleagues and do something for Canada that is beyond anything they have done to this point.

There are 301 members elected to the House of Commons. We have the power to implement change. We set the rules. We were entrusted to make the laws of this country. I am not asking members to vote for something they do not believe in, but I will not be holding my breath that the Prime Minister will come through that door any time soon, unmuzzle the backbenchers over there and allow free votes in this place.

As democratically elected members of parliament, we do have the power to make the change. We could make it as early as tomorrow morning, if we had the political will to do so, by passing a motion that we truly have free votes in this place. All it would take is 30 Liberal backbenchers to live up to their potential and to influence government in a way they have never influenced it before. That is all it would take. We could change Canada and never go back. That is how easy it could be.

I do not believe in blaming the bureaucrats. I believe it is our duty. We need to do something about it and we need to do it soon. Backbench MPs have that potential to be more than just voting machines. I would challenge them to do it, to be more, because they owe it to themselves and they owe it to this country.

I am proud that I can represent the people of Yellowhead who have chosen me to be here as their representative in the House of Commons. They trust me to inform them of the problems, seek their opinions and vote their will. After being in parliament for only a few months, I have already realized that my ability to represent my constituents has been hampered by the Prime Minister's obsession for power. If he were really interested in creating the legacy he talks about, he would implement parliamentary reform himself. However, we do not have to wait for the Prime Minister. We can implement it now. We have the power to do it and we should.

Right after the election of November 27, 2000, I came to Ottawa with a few MPs for orientation. They were from all sides of the House. We were excited. We had just been elected. We had just been given the opportunity to change Canada, to lead Canada, to make a difference in this country. I was excited about it and I am still excited about it. As I talked to the other MPs, they said they were excited about the concept of a free vote. They thought it was something they could and should do.

It is interesting now to see how disappointing it is that they have fallen victim to the system and have thrown away their ideals and their principles. If these walls could speak, they would tell us about the great leaders who have sat in these same chairs and who have fought for a better Canada, who have done what was right for their constituencies.

I am calling on every member of the House to live up to the vision of the founding fathers and to vote for a motion to allow free votes, because members owe it to this country. It is the greatest country in the world and we need to protect it. We can do it and we should do it now.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to raise a point when the member for Toronto—Danforth made his points. I just want to put on the record that I do agree with a lot of what he said. We do not really need to change the system in here; we need to change it totally, starting at the Privy Council Office and on down.

However, the member who just spoke talked a lot about free votes. I really think on that point that I look at every vote as a free vote in the House. I vote my conscience. If I want to vote against my party, I can.

The member mentioned that if these walls could speak, but if these walls could speak they would tell us that there have been more free votes since 1993 in the House than ever in its history. Those are the facts. That is reality. There is not this great restriction. In fact, we have seen more members vote different from their party on this side of the House, the governing party, than we have seen in the member's party, the Canadian Alliance, over the last number of years.

I just want to point out that I agree with free votes, but they are not the do all and end all in terms of changing everything in this place. I was not able to be here for a lot of this evening, but I listened to a fair bit of the debate on TV. I really like what I see tonight. There is a good spirit in the House, with good discussion, good debate and good ideas, and I think we need to carry it further.

However, I just want to point out to the member opposite that free votes in and of themselves will not be the do all and end all in terms of changing how this place operates, because we have had more free votes with this government than ever before in our history, but it may not be enough.

[Rob Merrifield, Canadian Alliance, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the question. I would just like to explain that in the time I have been here, in the time that I have witnessed, I do not have to go back very far to see that what the hon. member is saying about free votes has been stifled very significantly. I just have to go back one day, because yesterday we saw many of the backbench Liberals vote against a bill that they honestly believed should have been there. We know that from witnessing it on agriculture, as he may have believed.

What I am suggesting is that the free vote is a place to start. There has been a lot of good discussion here today and I appreciate all of it. I agree with the hon. member that there are some very good ideas about parliamentary reform. I also believe that it has to start with the free vote. If we did that, it would pave the way for everything to flow out of it. That is what I am suggesting.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Yellowhead. I appreciate his candour. Of course he has certainly distinguished himself as a new member of parliament and I am pleased to see him enter a debate that I think is so important, not just to the essence of what this place is but, more important, to what we are as Canadians and what we share in common.

Earlier this evening we heard the hon. House leader talk about the notion of at least being able to ensure that we have more meaningful debate and opportunity for members on both sides of the House to provide amendments to opposition day motions, the so-called practice that has been around since 1994, with the hon. member's previous party, in which the opposition splits its time and as a result effectively forecloses on any opportunity for meaningful debate by simply putting the word immediate after its own motion.

Would the hon. member not agree, then, with the House leader's position that perhaps we could encourage the very thing he is looking for? We have members on this side like myself, who on two occasions has tried to provide meaningful amendments. That might allow members on this side of the House to join with the members, as we might have yesterday, on a very important debate.

[Rob Merrifield, Canadian Alliance, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of different ideas about how reform should happen in this place. We have talked a lot about them and we have heard almost all of them today. I could get into the details of that one and many more. I would prefer to keep my focus exactly on where I think we should start.

Where we should start is the free vote. We should start with being able to do what our constituents want us to do and that is to vote their will in the House. If we did that, then we would bring meaningful debate into this place. Right now we do not have that. I have not seen it. We can get into all those other details, but I would rather not because I want to keep my focus on where the fundamentals are and then work from there.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Yellowhead.

Part of the process of parliamentary reform perhaps includes some of the more subtle parts of the ways in which the practices of the House have evolved over the years and have been so important in providing the kinds of routines that allow us to discharge our functions day in and day out.

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for you to be in the chair this evening, particularly as I give my perspective in terms of parliamentary reform, because I think it is rather poignant that a debate which took place some time ago, a contest that I am very proud we both had an opportunity to run in, was really, in my view, the beginning of a new phase with respect to the issue of parliamentary reform. Some two months or a month and a half after that deliberation, we now see ourselves, unlike other parliaments, still continuing in the need to look at and study the issue of improving the relationship that members of parliament have with the House and, more important, with their constituents.

The opportunity for us to speak today as a result of an agreement by all House leaders is one that I believe is of essential and extreme importance to all members of parliament. Parliamentary reform is an issue that concerns many Canadians. What we are in fact discussing today centres on the future viability of parliament and the value of those who have been sent here to represent the interests of their constituents.

One of the most interesting things that has happened, which has been discussed by various members in the House this evening, has been the question of the disconnect, to some extent, among constituents, Canadians and their voting patterns. However, I think the more disturbing trend might be encapsulated by those who observe and who I believe do not do so with a political bias. These are people such as Peter Dobell, who in his recent report entitled Reforming Parliamentary Practice: The Views of MPs , wrote:

In no other British-type legislature has the shift of power to the executive proceeded further than in the Canadian federal House of Commons.

There is obviously some tension with respect to this negative view and the idea that perhaps the House of Commons may not be able to continue to be relevant as long as power and decision making is so intently focused in one area.

I believe we have been placed in the unenviable position of trying to represent, as members of parliament, the views of constituents to bring forth worthwhile ideas, while at the same time realizing that very little can be done to accomplish this without the approval of the executive.

One of the items that has not been discussed at great length this evening and which I would like to touch upon is an area that I think all members of parliament can readily agree with. That is the notion of our private members' business. I look across and I know there are members of parliament who have helped this member in particular pass two pieces of legislation. One, Mr. Speaker, was passed with your help in 1996 with respect to organ donation. The other was with the help of members across the way, including the Minister of Justice, with respect to the issue of pursuit. It was the first change of the criminal code by a backbencher.

There are changes that reflect the essence and the meaningfulness of what members of parliament really must challenge and must bring forth in the House of Commons beyond question period in order to ensure that this place continues to be ever more relevant.

However, there is a problem. Some of this issue can be solved not simply with respect to the standing orders. I think all members of parliament in the House would agree that private members' business is something that is far more important. It might give an opportunity to members of parliament to see their positions effectively and, to some extent, properly addressed if we were to make all private members' business votable. It is reverse onus on members of parliament not to come forward with frivolous propositions in terms of legislation.

If members of parliament truly believe in what they are saying, and they truly believe that what they are advocating on behalf of their constituents is worthy enough of being on the floor of the House of Commons, then we owe it to members of parliament and to Canadians to ensure that members of parliament become accountable not to their colleagues and peers, but to the Canadians which they represent.

Each and every one of us has within our own right the privilege of being here. It is with the private members' business that I believe members of parliament can work with this side of the House and vice versa, by working on issues over and above the precious issues of the day that come up for 45 minutes, which you are no doubt familiar with, Mr. Speaker, with respect to question period. I believe we have an opportunity here to give members of parliament the hand up that they need to pick one, maybe two issues, in every parliament which they can broker and perhaps broker successfully, assuming they can lobby other members of parliament to tell them how important their issues are.

I have had some experience in winning a few bills. I have also had some rather unsavoury experiences with losing a bill, and particularly one dealing with predatory pricing. The House of Commons is supreme, parliament is supreme and not a committee that from time to time has usurped its authority to simply erase the bill because it did not happen to like it or because it was under particular instructions.

We all know that there are obligations on those committees. Ultimately, no committee as an adjunct or an arm of the House of Commons can assume a power which belongs to the House of Commons alone. It is for that reason that if we are going to treat private members' business seriously, when it goes to committee the role of committee must be to improve that bill, not extinguish it, not destroy it, not vandalize it and not remove it from existence.

I am speaking to the idea that bills that are votable must be treated with great respect. It has been a determination of the House that they be treated in such a way. I ask for the indulgence of members and the House leaders to consider that. If they truly want to make the role of members of parliament that much more relevant, that I believe is one area that we must work much harder on.

More important, I appreciate the role of the House leader of this party. I appreciate the role of the members who have had plenty of experience in the House and, yes, our new members who bring a very new perspective to what Canadians are saying to the House of Commons. It is equally important for us as members of parliament to be able to talk to members of parliament of the Conservative Party, the Alliance Party, the Bloc Quebecois and even other parties like the NDP.

In this context, it is important we have hope, pride and confidence in members so they set partisan politics aside for a while and ensure we are here to promote the interest of Canadians and that we work toward that end.

I think it is clear that partisanship has a lot to do with the effective operation of this House, but perhaps as well can on occasion be a threat of confidence in this House. That is why I implore members, and hope to have their support, to show today in this debate that we can work together for the good of our country, to ensure our country is running well and to offer it a better future.

If we do nothing more than work together on the very valuable proposals that are being put forward individually by members of parliament, irrespective of their partisan affiliation, we will have accomplished in this parliament what no other parliament has done before.

Wracked by the internal internecine fights of “we have got to make the point, we have to embarrass the government, the government has to protect itself,” I believe we have an opportunity which begins here this evening at ten to ten eastern standard time, to provide Canadians an opportunity to understand that what we do here is meaningful and important.

Many times we will see Americans and people from other countries come into this famous House of Commons. They will find it fascinating that less than two sword lengths apart people every day, day in and day out, can see the most important issues of the day debated. Some people call it a farce and some call it theatre.

We have an obligation to explain to Canadians what we are doing here, but to also let Canadians know that we have the opportunity and an advantage here this evening to do what no other parliament has done before.

While there is only ten minutes for discussion in what is otherwise a very worthwhile evening, there are issues of the Board of Internal Economy and perhaps opening that up to members of parliament, making decisions to members of parliament and to make sure their needs are truly met. These are all part and parcel of the much wider question of how we continue to reinvent ourselves and modernize ourselves.

I compliment the government and the House leaders for having the courage to go and visit this debate. We need to deal with substantive issues. Let us work together to make this parliament relevant and in so doing we will have honoured all Canadians.

[James Rajotte, Canadian Alliance, Edmonton Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the member opposite's speech. I thought it was very well done.

In terms of the certain issue of private members' bill, as a member I fully concur that private members' bills should all be votable. It simply does not make sense to have two-thirds of the private members' bills that come up for debate for an hour not votable and then they are off the order paper. That does not make sense. I fully support the member in that.

I would also agree with him that it makes members more responsible. If they introduce a private members' bill that does not make sense, they will be the ones who are held accountable.

I would like to ask the member two questions. First, should the House extend the hours for debate of private members' bills? If we look at the parliament of Canada, for about the first 50 years we had more time devoted toward private members' business. Since about 1911 we have tended to move toward more government business.

The second question is a genuine question for the member opposite. In my short time here I have observed him and take him to be an intelligent and independent member of the House. The fact is we are hampered by a concentration of power in the Prime Minister's office and the Privy Council Office. That hurts those intelligent and independent members like himself.

There was a conference last year in Edmonton that was co-sponsored by the previous member for Edmonton Southwest and the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough. A member there said that all that we needed was for the opposition parties to join with a few backbench government members to say to the executive that they were not going to tolerate the control they had over parliament. He called it a backbenchers' bill of rights.

Would it be possible for the backbench government members to join opposition members and take back the rights from the executive that all parliamentarians should have, and should we do it right now?

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

Mr. Speaker, we are definitely challenged by the tenacity and the acuity of new members of parliament who seem to be very much on the ball, even at 38. I have to apologize, I have grey hair now but I did not eight years ago. The hon. member from Edmonton Southwest may know that in a couple of months. Perhaps if he spends a bit of time as a backbencher he will know what I am talking about.

To answer his first question, there is no doubt the hours should be extended. I think there is common perspective on the notion of extending the hours of debate in the House of Commons to accommodate private members' business. Perhaps one of those could be to devote the entire Friday to that end. That would be important as long as the condition was that private members' business was votable and that it would be taken more seriously, so that more members of parliament would come to the House and participate in those debates. That time should not extended on non-votable bills because we basically talk out those bills.

His second question is even more important. I agree with him, as have many academics and many others who have observed this since about the time of Pearson and Trudeau. We have seen an accretion of power to the centre. There are a number of reasons for it including globalization and separation. Also, the media has changed. Rather than looking for information in the post-Watergate period, it has looked for the scandal. We have certainly seen that in the past few days, and the member is not unaware of that.

Would I agree to the notion that members of parliament can take back the House of Commons? They can do it at any time.

I think it takes the collective will of members on both sides of the House to work together on issues and principles, as long as they can agree that there is a place and a time for partisanship.

I refer to that in my few comments because the House tends to be so rife with division based on party lines. We tend to have an us versus them mentality. That is the very thing we have to try to get around if we are going to go to the question of whether we can restore the sovereignty of the House of Commons.

[The Speaker]

The member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough; a brief question.