Mr. Chairman, I listened with great interest to what our colleague had to say. Some of the things he said I have great sympathy for. Some I have less sympathy for, but I was concerned about his tone. Most members this evening have avoided blaming whatever faults there are in the system, and no system is perfect, on the government.
I realize that in a majority parliament the majority has a good deal of sway. However I honestly believe that in the end the operation of this place depends on the co-operation of all parties and members. When we have unanimous consent on an issue almost anything can be done, as we all know.
I would like the hon. member's comments on a few things. We need all parties to make committees work. I believe televising committees gives them more power and influence. Public input carries more weight when it is televised across the country.
The last time I was involved with discussions about the televising of committees there were all sorts of hang ups, including those of leaders of the opposition parties, about whether it would make committees freer than they are at present.
I wonder if the member would commit to televising committees more than they are now. Would he compromise a bit on the views of his House leader and other House leaders so that we can get our committees out to the Canadian people through television?
The second point relates to committee travel. Our committees have more influence when they travel, and it has nothing to do with the standing orders. Visiting the regions of this great country is not only the right thing. It allows committees to carry more moral authority.
I was parliamentary secretary to the government House leader for two years. When I was last involved with travel arrangements in the House the most common reason for not travelling was lack of unanimous consent by the opposition parties.
I ask the member if he would work with his party and other opposition parties to make it easier for our committees to travel. It would give them more strength. I understand the difficulties the smaller parties have with committee travel, but it is a practical thing and has nothing to do with the standing orders.
I would also like to see more formal use made of the small quorum committees already have for hearing witnesses and receiving testimony. We do not need a full quorum to receive testimony.
I know it is difficult for the small parties to staff committees. However if they had the confidence of their House leaders they could give committees the authority to operate for several meetings, knowing there would be only five or six members and that the number would vary with the size of the committee. They could then hear testimony and report back. That would feed back into the travel arrangements as well.
The hon. member mentioned the formation of subcommittees. That is very special in this parliament. The subcommittees are effectively small equivalents of our large committees, but I think committees operating comfortably with a small quorum would work. It would be practical and would not need a change to the standing orders. It would simply need the willingness of the committee.
The next thing would be to strengthen the liaison committee. The liaison committee is the committee of chairs of committees, which I believe should have much more influence over the operation of committees. To give you an example, I have been to the liaison committee as chair of a committee with a unanimous direction of my committee, including the unanimous direction of each of the parties opposite, only to have what I proposed annulled by the opposition members on the liaison committee.
Or, going back to the power of the liaison committee, it is the liaison committee's requests for committees to travel that are annulled by opposition parties when they come to the House.
Would the member work with me to strengthen the liaison committee and through it strengthen the role of members of parliament?
Lastly, this is much more to do with the government, that is, to have the chairs of committees being given status equivalent to that of parliamentary secretaries. I believe it would be a simple step that would encourage members to seek the chairs of committees and to stay longer in their positions as committee chairs to get some continuity between years. It would give them more confidence and as a result would strengthen the committees.
Would the member be willing, rather than simply blaming the government side, to work with his party and the other opposition parties to strengthen committees in ways such as those?