Debates of March 21st, 2001

Modernization Of House Of Commons Procedure

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

Mr. Speaker, that was something I did not get to. Again, I hate to sound like a broken record, but if hon. members go back to the McGrath committee report they will see what we recommended for a lot of appointments, such as appointments of House officers and appointments to the National Energy Board at the time, to the CRTC, to the CBC and to the boards of crown corporations, both for chair and for board members in some instances. We recommended that they be brought before the appropriate parliamentary committees, not just for questioning but in some cases actually for ratification, if I remember the recommendations correctly. This would be another way for members of parliament to become more involved.

[Joe Clark, Progressive Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I intend to share my time, if I can speak quickly enough, with my colleague and House leader, the member of parliament for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough.

Let me be clear. I think this institution is in very significant trouble. It is appropriate that we should look at the procedural changes that are proposed here. We will try that. I think the government should know, and I believe I am speaking on behalf of private members of many parties, that if this process does not work there is a growing will in the House to find some other way that will work, because the status quo in the House of Commons is no longer adequate. It does not attract the respect and the sense of legitimacy that the House of Commons needs. It is not accepted by the people of the country. Increasingly, it is not accepted here.

I want to start with what may be seen by some as a revolutionary principle. I believe that if parliament works better, government can work better. Of course there is going to be an adversarial relationship between the House of Commons and the government, and the member for Winnipeg—Transcona was absolutely right. What people vote for is a parliament. They do not necessarily vote for a government. What we are here to do is to hold a government accountable and also to ensure that the government best reflects the interests and the sensitivities of the country. That can be done through a strong parliament.

I hope that there will be some inspiration taken from the work of the McGrath committee by the members of the committee here. I want to speak for just a moment about legitimacy.

I think the success or failure of democratic systems depends on the public's willingness to support or accept decisions made in the name of democracy. Canadians are prepared to make difficult decisions, but they want to shape them. To do so, they must have confidence in their leaders.

Just as we need wealth in order to prosper, we need confidence to govern. These days, both are lacking. Our objective in these discussions must be to find the means to rebuild confidence in public institutions, to revive a feeling of legitimacy that will mobilize Canadians.

That is for three reasons. First, at the end of the day, the House of Commons is our most important institution. It has power over the courts, over cabinets and over constitutions. Let me in passing dismiss the notion that there is something unconstitutional about dealing with questions of confidence on the floor of the House. Second, this is the only Canadian institution to which each citizen in each corner of Canada feels connected. Third, the House of Commons may be the last existing pan-Canadian institution. More than ever, this diverse, blessed and difficult community needs institutions it can respect and hold in common and we in this House are losing that capacity now.

I believe the House is seriously broken and I want to make the case that this is no government's fault. Perhaps the best way I could do that is to identify three mistakes that were made, of which I was part, at least three, and there were no doubt many more. The most important, I think, had to do with the change with regard to the control of estimates. Last night we sat through a system where, in the twinkling of an eye, we approved the spending of billions of dollars. That should not happen that easily. That should not happen that automatically.

I was part of a parliament, an adviser to a leader of a party who, in the name of efficiency, changed the rules of control by Committee of the Whole. That was a mistake. We should recognize that it was a mistake. We should not consider that because that is the status quo now, we are somehow bound to accept it. We have to go back to some control of spending or parliament will never have any purpose. At the end of the day, if we do not have the power to control spending, we have power over nothing at all.

Second, to come to a point raised by my colleague from Winnipeg—Transcona, I was a member of a government—and we in that government were wrong—that changed a decision we had earlier taken and reinstated parliamentary secretaries to committees. They should not be there. They threaten the independence of the committee. The McGrath committee report, which we briefly accepted at the time, was right.

I make this point not because I like to admit mistakes, but because I think that if we are going to get anywhere in the debate we have to recognize that the present state of the House is not the fault of any one party. It is a collective fault and the repair will come only if there is a collective will to try to change the House.

When I was first sitting in the galleries and watching the House, sitting right down about here were a couple a members of a party that I think was then called the CCF. They used their power with respect to divorce bills to deny unanimous consent to the House of Commons to force a change in the law of divorce. It was too sensitive for governments to deal with as a matter of initiative, but those two members of parliament at the time, Mr. William Peters and Mr. Frank Howard, used that power, which no member of parliament now has, to deny unanimous consent on individual members and to force a change in the law of Canada. Did that incapacitate the Government of Canada? No. Did it force it to respond to public current attitudes of the country? Yes. What is parliament to do? It should be to force governments to pay attention to where the people are.

We have made mistakes in the past. We have to recognize that if we are going to make this institution relevant. We have to be prepared to admit those mistakes and make very fundamental changes.

During my participation in the debate to the throne speech, I outlined a way that I would deal with what I believed was one of the most major of the recent failures of this parliament. It had to do with committee of the whole House and control of government spending.

My own view as to how we could do that may not work but I would like it looked at. I would empower the Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition to choose two departments a year. Their estimates would be considered without any time limit and without let or hindrance. There would not be any government spending approved until every member of parliament had approved the estimates of those two departments. It would be done in committee of the whole House. It would be understood that the choice by the Leader of the Opposition would not be made until the day before the examination began so that every department would have to prepare, assuming that it would be examined.

I believe that would work. If it would not work in committee of the whole House, I believe some variant that would allow a committee of supply to sit in an alternate Chamber would work. We have to admit that four decades ago we made a mistake and restore to the House some capacity for control of spending.

I want to speak very quickly on a matter which my colleagues would make clear I speak only for myself. It involves a quite significant change in the relationship between government and the House of Commons.

It is time to challenge a central assumption about the House of Commons, namely the assumption that the power to initiate legislation should rest almost exclusively with cabinet and that the principal role of the rest of parliament is simply to hold cabinet accountable. In practical terms that means that cabinet governs and the rest of parliament simply approves or disapproves.

Cabinet is at the centre of the decisions and the rest of parliament is at the margins, whether as members of a government caucus who can often change the details of a proposal but rarely change its substance, or as members of an opposition party whose amendments or criticisms can sometimes, but not very often, bring a change. We do not have parliamentary government. We have cabinet government in a parliamentary system. We have to make some very significant moves away from that. One way would be through more free votes.

On the question of cabinet government, let me quote from a recent article by Eric Kierans, a distinguished former member of the House and a former member of the Trudeau government. He was commenting on events 30 years ago, but current today. He said:

Canada today is run by the Prime Minister's Office and Privy Council Office, whose mandarins instruct the elected members as to what they should do and say, and what opinions they must support.

The notion that the prime minister is primus inter pares—first among equals—which appears in every textbook on political science, has become a lame joke. The prime minister has no equals, nor any who can remotely aspire to be equal except by taking over the job.

The position is more like a president than a prime minister, but within a system not designed for such overwhelming centralized control, and in a regionalized nation where such control is not merely awkward, but dangerous to the public weal.

So spoke Eric Kierans. He is absolutely right. We have to take account of the extraordinary dangerous power that any prime minister, whether a prime minister from Shawinigan or a prime minister from Calgary Centre, holds. That simply has to be changed if this system is going to be valid again.

I would ask the House to consider a concept. Let us distinguish between two broad categories of the policy questions the House of Commons considers. One set involves issues which are without question life and death issues to a modern nation in a competitive world and where a government must be able to act quickly and decisively. Those would include economic and fiscal policy, trade policy, federal-provincial-territorial relations, basic foreign policy, some legal matters and some others. The list would have to be drawn very carefully. An accountable government responsible to parliament should be the principal source and author of policy on those questions.

However there is a second category of issues which, while unquestionably important, are not at the core of a government's ability to lead and protect the nation. Moreover, in some of these fields more imaginative and more appropriate policy may come from sources outside government. That could be the case, for example, with issues relating to Indian affairs, the environment, the fishery, agriculture and to other policy fields. In those cases a principal source and author of policy should be an all-party committee of the House of Commons empowered to work directly with public servants and to call upon the best advice of the community. Indeed a process like that may yield better and more pertinent legislation than would a government which regards those issues as simply secondary to its mandate.

In effect we already distinguish between issues which are more important to a government and issues which are less. In lower priority ministries, if good ideas come forward from the public servants of parliament they are more likely to be shunted aside in the privacy of the Prime Minister's office. Moreover, as I know from experience, governments fall on large issues like budgets, not on more ordinary questions. So we already distinguish between categories of issues.

This proposal would make much better use of the talent and experience of the men and women chosen by their neighbours to serve in the House of Commons. We are wasting that talent and experience today, and we have been for some time. In my consistent experience in the House of Commons in government and in opposition, any senior official in Ottawa has more influence over public policy than any elected member of parliament who is not in cabinet. That is wrong in our system. There has to be some very basic reforms undertaken if we are going to change that system.

I do not think that breaks the traditions of the application of modern parliamentary democracy to a modern society. Those are the sorts of things we have to look at.

Let me go to more specific matters. I am conscious of my time and do not want to intrude too much on my colleague.

I take the distinction made by my colleague from Winnipeg—Transcona. We are talking about reform here if we are talking about anything sensible, but modernization is also allowable. We should start by giving consideration for example to petitions that come by e-mail. The standing order requiring 25 signatures on a petition should be abandoned. There is no reason to be that exclusive. There is no reason why all motions on private members' and supply days should not be votable. What is the House about if we are not going to have the opportunity to vote?

There is no question that we need a stronger cadre of law with respect to the auditor general, the privacy commissioner, the information commissioner and the language commissioner. They should all have the status of being permanent witnesses to all committees and should be entitled to automatically comment on items of business before committees.

To go back to a matter raised a moment ago, the Speaker should have the power to refuse a closure motion and time allocation motions when the Speaker is of the opinion that the rights of a minority are being infringed upon. That is done in the United Kingdom. There is no reason why it cannot be done here. If we are interested in following the British example, let us follow the good examples that would empower parliament more than is the case now.

I would like to see more elections in the House. You, sir, as Deputy Speaker, should be elected. Other presiding officers should be elected in the same way that Mr. Speaker is elected.

There are a range of other specific changes that have to be undertaken. As someone who has been in government and who has been in opposition, as the only member on the opposition's side of the House who has been a Prime Minister and who has sat in the cabinet of Canada, I believe the Government of Canada has nothing to fear from the Parliament of Canada. Members who sit in cabinet have nothing to fear from the members of parliament who do not sit in cabinet.

If we respect the fundamental rights of individual members of parliament and if we shake our rules to reflect that respect, we will not only have a government what could command more legitimacy, that would be more in tune with the concerns of the people in the country, we will have a parliament that will draw out the better natures, not the darker natures, of the members of parliament here.

[Myron Thompson, Canadian Alliance, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the message I just heard. In 1993, when I was elected and came here for the first time, I knew things just were not right. After a couple of years I realized just how serious an effect the situation was having on good governance in the country.

I certainly concur with everything the hon. member has just indicated. For the life of me I cannot understand why, for example, on 74 occasions with Bill C-68 there were regulations and changes made by order in council. Was that what order in council was all about, to make off the cuff changes whenever it felt like it? Was there not a better purpose for that kind of situation to exist? Is judicial activism a result of the way this place has been operating over the years or did it come about by other reasons?

He talked about free votes. I would like to hear his comments on referendum, one of the most effective measures used in many democratic countries in the world. I would also like him to relate just a little more on free votes. I cannot for the life of me understand why a person who is elected to this place would stand in tears and vote against hepatitis C victims, as I saw in this place. What a disgrace to have to do that. I know they did not want to that.

I hope the hon. member takes no offence, but having been a conservative all my life and being part of the organization that helped elect Brian Mulroney in 1984, surely some of these things were beginning to become obvious. After nine years, why was something not done about it?

[Joe Clark, Progressive Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I could take partisan offence to the question, but I will not because it is a very good question. Part of the reason is, when we come to government we put on the clothes of government. Perhaps one of the perspectives I can bring to the House of Commons is as someone who has served in both government and in opposition, and has had an opportunity to look back on the attitudes that we bring in.

We feared free votes too much as a government. This government fears free votes too much. Free votes, in my judgment, among other things, impose an obligation upon individual members to act responsibly. My sense of the House is that if we treat members as being irresponsible they will act irresponsibly. My sense also is that if we treat members responsibly they will respond in a positive way. The attitude that we brought in, that governments bring in, fundamentally has to change.

I will say in our defence, we introduced the McGrath Committee. We undertook attempts to try to change things at the time. We also made significant mistakes. Unless this process begun today is prepared to take a look at root and branch changes, it will make another serious mistake. To quote the leader of the hon. member's party earlier today in the debate, what we will see is a continuing slide of public opinion with respect to this institution.

Canadians respect parliament less now than they did before. That is because this parliament has less power than it used to have or than it does in the textbooks that we use to teach Canadians. We have to change that.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, I could the right hon. member briefly comment again on the aspect of redistribution of power and maybe try to bring some specificity or focus to the elements of power, which the member for Winnipeg—Transcona and he talked about, that would make these changes he is advocating.

[Joe Clark, Progressive Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, first, there should be more free votes. That would provide more power to individual members of parliament.

Second, and a more radical idea, we should look very seriously at the idea of empowering standing committees in some fields with direct access to public service and professional advice so they can recommend policy on a much more regular basis in a category of issues that are not life and death issues to the government. That would give significantly more power.

Third, we cannot continue situations where, not to touch a raw nerve, an ethics counsellor does not report to this whole House. Officers of parliament should report to the whole parliament.

There is a range of areas in which the power of parliament, as a practical matter, could be increased without threatening the capacity of the government to establish its mandate on the central issues for which it was elected.

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

Mr. Speaker, I must say it is an intimidating task to follow the right hon. member for Calgary Centre. The tone he has set, his wisdom and the wisdom of other members that have been brought forward is very encouraging, particularly the commentary with respect to the recognition that all previous parliaments must shoulder the blame and responsibility for where we are today. Both good and bad changes have come about as part of the evolution of parliament. That is natural. We are a parliament that was borne out of the Westminster model. We have much that we can learn from the evolution that has occurred there, as well as in other models.

We all know that cynicism exists in some sectors, particularly among Canadians generally but also among many members of parliament, about the legitimacy of this exercise. As a committee, of which I will be a member, we will have to be mindful of that cynicism and produce good results.

We are off to a good start in terms of this debate. I congratulate the hon. House leader for the governing party for initiating this, for giving us this opportunity and for indicating that there could be more. That may very well come to pass.

This is a very important time because Canadians have begun to question not only the effectiveness of parliament but its relevance as well. It is a very serious condemnation of what we are here to do, which is to represent Canadians.

At the outset I want to indicate and put a caveat on some of the ideas that I will be putting before the House. When we go into this committee, it is to be understood that we are to improve upon, to hear from one another and to modify ideas that may be brought to the forefront.

Canada is struggling with this process of modernization, or reform. We are looking for ways to engage Canadians. One way we can do that, and one part and parcel step in the right direction, is to modernize parliament in terms of our use of technology. The hon. member for Winnipeg South has a great interest in this issue.

The hon. member for Calgary Centre referred to the filing of petitions through e-mail as a way in which we could engage Canadians in a full and open fashion.

Electronic records of the House should contain hyperlinks to those documents cited that are electronically available. We should try to increase this access if we are to engage Canadians and inform them about the important work that is done by their parliament. This would also help improve accountability. Canadians would be informed and they could observe and critique, in an open fashion, the workings of parliament. Surely this would improve upon the relevancy, upon their perception and upon the real importance that is placed on the work that is done.

There are some who think that parliamentarians themselves are losing their ability to be instruments of change. I do not believe that. I still believe in my heart of hearts that the originality and innovation that individuals could bring to parliament in their efforts and attempts to represent their constituents in an effective way can be enhanced and rewarding.

We have seen occasions where individual members have done yeoman service, in terms of bringing forward a private member's bill, and speaking out on occasion on an issue that may put them offside with their government or within their own parties, and it becomes a huge issue of consternation. Other members have spoken to the issue of how bad behaviour is sometimes put under the spotlight and, therefore, there is perhaps too much emphasis put on dissent. Of all the things that happen in the House of Commons, dissent should not be something that is foreign or necessarily frowned upon.

[An hon. member]

Encouraged.

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

The hon. member says encouraged and I agree with that.

When we talk about free votes and, the suggestion many have put forward, of having all private members' business made votable, these could be achieved by releasing some of the whipping tactics that are brought to bear on members by party whips. The government could also abandon its practice of putting confidence votes behind issues that really do not have to be confidence votes. Members should be allowed freer expression on issues that carry particularly moral implications for not only those members but for their constituents.

If we are to empower members to have the ability to command this respect, we have to give them actual practical access to those levers. If we are to energize and invigorate parliament, we have to take practical steps in that direction. I would suggest that there will be a number of very positive and innovative suggestions that will come forward not only in this debate but in the committee as well.

I will talk very briefly about the committee itself. There is some scepticism because it is comprised strictly of House officers in this instance and it will soon become known as the Kilger committee. Mr. Speaker, you will be presiding over it. We are to encourage the ideas, the House leader has expressed that spirit, and the inclusion of members in this process. The committee, I would suggest, if it is to have legitimacy, should be a reflection of all members and all parties.

The idea of wiring this place would allow greater public access. House records that should be in the public forum would certainly be more available if they were on the Internet at all times. We should be wiring to the max.

Another clear example would be the ability to have Debates and committee proceedings made more readily available. The technology is there. It is a costly exercise but it is one that would bear fruit long into the future. We are slipping behind in the area of technology and the use that we make of it in parliament. We should be a shining example for other countries and other companies that are doing great things. We could learn from the technological advances that are being made in our country and in Silicon Valley not far from here. We have businesses that are competing in the highest leagues of the world and we should be engaging them to help us to make greater use of technology.

I have some specific recommendations I want to put on record. I know we will have a chance in committee to delve into them in more detail. One recommendation would be that we abolish the limit of four written questions per member. We should be allowed a greater number of questions on the order paper.

Another recommendation would be to put time limits back in place for the government to respond to those questions. It should be required to respond within a relatively short time, 15 or 30 days. It should not be the prolonged, dragged out affair that we have seen this exercise slide into.

The Speaker himself, as indicated earlier, should be given more powers on occasion to refuse closure motions or time allocation. The Speaker should also have the ability to ensure that the minority rights of members of parliament are being protected.

I agree with the comments made earlier that the Deputy Speaker should be elected by all members of the House of Commons, as should, on many occasions, chairmen of committees. Perhaps we should not elect all chairmen, but it is an exercise we could enter into gradually. Having chairmen elected would be a greater reflection of the neutrality and the non-partisanship of the committee, which is very much the spirit that should exist in the committee, away from the carnival atmosphere that we have seen question period become.

Another issue that I fully believe has to be explored is the issue of a code of conduct for members of parliament. It is a broad issue in and of itself, but if we are to expect a high standard, there are occasions where we will have to call to task bad behaviour and, in some instances, to have some teeth to punish. For example, if a member is suspended, and it is a rare occasion that it happens, their salary should be suspended to show that there is some discipline and some deterrent for bad behaviour.

There are many other examples that would enhance the credibility of parliamentarians. We should have an ethics committee. If we are to have an ethics counsellor, we should have a sitting committee with an elected chair that would examine breaches of a code of conduct.

With respect to officers of the House, who are there to serve all parliamentarians and to act on behalf of Canadians, such as the auditor general, the privacy commissioner, the information commissioner, the language commissioner, the ethics counsellor, they should all have a permanent status as witnesses on committees. They should be automatically commanded to appear before committees to give testimony on their important findings and deliberations.

With respect to witnesses on committees, we should consider having all witnesses give sworn testimony or affirm when they come before a committee. This would add greater relevancy and greater importance. It would stress the need for honesty, openness and integrity when witnesses come before a committee, not unlike what we see in the courts across the country.

Perhaps there are occasions when we should look at expanding the hours in which we sit. It was not uncommon in days gone by that the House of Commons would sit late into the night. We have done so in emergency situations. When we have crises in agriculture such as the ongoing potato wart epidemic in Prince Edward Island, as small as it is in terms of the actual epidemic but in terms of the ramifications which are causing such problems for those farmers, we should be able to sit late into the night if necessary to deliberate and talk about solutions.

There are many ways that we can improve upon the framework that parliament has embraced and come to practise in its important deliberations. We have to improve upon the framework that is there and build upon the foundation that has been laid down. We can do so in a non-partisan way.

The spirit exists and the time is right. I look forward to participating in the committee work. I will do my best on behalf of the members of my party and all members to bring original and honest ideas to this process.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his input into the debate. He is quite right in terms of the House leaders again taking the lead role. I am a backbencher and I am here because now is my chance to put my two cents in on some issues that are important to me.

If I had to pick one, it would be private members' business. The member talked about being agents of change. Private members' business seems to be an opportunity lost. Quite frankly it has been since 1993, since I have been here.

The House was once seized with an issue where the resources available to private members were tremendously strained because so many members were bringing in bills. They were being drafted, researched and all the other things but were never tabled, even at first reading.

I wonder why we did not resolve that effectively. No matter how expeditiously we bring in a bill after it has been selected, we could not possibly get 10 bills through. Why do we allow members to put 10 bills on the order paper when it is not possible to get them through? Why can members reserve a subject matter and restrict the opportunity of another member who has the same kind of idea but cannot bring it forward because someone got it in the day before? Why is it that we do not have questions and comments on private members' debate?

When I am on duty just before the late show, why do I have to sit here and listen to designated people speak when somebody may have twigged on something that I want to know more about, or they may have said something that is quite frankly outrageous and I want to say so?

If he wants to be an agent of change, I hope he gives us the undertaking right now that when he goes to the committee of House leaders he will in fact be an agent of change himself. Maybe he will pick up the ball for all of us on private members' business and get it out of the damned committee over there.

We should make sure we have a process that would allow ordinary backbench members of parliament to feel that their ideas have a fair and equitable opportunity to come forward, even it means that I will come forward during the first hour to make my little speech. I will stand here and take questions and answers from my colleagues before any other debate, and we will have a quick vote on whether members want to proceed any further with it. Then it becomes the decision of this place, not of a committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate very much the question and the opportunity to respond. I fully agree that first and foremost it sends the wrong signal that it is again the House leaders who are meeting in private to perhaps have these deliberations and discussions.

As a precursor to that, we are getting an opportunity to hear from all members. I appreciate what he said about the importance of private members' business. I fully agree that private members' hour should also be subject to questions and comments. If we have to expand that time to two hours, we should make greater use of unanimous consent to do so on occasion. We should make greater use of the opportunity, when a member comes forward with an idea, to engage other members to find out, as he has said, if the idea should go further.

Surely if a person has the inner fortitude, and has taken the time to draft a bill or motion and put it forward for selection and deliberation, they should be able to stand on their hind legs and defend it. I have no difficulty with that suggestion whatsoever.

I hope the matter of private members' bills will be an area of deliberation in the committee that will get a very broad shrift and thorough examination as to how we can improve it, how we can engage more members and how we can bring more subject matter forward. I disagree that there should be any delineation of property over good ideas. If we can expand the ability of members to put ideas forward then we should do everything in our power to do so.

[Myron Thompson, Canadian Alliance, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, in 1993 the government of the day was the hon. member's party. About six months, give or take, before the election the Conservative government made the decision to open the borders to barley sales and to have an open continental barley market. It was an excellent decision. Farmers benefited like they had never benefited before. Profits were good and everyone was happy. The wheat board even had record sales because it had decided there was competition going on and that it had better get off its duff and get to work. It was a great decision.

Not long after the election, the market was closed. I asked the leader of the hon. member's party if he could remember and relate to me why the policy was discontinued. What do we need to do to keep good things going for Canadians? Why was the mechanism so easy to shut down and why, seven or eight years later, am I still not able to find out why? Why was it shut down? I do not know.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will not be able to respond off the cuff. I will certainly look into the matter and try to find an answer for the hon. member. He deserves an answer.

Often policy decisions are made by incoming governments. I am not saying that is what happened here, but we all know the position that was taken on the issue, for example, of free trade by the current government with respect to the efforts of the Mulroney administration to bring that policy forward.

[Myron Thompson, Canadian Alliance, Wild Rose, AB]

But should we be able to provide answers?

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

Mr. Speaker, by all means, information should be available. I will undertake to find out what happened in that instance since it was the Progressive Conservative government of the day that put the policy in place. I will do my best to get back to the hon. member as quickly as possible.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Before resuming debate I will inform the House that all members now have 10 minutes maximum for their speeches, subject to a five minute question and comment period.

[Reg Alcock, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Mr. Speaker, trying to fit my thoughts into 10 minutes will be a bit of a trick, so I hope members in the ensuing five minutes will help me clarify my thinking with some of their questions.

The House is everything that members in the debate today have said it is. It is an enormously important place in the life of the country and in the lives of Canadians. It is the place where citizens have a voice. It is the place where rights are decided and arbitrated. It is the place where power is balanced and mitigated. It is the place where authority is exercised on behalf of all Canadians.

I am quite excited about the debate and quite pleased we are headed down this road. Frankly, I like the device that has been chosen. I want to thank all House leaders for the vehicle they have created because I have a lot of respect for them. They have a lot of knowledge about this place and they are applying themselves to the task. I hope we will have opportunities for members to meet with the committee and to present ideas that are hard to fit into a 10 minute speech.

I will step back a bit from the specifics of some of the rule changes that have been discussed today. I will try to position the debate in a somewhat different context.

A friend recommended I spend time preparing for the debate by reading the annotated rules of the House. They are a fascinating read. Rules are normally not terribly interesting to read.

When the rules that govern this Chamber were first created in 1867 and they were trying to figure out how they worked, they brought in a clause that existed for a long time which said that if they did not have a rule to cover something then the rules of the mother of parliaments would apply.

As we read this we also see the evolution of our society. The Chamber is a reflection of what we are as Canadians. The rules were written before my province, Manitoba, existed as a province and had representation in the House, and before Alberta and Saskatchewan were formally provinces. The rules existed before the advent of the automobile, the airplane or the telephone, and certainly before the fax machine and the Internet.

Each time changes in the external community put pressure on this place and made changes to the environment that the citizens we represent live in, the House had to adapt. It has adapted, and tracing that adaptation is an interesting read.

The question I raise today, though, is whether we are at a point in time on which we will look back in 20 or 30 years and say it was a far more revolutionary period than perhaps we ever realized.

Canadians have some advantages. Some of the foundational research on communications, communication theory and communication policy has come out of the work of Canadians. One of my favourites was an economist by the name of Harold A. Innis who, during the last century, started writing about the economy of the country and was drawn into the question of the power of communication.

Innis wrote a book called The Bias of Communication . He delivered a lecture in 1947 to the Royal Society of Canada regarding his research. He started the lecture by saying:

I have attempted to suggest that western civilization has been profoundly influenced by communication and that marked changes in communications have had important implications.

What Harold Innis was saying, if I can translate it to the year 2001, is that the Internet changes everything. His research dated to the early days of clay and cuneiform and traced how, as successive civilizations acquired the ability to assemble information and extract knowledge from it, the ruling classes were able to monopolize the information. Then a new technology would come along and disturb the system and a new power structure or a new elite would emerge.

Historically these things have happened in dramatic fashion through wars and revolutions, but also in other ways. The rise of the modern democracy was built largely around the printing press and the availability of information, which has enabled people to develop the intellectual tools and knowledge necessary to participate in the management of their country.

When we were concerned in the 1970s about dictatorships in Central and South America, there was a fellow who said to send them books instead of guns because an educated populace demands a democratic solution.

Why are we here today feeling that this instrument of democracy no longer functions, when Canada has an educated populace? Canadians are literate, well read and engaged with their government. Why are we concerned about a loss of credibility of this place?

I will give another reference, an American reference. It is from a fellow by the name of Jerry Mechling who said the same concern is being raised in democracies around the world. It is not just a Canadian problem. The issue arises throughout the industrialized world where democracies exist. By the way, Jerry Mechling will be speaking in Ottawa next Wednesday night. Here is how he begins one of his pieces on the changes brought about by communications:

We are entering a period of historical change comparable to the one that inspired Hamilton, Madison and Jay to pen The Federalist Papers in the late 1780s. Their task was to define a constitutional vision for a new kind of political community: a federal democratic republic. The challenge for leaders today is to define an economic, social and political vision for a new kind of society, a knowledge based society, and leadership will be crucial.

I have thought about that a lot. I certainly support a lot of the suggestions people have made here about the changes that could be made to the rules to shift the power balance between the executive and the House. I agree with the leader of the Conservative Party when he says that when parliament works well government works well. Accountability is an important part of the functioning of any good organization.

I also agree with the analysis that says authority has over time moved to the executive. However I will put that in context. There is a tendency here to personalize that, to say it was something the current Prime Minister or the past Prime Minister did, or that it was part of some invidious plan on the part of somebody. I do not believe that is true at all.

I offer this analysis. The pace of change in society has been accelerating throughout the lifetime of mankind but never as rapidly as in the last few decades. Bill Gates, in his recent book, talks about this decade as the decade of velocity. The most important challenge in our society is trying to manage the rate of change and deal with the incredible decisions placed upon us not just as a government but as a society.

If we look at what has happened with large organizations, many large companies that were in existence a decade or two ago no longer exist today. A number of the largest companies in the world today did not exist in 1980. The rate of change is enormous. One response to the incredible velocity in the external community has been for governments to remove decision-making from the floor of the House. They have done so not for malicious reasons but to facilitate decisions and serve citizens because this place moves too slowly.

When I was director of child welfare in Manitoba, we wrote clauses enabling regulation because it was the most efficient way to get changes to reflect the changing needs of our citizens. I am not saying it was the best solution, but it was the only solution available. The shift in power from the House to the executive has been, in most cases, an attempt to meet the challenge imposed by those whom we serve.

The challenge is not to simply revert to an earlier stage. It is to figure out how this place can reform so that it moves in pace with the rest of society. In achieving this reform, therefore, the critical issues are those of electronic services, of getting information out earlier and of more efficiently and effectively interacting with the community we serve.

The rule changes being debated here are also important and they are like the rule changes we find in the annotated history. They need to be done. The process is a competent one and I am delighted that it runs by consensus. However the bigger change, the one we must all get our minds around, is how to make this place work at the same speed at which our citizens move. How do we make this place respond to the pace of life in the communities we represent?

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

Mr. Speaker, just a short congratulations to you on your appointment to chair the committee. In time, when you look back on your political legacy, your chairing of this committee has the potential to be a defining moment for you.

I wish we could have another hour of the member for Winnipeg South here tonight because he has spent thousands of hours working on the linkage of electronic government, which is where we as a service agency touch the general public. It is critical in this parliamentary reform that the service to the public, the linkage of what we do here, is transmitted to the people on the street, our constituents, from coast to coast. Right now they ask us as MPs to do things. It seems we never give them the answers they want, or that we give them the answers six weeks, two months or a year later.

I have a question for the member for Winnipeg South, who has touched on a critical issue here, electronic government. How does he envisage electronic government enhancing service to the public? That ultimately is what parliamentary reform is all about, and what ultimately will earn respect for the service we are supposed to provide in the House.

[Reg Alcock, Liberal, Winnipeg South, MB]

Mr. Speaker, if I could have leave to have the rest of the week we could really get into this.

The problem with the very important question the member has asked, and one which I thank him for, is that we get caught up in the tools: the electronics, the fancy colours and the fancy websites. However, the tools are not the issue. The tools are important to get information.

One of the things this does really well is it acts as a huge values clarification exercise for the nation where I, as a westerner dealing with the economy and interests of Winnipeg, have to confront the issue of bilingualism, which is not something that is driven as hard in my community as it is here, or the cod fishery. Together we come and forge through the exercises that go on in this incredibly wonderful country called Canada. We are really skilful at that.

How do we maintain that but get this beast moving at the same pace as the community it has to serve? The community goes around it because it cannot respond fast enough. That is why we have lost authority and our debates have become trivial. They have become liar-liar kind of debates. What does that do for anybody?

The debates need to be substantive and real debates about the conditions that are affecting the people in our communities. We are not there because they pass us by all the time. I will try to give a more detailed answer in a presentation to the committee, which I will be allowed to do.

[Grant McNally, Canadian Alliance, Dewdney—Alouette, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to participate in the debate on parliamentary reform.

As members of the Alliance, and previously as members of the Reform Party, parliamentary reform is something for which we have become known. We are glad to see that we are having a debate in the House this evening on such an important topic. It is of course something that has been near and dear to our hearts for a very long time.

We hope that the debate and the committee that has been struck thinks big and has the vision and courage to move ahead in the face of those who would argue to maintain the status quo. We must move forward together because where we will end up will be a better place than from where we started.

In any debate that we have, in any consideration of moving forward on any topic, we need to have a clear understanding of why we need to move forward.

In terms of parliamentary reform, the public, those to whom we are responsible and accountable, are telling us that they want to see change in this place. It is incumbent upon us as leaders of this nation to move forward and to show, with our actions, that we are willing to listen and that we are willing to do more than simply have a debate one day in parliament and then move ahead as though nothing had happened. I am encouraged by this committee and this opportunity to explore these very important issues because the time is right to move forward.

It is interesting that one of the only constants that we will experience in our lives is change. What is now will never be again and we will be moving continually forward.

Generally speaking, there seems to be two attitudes that people have toward change. The first one, which is the more natural inclination, is to resist change because change takes us down a new path to somewhere where we are perhaps a little uncertain as to where we will arrive. It is understandable that some people and, I would argue, many people are resistant to change.

We could have a vision of where we are going. We could bring people along to understand that there is a compelling reason to move forward to a new destination, to a better place. We could take into consideration people's honest concerns about making those changes. We could have a clear airing of being able to present ideas that are holding others back from wanting to go forward with change. I think we could do those things.

We could go down that road and end up in a better place. Unfortunately there will be no rest for those who are involved in change, because once we get to the better place there will be others who will suggest further change.

Change is constant. We must grapple with that concept and understand that when we are talking about parliamentary reform the initiatives that we may move forward on will not be the end of the ball game. In many ways they will just be the beginning.

We certainly need to go down that road. We certainly need to work together in the House in ways we are sometimes unaccustomed to working. We need to work with members of all parties. We need to work together as government and opposition members to achieve some goals and a vision of ending up in a better place. It is not for ourselves but for this institution and for those who will come after us to govern.

We will have our names on a plaque in the basement of this hall one day. Apart from our families and personal acquaintances, very few might ever remember that we were honoured to grace these halls. However we will remember and cherish the moments we had to make a difference in Canada. It is incumbent upon us to make the most of this opportunity, to do what we can for this place here and now, so that those who come behind us in the future will carry that torch for us with that notion of change.

This place cannot be a static environment. The House cannot be a place where the rules are cast in stone. It cannot be a place where the ideas and innovations of those who lead this nation are unable to make it to the forefront. It has to be a place where all those ideas and issues are brought to bear. This is the place where we have been sent to do the nation's business for the period of time we are honoured to serve here.

That is why I am encouraged by this opportunity. It is a great honour to serve here. We need to give hope to our citizens that those who are leading are also listening and acting on the will of our citizens.

If we take these actions it will provide an opportunity to send a signal or message to the 40% or so of our citizens who chose not to vote in the last election. Many individuals who did not vote in the last election have said that the government and members of parliament are not listening, that it did not matter who was sent here, that nothing would change. We need to signal to our citizens that we are willing to change.

Many proposals have been put forward by members in the House today. I appreciate what they have had to say. I would not agree with all the suggestions and it is good to have the debate.

I pay tribute to my colleague from Calgary Southwest who announced today that he would be leaving public life and returning to the private sector. He has been a leader on these issues for many years: before he got to the House and as he served in the House and will continue to serve until the end of this year.

His vision was one that we are now grappling with in the House. One of the things he brought forward was the issue of free votes in the House of Commons. There is no reason we cannot move forward on that initiative without any legislative change or any change to the standing orders. We could do it simply by allowing members to vote the wishes of their constituents.

Government members could support an opposition motion or a bill and opposition members could support a government bill or motion. We could work together on areas where there is commonality. We could bridge that gap, the partisan divide that seems to be very much a part of this place. We will never erase that totally, but there are many opportunities for us to work together for change, and free votes is one of them.

I was encouraged by the Minister for International Trade the other day. It was a small item but it was a gesture of good will. When we had a debate on softwood lumber in this place last week, the minister consented to stay beyond the regular time for questions. In fact that was initiated, Mr. Speaker, by your asking the House if there would be consent for such an item, and there was.

The minister stayed and he answered questions from opposition members for perhaps another 10 minutes. Although that was such a small item it sent a message of good will to members of the opposition that there was a minister who was willing to entertain questions. It was a very small change, but let us imagine if we were to incorporate that as a rule change or something we would do on a regular basis. That would help to break down the walls of partisanship. It would build a deposit of political capital for ministers of the government. It would be good for all members of the House.

With regard to private members' business, all bills should be votable. We could find ways to work around the current schedule to make that happen so that members could bring forward their items.

I know that my time is drawing short on this topic, so I will conclude by saying that I sincerely hope we spend time putting these changes into action. I hope we do not just have a debate, put it on the shelf and ignore what we have discussed here. We should move forward together in this place in a spirit of co-operation to make it a better place, not only for us but for future generations. Then we would have a responsive parliament which reflects the will and the wishes of those who have sent us here to govern.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member opposite on his comments. I was particularly interested in his support for making private members' bills votable.

There is a technical problem to that. There are an awful lot of private members' bills that are always on the roster at any given time and there is a whole problem with respect to how they should be selected by lottery or whatever.

I would like to make a suggestion to him for his comment that was raised by the member for London North Centre. That was the possibility of every member of parliament during a session, from the time of an election to the next time the writ is dropped, being entitled to have one bill made votable. The actual lottery or the selection of the bill would be based simply on the order that the members' bills would come up. Every member would have at least one bill during a session that was votable. I wonder what the member thinks of that idea.

[Grant McNally, Canadian Alliance, Dewdney—Alouette, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question. I think it is a good idea. Certainly we would be in agreement that all items should be made votable. We would have to make some changes to the way we do business in private members' business in terms of the scheduling of those items. Perhaps we need to consider the idea of every member having a votable item.

I would support that notion or any other ideas members may have to involve more members and to focus on the main part of the member's request that all items be made votable. That is a very important thing that we need to do.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate you this evening as the chair of the special committee on the modernization of House of Commons procedure. There is no one better for the challenge of trying to obtain consensus. For us to move forward, it was interesting to hear that not only the government would have a veto on this committee. Everyone on the committee would have a veto, so I hope there will be lots of opportunity for compromise, change and getting good ideas through.

In every organization there must be ongoing efforts to make things better. In the private sector it is called CQI, continuous quality improvement, or TQM, total quality management. In government it is called parliamentary reform, a phrase that seems to mean something different to everyone.

We need to make sure that people understand this is not about a revolution from the backbench MPs. It should actually be an ongoing process by which we discover the optimal practices of the 301 citizens who come to Ottawa to try to best represent the 30 million citizens. It is about ensuring the public good by identifying the obstacles and sharing the solutions. Today's special committee is an extraordinarily important step.

One of my heroes, Ursula Franklin, talked about good government as being fair, transparent and taking people seriously. It has been worrying to a lot of us over the past several months that somehow the public has become disengaged. If one went to Israel and saw six million politicians discussing what happened yesterday in the Knesset, it would be understood why we here worried on a daily basis about the cynicism and apathy of Canadians. We have to always look at what we can do. Each of us has a responsibility to hand on democracy at least as thick as we received it, if not a tiny bit thicker.

People feel Canadian democracy needs some reintegration. The most obvious symptom of the need for reform was the steep fall in the election turnout on November 27. After drifting down an average of 2.7% per election, turnout dropped more than 5% for the 2000 election. This confirmed years of academic admonitions, politician's anecdotes and pollsters findings that Canadians were indeed disengaging.

In 1984 the national average was a 75.3% turnout in a federal election of which we were always very proud. Last year it was 61.18%, and even lower in Ontario. It means that we have to see what we can do.

Today's special committee is an important first step. The idea that we can move forward by consensus is of huge importance to us collaborating on this important challenge.

It is clear that rules are not enough. Changing only the rules of parliament will not change what happens here. As Robert Marleau said to the rookie school of the new members of parliament, we can change all the rules we want but it is the culture of the place that really matters.

I wear four different hats in trying to make a difference and in trying to make sure that things change. The first is in the House and in committees. The second is within our caucus, in trying to make sure that the culture is one that is respectful of the kinds of changes that people want to make. The third is in my riding. The fourth is within the Liberal Party of Canada. We need to work on all four fronts if we are going to have the desired effect that Canadians again begin to engage.

It is extraordinarily important that the caucus has evolved a parallel process in which we can also look at all the things that have been done and the telephone books full of papers that have been written on the topic of parliamentary reform. We should start to look not at reinventing the wheel but going forward with Canadians at our side.

As a caucus we need to be able to look at the party options, the role of parliament, the role of parliamentarians, as well as what this very important committee will do in terms of how the House of Commons operates, its procedures, standing orders, question period and all of those things. Private members' business has been discussed and will be an important part of the deliberations of this committee.

It is also extraordinarily important that we look, as the member from Winnipeg South said, at the role of technology and make sure that if we are indeed modernizing parliament that we do it with all the citizens as engaged as possible, both at committees and with members in their offices.

It has a huge ability to create the new kind of deliberative democracy that I think we are looking for. I was heartened to hear the minister of Indian affairs, who came to women's caucus today, talk about his amazing project in terms of his technological ability to be in contact with the bands and the schools in order to do his job.

We know we have to have a look at standing committees. There are ones that are working extraordinarily well in a very non-partisan way and with its eye on the goal. Others have been rendered dysfunctional. We need to figure out why that is. It is important that we look at standing committees. It is important that they deal with horizontal issues across parliament. Chapter 20 of the auditor general's report said how difficult that was. We look at having the standing committees can help us with that.

I as chair and members of the subcommittee on disabilities were thrilled that the auditor general thought our committee, which looked at the issue of disabilities across all ministries, had been helpful in that management.

When we look at caucus committees and their culture, it is important for us to look at, like the English and French parliamentarians, the purpose for us being here is not to try to get into cabinet. That culture of careerism has to stop. There are important things that people can do. Look at some of the ministers in other countries who actually give up their administrative roles in order to be able to do an important project. It is a culture problem. We need to make sure that people are not paralyzed by some fantasy of a role at cabinet.

It is really important that we look at the accountability of government. This is not just about what money we spend, but whether we get good value for it. With the chairman of the public accounts committee, I was thrilled to chair these round tables on societal indicators. We discussed how we could use the estimate process in a better way to make sure we were funding programs that worked and ones which would ensure we had safer streets, healthier populations and cleaner air. We also discussed how we could measure that and use that to build back the credibility of Canadians so they would know we were spending their money wisely. There are extraordinarily interesting things that can happen in terms of the accountability of our government and building back the faith.

It is also important that there be good supports. Above all things, the most interesting to me in parliamentary reform is the relationship we need to build with the citizens of Canada so they see this institution as relevant.

St. Paul's is an amazing riding. Forty per cent of the people have a university education. We have an amazing ability to engage. However, one thing I adored doing over this last month or so was taking the problem of cynicism and apathy of Canadians to the students of grade 10 in all the ridings. This was related to the citizenship engagement award. I asked them what they thought the problem was in terms of cynicism and apathy and what they thought we in the government could do differently to help them. I did this understanding that their knowledge of the technology was much better than mine and that maybe they could find us some web based solutions on which we could move forward.

It is clear that in all of the Ekos polling, Canadians believed that if we as parliamentarians could take the national problems to the people at the grassroots, we would solve most of our big national problems. We must figure out a better way of doing that. It was quite clear that Canadians felt the media, senior business leaders, lobbyists and interest groups had too much power. The Ekos poll noted that Canadians felt that parliamentarians had little power and that the average citizen had way too little power.

The challenge of democracy between elections is what we need to see. We need to see that it is not just about going to the polls. If we are not engaging citizens between elections they stop going to the polls.

In conclusion, the people of Canada have an enormous contribution to make in the development of public policy. We must try to involve them in a grassroots movement for democratic reform, which will produce lasting results.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for her excellent dissertation. I wonder if she could comment a little further on the political culture, that is the context in which we seek parliamentary reform, the relationship between the backbench on the government side, for example, and the sometimes lack of opportunity of expression because they are government backbenchers.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

Mr. Speaker, some of what the hon. member is talking about is actually perception. I was thrilled at the last election to write single spaced on one page what I thought I had been able to do here.

The committees I had the privilege to sit on, whether it was the national health products committee, the committee on custody and access or the finance committee, was one of the best abilities for the government to go out to real Canadians and harvest good ideas. It was been extremely satisfying. We got to push the issues we wanted. It was like any board that one might sit on.

In caucus we fight for the things we really care about. We do not win all the battles but we go out as a united front. It was the same as any other board I sat on.

There is so much to do around here. There are so many issues that require real champions. It is quite clear that when the stakeholders and the citizens of Canada who must work in concert with us as politicians to sometimes work through a bureaucracy that has too much on its plate, we get to shine the light and move those things through.

I am hugely optimistic. I think the frustration is real, but there are serious ways that we can make a difference here.