Debates of May 1st, 2001

Modernization Of The Standing Orders Of The House Of Commons

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

Madam Chairman, I am sure that the government House leader will agree with me that in a parliament, it is advisable that members use available resources to inform parliament of all concerns pertaining to their immediate communities. Private members' bills allow that.

However, I do not agree with the House leader when he suggests that there are enough statutory resources available. Resources alone are not enough, there must be no strings attached to them.

Could the House leader tell us how many legislative counsels there are at present? I do not think there are more than three; they are very dedicated, extremely competent and a credit to this House, of course.

And does he have any idea of the timeframes that are involved when, as an ordinary parliamentarian, one has to register to have a bill drafted and would like the work to be performed within a reasonable time? It may take a legislative counsel weeks to come up with a bill that satisfies the member.

Once again, we are not questioning the individuals' abilities, but rather their numbers. There are only three, four or perhaps five legislative counsels who draft amendments for the committees.

Madam Chairman, you were yourself a member of the standing committee on justice for a long time; you know that many amendments come from committees, particularly from the justice committee. Legislative counsels then draft bills which take considerable time. The government and the Clerk of the House of Commons were very reluctant to commit additional resources for legislative counsels.

Does the leader agree with me that, to restore the function of a member of parliament and the independence of thought that must be a attached to it, it is important that we have a sufficient number of legislative counsels to ensure a speedy process with regard to the drafting of private members' bills?

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Madam Chairman, I do not disagree in principle with what the member is saying. However, as the member knows, the amount of money for that is not determined by the government, but by the Board of Internal Economy, and all the political parties represented on it.

Improvements have been made; our clerk and his predecessor addressed this issue. The staff was increased, budget estimates were made, and increases were granted.

The member is also aware of what happened. Following an unexpected increase in the number of amendments that could be presented at report stage, it was taking legislative counsels a lot of time to draft them, sort them and so on.

With the rules having been restored—because these are not new rules—there may be more resources available.

I do not know if they were affected by that. In any case, the issue will be raised with the Board of Internal Economy. If they were not affected, we will check to see if the delays are still unacceptable. In any case, the Board of Internal Economy sits every two weeks or almost every two weeks and goes over these kinds of issues when they arise.

Unfortunately, I now have to conclude on this issue. If the member is asking me if delays of several weeks and even months are normal, I would say no, this is not reasonable. A member should have the right to speak, which means, of course, the right to introduce a bill.

This brings us to a whole new debate. Will a private member's bill have to be as precise as a government bill? Can it be amended in committee? This is a whole new debate.

If these bills are to be considered much more seriously by the House and always be designated as votable items, then they will have to be as well drafted as government bills. If they are rarely designated as votable items, then will it be necessary? Maybe not.

Finally, members can always, of course, raise issues through motions. It does not take a legal adviser to do so. I have drafted enough motions to know that. Issues can be raised simply through motions.

Again, I want to thank the chair and my hon. colleagues. I will now let the hon. member for Durham have the floor.

[Alex Shepherd, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board]

Madam Chairman, I am very pleased to be sharing my time with the government House leader. I also want to congratulate him on his initiative to allow members not only the time in the House of Commons but in this format. I find it very friendly and congenial to possibly reforming the rules of the House.

I am interested in pursuing an issue which is dear to my heart and I guess is an issue that has been around since parliament started. That is the whole concept of the estimates process. In a lot of fundamental ways parliament was formulated as a watchdog to focus on the whole area of government spending.

Historically an estimates process was developed. If one studies the history of parliamentary democracy, most parliaments spent most of their time reviewing the estimates of departments, asking questions about why they were spending money certain ways and tried to ensure that governments spent taxpayer money effectively and efficiently.

I want to elaborate on the estimates for those people at home who may not understand the process. Estimates come from the budgetary process. The budget is presented, then individual departments prepare estimates. In other words, they are estimating the costs of running their programs for the forthcoming year.

Since 1993 we have improvised two other fundamental reports that come with the estimates. One is called plans and priorities, which is basically a document that looks forward two years to what individual departments will do. It is not so much trained on dollars and cents. It is more about their ideas and so forth and where they are going in the future. I suppose one could actually look at the budgetary process which talks about two year rolling budgets, which also fits into this analysis to some extent.

The other report that was added was the performance report. The concept was that the performance report would be the report card. In other words, it listed a department's plans and priorities and what it said it would do. The performance report obviously comes after the fact and tries to measure what a department's plans and priorities were and how well it measured up. That was an add on to the accountability function.

Having been in the House for seven and a half years and watching this process unfold, I think it is fair to say the estimates procedures and the review of the estimates has declined in importance for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that it is a deciphered process. The estimates show up in various committees, whether it is health, transport and so forth. They are dealt with in very short order and a very short period of time is spent on them. A lot of members do not have the resources or the wherewithal to get involved in the estimates process.

This is very much a problem for us as members of parliament and how we represent our constituents. It really gets back to the fundamental duties of members of parliament and what they are sent here for in the first place.

Basically, the whole issue of estimates and improving how we handle estimates has been around a number of times. I go back to Senator John Stewart who back on December 5, 1995 tabled an all-party Senate report. It recommended that we establish an independent committee to deal solely with estimates, plans and priorities and the performance of reporting.

Since then we have had two other committees of the House with members from across party lines. The member for St. Albert chaired one of these committees along with our member from Ottawa West—Nepean. Once again, back in 1998 the committee recommended the importance of establishing a separate estimates committee. There was another election but it was reported to the House.

Subsequent to that on May 4, 1998 another House committee, this time chaired by the member for Mississauga South, came back with the same recommendations. These were not government committees. They were committees of the whole and creatures of parliament. They have recommended this over and over again. Looking back at this there was all-party support in pursuing this matter.

Why is it important that we develop this in one committee? Some people will say what is wrong with the process now, that we look at estimates and so forth? I was in a discussion the other day, not only members of parliament but also the bureaucracy. The suggestion came up that it would be very interesting to ask members of parliament, who just received the estimates recently, if they actually opened up the binders. I think if we polled members of parliament and they were honest about it, we would find that it would not be a great number.

We should be ashamed of ourselves because of that. However there is something wrong fundamentally within the system that has created that lack of interest in that whole process.

In addition there is a number of other things going on in this country and in the world. We are changing technologically. We are talking about government online and people are able to interface with a government using the Internet. Often people now think in terms of horizontal issues. I heard that mentioned earlier today. We have to find a way to deal with horizontal issues imprinted on a system which is now working in silence, a vertical process.

We talk sometimes at length about societal indicators. We as members of parliament should be thinking about what it is that our constituents and people across the country expect of government. There are things called societal indicators. They want employment, a good quality of life, quality of air, et cetera. There are a number of societal indicators.

It seems that we need a committee to develop a filtration system picking out maybe 16 societal indicators, and treasury board has 16. We could all sit down and argue about what we thought were societal indicators. Once we agreed on the societal indicators, these documents could then possibly be reviewed by an estimates committee and members of parliament could look at the whole process somewhat through that litmus.

Another thing that would be very useful for members of parliament would be the plans and priorities procedure. They could interface with the bureaucracy before a plan and priority was established by a department.

There are limitations as to what members of parliament can do obviously. We still have the concept of responsible government and ministerial responsibility.

It would be a great place for members of parliament to have a significant impact, not necessarily on changing the overall view and direction of the government's policy but rather to look for things that perhaps are inappropriate.

If the object of the exercise is to improve culture in our country, is the expenditure better on CBC television or on CBC radio? These are some fundamental things with which we could deal. In other words, we could deal with the internal shifting of money within the estimate process and the plans of priority process.

More important, the system we have today is not working well, even with the plans, priorities and performance reporting. Most members of parliament who were not involved in that process would say that it was not working very well. If I were to pick up a performance report on any government department today I would not find one negative comment. It would be like having a report card with all A's. Most people would agree that if we really want performance reporting we should really have some failures.

It is up to members of parliament to refine the process and create a filtration system that each department could go through. We could create a litmus test for situations dealing with budgetary things. Sometimes we are over budget and sometimes we are under budget. This triggers questions and accountability arguments from members of parliament.

We need to talk about the accountability of government and our ability as members of parliament to impact on the accountability of government. By having an estimates committee we could develop an expertise.

The counter argument is: What is wrong with the process? One committee of parliament, which is the government operations committee, deals with about half the government estimates. I sit on that committee and the operations committee is a hybrid. It is not even an independent committee. It has been coupled up with transport issues and the whole thing is getting lost in the process. My experience on the committee is that people come for two or three hours to talk about the estimates, spend billions of taxpayers dollars and then shuffle out the back door. We then get back onto a legislative agenda. That is kind of the norm of what we are doing.

With a little bit of direction, perhaps Treasury Board people and others could come to that committee. We could develop a significant expertise on how to analyze estimates, how to report on them and how to change them to have some impact on that process of government. Our constituents elected us to do that. They elected us to come here and ask about the accountability process.

I know a lot of members of parliament who came here in 1993 studied estimates. I know I did. I went through page after page. Members who have been here longer do not pay any attention to them at all because they feel they do not have any impact on the system. Some members do not have the expertise to understand them, but even if they have raised questions the money has already been spent.

I keep talking about the estimates committee, which is inappropriate in some ways because the estimates are historical documents. When we talk about estimates we are really talking about something that has already been processed. The likelihood of changing the estimates is not of much value but the plans and priorities certainly are. If we could link the plans and priorities process to the performance reporting process it could have an impact on future estimate processes and a significant impact on how governments spend or do not spend and how we could save the taxpayers money in some of these areas.

The issue is not new. There has been a lot of resistance to moving in this direction. Some common law countries already have all kinds of estimates committees. Some have an estimates committee just for transport. New Zealand has a number of estimates committees. These committees study and improve the estimates process on a department by department basis and have developed an expertise in those things.

The people of this country deserve a better accountability framework for government. We need to take this a lot more seriously than we have in the past.

If we had all party support on establishing a pilot project to start an estimates committee, we could deal with one or two departments to see how it would work. Perhaps we could develop a degree of expertise to impact on the system and to talk about the societal indicators that people are interested in impacting on the government system.

We have to change government to some extent. The whole idea of silos is very difficult. There are many bureaucrats and governments trying to talk about cross horizontal issues. The issues of disability affect many departments. It could affect transportation. It could affect health. It has all kinds of cross indicators. Sometimes the directions of one department are doing something in tandem with another department when they are working at cross purposes.

An estimates committee could define those problems and eliminate them. It could have the power of bringing departmental officials forward to ensure that we alleviate some of those problems.

I will leave the House with the concept that something as unique as an estimates committee would be useful. Some people would ask why we cannot use the public accounts committee. The public accounts committee is entirely a different animal because it is examining things that have already happened and things that have been reported by the auditor general. The estimates committee is a forward looking committee that would examine how it could change government financing and how governments spend.

On that note, it would be my suggestion that we try to look at some of the recommendations made by parties of the House in the past and to create a pilot project in the fall involving an estimates committee. We could see if we could work on this with a degree of co-operation from all parties. The object of the exercise would be to spend taxpayer money wisely.

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

Mr. Chairman, I have a couple questions. I respect the member. He is an accountant. There is no doubt in my mind that he is very concerned about government expenditures and the whole process of approval and accountability after the fact. However he dreameth in Technicolor. When the finance minister presents a budget most of what he says, in essence, is already law.

I remember that less than a year ago we had a bill in the House respecting the Budget Implementation Act that dated back 10 years. That is how far back we went in implementing a budget provision. Meanwhile, the finance department and the revenue department had been implementing those things per the date of the budget speech. The hon. member, like I say, dreameth in Technicolor when he thinketh that he can have any impact on that.

When it comes to vote on the budget, we have this arcane process that says that no government member can vote against the budget because it is considered a confidence vote. There is no mechanism in parliament now, according to the present rules, to change even the smallest part of the budget.

When it comes to the estimates, they are tabled in the House. We usually start the voting at 10 o'clock at night and by the time we are finished at 2 o'clock in the morning we have approved the expenditure of maybe $70 billion to $80 billion. It sort of rolls off our backs like water off a duck's back. There is never an adjustment.

I remember about three or four years ago our party made an amendment to change HRDC's budget to reduce it by $20,000, which in the grand scheme of things is like changing my budget by a penny or thereabouts. We said explicitly that it was for the purpose of making a statement to declare that parliament had final control over expenditures. Every Liberal member on command voted against that little amendment to change the budget, showing that parliament did not have control over the budget process.

While I appreciate what he just said, I wish him lots of luck. I hope he has lots of fun with his proposals and that the government House leader accepts his suggestions, because I favour what he has said. However I do not believe they will go anywhere.

[Alex Shepherd, Liberal, Durham, ON]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member misunderstood what I said. I used the words estimates committee. I see the functioning of the estimates committee as having less to do with estimates and more to do with what are called plans and priorities.

What happens is that every department, in addition to giving their estimates, gives their plans and priorities for the next two years. In other words, I am not talking about something that is written in cement. I agree with the member in the sense that once we are into the estimate process, we are pretty much into cement. We ask people why they did what they did, as opposed to why would they do what they are planning on doing.

Possibly the name of the committee is wrong. Maybe we should call it the plans and priorities committee. However the object of the exercise has two functions: to deal with plans and priorities and with performance reports.

The plans and priorities would be an interface for members of parliament to get involved with the process that has not happened yet. In other words, the budget has not happened. It will, two years from now. The budget has not been presented, but the internal mechanism of departments is now planning on how they would spend money two years from now. It is the interface for parliamentarians to be able to catch up with a forward looking concept.

The second part of it is to make departments accountable for their plans. Right now, if we read their plans and priorities, there are great latitudes and platitudes. Some of them are good and some of them are not so good, but the reality is that they are not much good to members of parliament because they do not tell them specifically how or where they would spend the money and so forth.

The same fault exists with the performance report. This is all new. This is new in terms of parliament. It is six or seven years old, but the reality is that the performance report today, if we read it, gives all the departments an A. They never make a mistake. It makes no mention of some of the worst scenarios of which all members would be aware.

The object of the exercise of an estimates committee would be to try to link the plans and priorities with the performance report. We would agree as a committee on the plans and priorities or disagree with them. We would report to parliament. We may think the spending plans could involve the spending of money in better ways if the objectives were based on societal indicators. That is the concept and therefore when the performance report comes in we expect there to be failures.

When we are involved in this process there are risks and with risks there are failures. We are big enough to realize that. We talk about letting government departments manage. We should let them manage. If we let them manage, they will make a mistake somewhere along the line and that is fine. We understand that, but it should show up in the performance report.

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

Mr. Chairman, we would all agree that what the member for Durham is saying is appropriate. We want that. Everything that he said about the lack of oversight on the estimates and the lack of oversight on performance reporting is certainly a shortcoming of the way government is operating and how parliament is operating on the committee system.

However what we have to ask ourselves in the context of what the member for Durham is saying is how do we achieve what it is he wants us to achieve. How do we make time for that special committee on the estimates?

The reality is that the number of members of parliament, out of the 301 in the House, who have an interest in things financial is probably less than 10%. Maybe it is more than 10%, but just around there. They are spread over the finance committee, the government operations committee and the public accounts committee. There is literally no time to use this talent to give the estimates the kind of attention they deserve.

What I would suggest, and I would like all the members here to consider it, is that this is all about modernizing the way parliament works.

Maybe what we ought to be considering is setting up a committee on the estimates that sits outside the time that parliament is sitting, that sits perhaps during the January break which is one month long or perhaps sits after the House rises in June.

To give incentives for the expertise that we need on this committee of the estimates we could, as they do in the United States, actually pay the members of parliament who agree to sacrifice the time they should be in their constituencies for working on this committee. We could pay them in the same manner that is done in the United States.

I do not like the idea of paying members of parliament to serve on committees, but this is an exceptional problem that actually needs to be addressed. It requires members of parliament with particular interest and expertise and indeed it requires a sacrifice on the part of members of parliament.

I wonder what the member for Durham and other members here think about the possibility of striking a committee that sits outside the normal sitting days of parliament and that may even involve giving a special remuneration to those members who agree to sit on the committee.

[Alex Shepherd, Liberal, Durham, ON]

Mr. Chairman, I thank the member for his comments. I must admit that I have not put my mind to doing that. My experience has been that members of parliament work very hard when they are here and look forward to their time back in their constituencies. There are obviously some problems, but his opinion has merit and is probably worthy of some investigation.

With regard to the member's first comment that all the people interested in these areas are already gainfully employed, I do not know if that is quite true. If this thing could take on a life of its own, I suspect that once people got the impression they could have some impact on the way governments spend in the future it would possibly be more popular than the other two committees he talked about.

Another function of creating this committee and its interface with some of the other ideas about societal indicators and horizontal issues as opposed to vertical issues is basically to raise awareness. What would come with that pilot project would be some kind of education process for members of parliament. Treasury board officials or others would explain the process and how they could impact it. It would be a very powerful tool. People would warm up to the idea once they understood that they had an impact.

I have seen the reverse scenario. People came to this place in 1993 and were all keen about these things. Now that keenness has declined and people are not interested and have drifted away to other things. This would be a great forum to attract members who are keen and idealistic about changing things.

[Deepak Obhrai, Canadian Alliance, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Chairman, this is my second term in the House and as such people call me a veteran. I do not know why they call me a veteran. Just before the election I was called a rookie and overnight I became a veteran. I am supposed to know overnight exactly what is going on in the House.

In my four years one thing that has become consistently clear is that there is something wrong with the system. Everybody on the opposition side and backbenches, whether they want to say it openly or not, were unanimous that something was wrong with the system. We were elected to represent the people but somehow we are not able to do that. That was becoming quite clear. Everybody kept saying that, even the gentleman who is laughing.

We remember the member standing over there talking and saying that this was a bill with a problem. We all know there is a problem. There is a problem. Nothing is happening.

I am amazed that government members were on the opposition benches.

[An hon. member]

Be non-partisan.

[Deepak Obhrai, Canadian Alliance, Calgary East, AB]

This is non-partisan. They were in the opposition so they know there is a failing in the system. When they got on the other side they were totally closed on any kind of reform. We would think that members on the other side who have been on this side would use their experience on this side to make the system work better.

We are all Canadians here. We are here representing our ridings. Our country is diverse in its views. I do not think we can say anyone is wrong or right. We have different points of view. We all represent Canadians here and we need to speak on behalf of Canadians.

My colleague has spoken about a private member's bill. He said that for seven and a half years one of his private member's bill has not come forward. I just went through the experience of having a private member's bill. There was debate on it and I asked myself what I was doing here. It was the most horrible experience I have endured in trying to address and get a point of view across.

I spent three and a half years going across the country from coast to coast speaking on every radio talk show that I could. I had townhall meetings and I had Canadians expressing their views. I came to the House, supposedly a democratic House, and with one swat it was wiped out.

[An hon. member]

Gone.

[Deepak Obhrai, Canadian Alliance, Calgary East, AB]

Gone. People out there are thinking and saying something about this. There is a viewpoint out there. If a person does not agree with a viewpoint, that is fine. If the government does not agree, it should not allow the whole Canadian voice to go out the window with one swat. We are a little concerned. Now what? I stand here shaking my head and asking now what. What do I do with the bill?

One member has been in the House seven and a half years and has never been allowed to speak his mind. Now what should I do?

[An hon. member]

I spoke my mind on yours, though.

[Deepak Obhrai, Canadian Alliance, Calgary East, AB]

Is that right?

[An hon. member]

Yes.

[Deepak Obhrai, Canadian Alliance, Calgary East, AB]

I spoke my mind too. The question is what should I do now.

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

Was it voted on or not?

[An hon. member]

No, it was not. That is the frustration.

[Deepak Obhrai, Canadian Alliance, Calgary East, AB]

No, because the committee did not make it votable. There are four people sitting out there deciding what should be on the table. There is something wrong with the system.

We have identified this issue and the government House leader has come here and said there is an ongoing survey. I do not know, but maybe my colleagues can remind me. In the last parliament did a survey come out on the same issue, on whether private members' bills should be in committee?

I was a new member. I was not experienced on private members' business so I did not fill out that one. I have strong views now on how the system works. I strongly believe that if a member works hard for two or three years to get an issue before the House, we owe it to the member that the issue be votable. There is no point in doing three and a half years of work otherwise.

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

We agree.

[Deepak Obhrai, Canadian Alliance, Calgary East, AB]

I know the member agrees. I just heard the member say he agrees, but the question is: Will those who have the power to make the changes agree? That is the point. I do not know. Frankly speaking, after listening to the minister, I do not know whether he will agree to this votable bill. He has put out a survey. So what?

I have sat on enough committees that have been chaired and have seen manipulation take place. Whatever the government side wanted, the frontbench wanted, it was done.

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

You are supposed to be non-partisan.

[Deepak Obhrai, Canadian Alliance, Calgary East, AB]

What do you mean by non-partisan? I suppose we can use ordinary language since we are in committee?

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

We cannot swear.

[Deepak Obhrai, Canadian Alliance, Calgary East, AB]

Then stop heckling me.

Let us make all private members' bills votable. Interestingly I heard the government House leader raising objections that it will take too long. He asked how many hours and what we should do. He also said that it would tie up resources.

Because the government House leader raised these issues I see reluctance on his part. He is trying to say that this cannot be done. I am telling him everything can be done if it should be done.

The point is that 301 members of parliament represent 301 constituencies and speak on behalf of their constituents. Even the Prime Minister phoned a bank on behalf of his constituency and proudly said that he was working for his constituents. The fact of the matter is that we are working for our constituents, but if we are muzzled, if we cannot raise anything after spending so much time on it, what is the point? We must be objective about it. Let us make them votable.

At this point in time we should put no restriction on it. They should just be votable. It is common sense. The government House leader said it and I agree with him. I do not want to put forth a bill that will be defeated. I will look pretty stupid if I put forth two votable bills that are defeated. Maybe I could come along and put forth three bills. In the beginning I could be very proud, but I can say very rapidly that I will become a laughing stock if my bills are not acceptable all round.

I have a question that counts. Should private members' bill be subject to a free vote? It would be best to have private members' bills votable but they should be free votes. If they are not free votes, they fall back on to the government agenda.

It would be far more advisable for such bills to reach committee stage to consider their good elements. One good thing about committee is that witnesses are called before it and provide a broader view of what people are saying. At the end of the day, whether or not it becomes law, I agree the government has been chosen but at least we know that good points in a bill have been picked and the voice of Canadians has been heard.

Let us have all private members' bills votable. They should be free votes. It is not binding on the government. The free vote would only say it is going to committee. Once it goes to committee, we can take the good points and filter out those that do not fit or make a slight amendment.

When we start doing this we will have an argument from the government House leader saying that it will tie up resources, that they do not have the resources and the committees will be tied up. I do not think so. At the end of the day we can do it, if we want it to work.

I am totally opposed to the subcommittee on private members' business. I have been through that subcommittee and I can only say that I will not appear before it again. I will not appear before those four people to try to tell them what I am doing on behalf of my constituency. I felt like a bloody fool. I know that is not parliamentary language, but I do not feel that I should appear before four people to represent my constituents. I do not feel that subcommittee should be made available.

If it is a frivolous bill the House leader could sit and explain to the member that it has no chance. The bill could be weeded out through common sense. If not, we should let it go.

If the government has two or three defeated bills the opposition would love it and could play on it during election time. Members must therefore work hard to make sure their bills are passed.

We all come here to work. We do not come here to play a media game. We come here to work and we put in a lot of hours. I put in a tremendous amount of hours behind the scenes on these things. It is not a media circus.

I am sure that at the end of the day it will settle down and we will find a happy medium. The problem is that we are not letting things rise to the top because we are putting up barriers. The government House leader says there are not enough resources and that a bill may tie up the system.

I did a quick calculation regarding private members' bills. Let us say we have a votable bill and are deciding whether to take one, two or three hours to debate it. If we have a maximum of two speakers on such a bill it would take the five parties two hours to debate it. It is as simple as that.

Two speakers is enough. My colleague made a good point when he said two speakers could put forward their own and their party's position. He is right. We do not need three or four speakers. Two speakers could present the gist of an issue. After that it becomes repetition. I therefore recommend two hours for private members' bills to become votable.

The House leader said a lot of private members' bills deal with justice and could therefore tie up the justice committee. Let us think for a second. What is wrong with setting up justice subcommittees? There are 301 members of parliament. Why should the main committee be stuck on this? The Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade could not handle all its work so it created subcommittees. What is wrong with that?

Justice is an issue on the minds of Canadians, and members of parliament are bringing questions to the justice committee. Why not have subcommittees? Once the justice issues settle down we will perhaps no longer need subcommittees, but let us not have restrictions. There are solutions to this issue.

I want to address another point. House leaders, government ministers and private members put forward bills and then we are forced to stand and do a lot of huffing and puffing and all that kind of stuff, and the parliamentary secretaries do not have the foggiest idea. We should have a question and answer period for bills that are tabled. Dialogue is more important than simply making statements.

Speeches should be followed by a question and answer period, with extended time for the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and the members tabling the bills.

I have sat here at times and heard statements I did not agree with. I would have liked to offer my point of view but could not because there is no question and answer period. I believe there should be a question and answer period after every speech.

This is a house of debate. This is not a place to sit, make statements and then go away. We want to debate the issues. That is why we are here.

My third point, and this is quite a contentious one, is committees. The way our committees are structured must be addressed to better deal with the issues. If we are to send private members' bills to committee we must structure committees to be able to deal with them. We are all here to see that things improve. We are all speaking for Canadians. We must therefore take a serious look at committees.

I do not know which government members formerly sat on this side as the opposition, but I am sure they know that sitting in a committee is very frustrating. At times I have gone to my leader and asked him to take me off committees. I find it hopeless. I asked him to send me where I could do something useful.

I cannot do anything the way this committee is structured. No one is interested in listening. The witnesses all favour one point of view. Government legislation needs to be pushed through so everything is done accordingly. Ministers come to the committee and make a speech, and I have three minutes to ask them questions. What can I ask in three minutes? Nothing. Then the ministers get to say they have set up a committee to address the issue. The committee tables its report and it ends up on the shelf.

Canadians have this notion that parliamentarians are not effective. As far as I am concerned, the protests in Quebec City reflected the feelings of the Canadian public that parliament is irrelevant. Maude Barlow has said quite clearly that she feels parliament is irrelevant.

When I was in Geneva I heard United Nations bureaucrats saying that they, and not parliamentarians, speak for the people because they talk to them better. There is a growing mindset out there that it is okay to bypass parliament. Why? It is because of the way parliament is structured.

I am glad we are having this debate tonight. There are good points coming from all sides. The hon. member made a very good point about the estimates. He is not comfortable because the estimates come in and go out and billions are spent and gone.

The hon. member for Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot said something about being paid for sitting on committees and I have a hard time agreeing. I am not here to make money. I came here to make a contribution. I had quite a comfortable job before I came here. We need to make this contribution. I am sure 99% of members of parliament are here to make some kind of contribution.

I will now look at committee structure and recommendations on how to make committees more effective. First, we must get parliamentary secretaries off the committees. I call them the whips. They sit there and control what happens. We should also rotate committee chairmen so that government members do not always occupy the chair.

The government controls committees but does not give them power. One may wonder if at the end of the day the recommendations of committees are binding on the government. They are not, and yet the government wants to control the committees.

I totally enjoyed making this point because of how I feel about it. I will leave it at that.