Debates of June 12th, 2001

Supply

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak to the motion dealing with private members' business. I would also like to indicate that I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Provencher.

It was quite interesting to listen to my friend on the other side speaking about partisan politics and saying that they do not talk partisan politics. The problem is that when he starts on the rhetoric it is necessary for us to set the record straight.

Talking about setting the record straight, I would like to say that the motion we are debating was introduced and brought in by my hon. colleague sitting next to me. I commend him for doing so. I know he was on the committee and was extremely frustrated with the way things were going so he introduced this motion.

Despite what my friend on the other side said about all the problems or little turbulences my party is going through, I would like to tell Canadians that we have been elected to represent them in parliament and to hold the government accountable and that is exactly what we are doing.

The introduction of the motion dealing with private members' business is to ensure that members of parliament from all parties have the right to stand in parliament to speak on behalf of their constituents.

When my colleague from Edmonton—Strathcona asked the member a question about how many times he had voted independently, he gave us a great analogy of playing on a hockey team. As Canadians have said time after time, and if he goes back to his riding and polls his constituents perhaps they will tell him, they want him to speak on their behalf. That is what he has been sent here for, not this team business. There are no goals to be scored here. We have to stand up and represent our ridings, and that is what my colleague from Edmonton—Strathcona was asking of my friend on the other side.

I return to the issue of private members' business. This is my second term in the House. I am very grateful to my constituents of Calgary East that sent me here to debate issues they feel are important. Based on that we try very hard to introduce private members' bills. It is one of our vehicles as members of parliament who are not in government or who are not ministers to bring the concerns of Canadians to the floor of the House. It was brought in over the years so that members of parliament could democratically represent their ridings.

During my first term as a rookie MP I submitted a lot of private members' bills. Lo and behold not one was chosen. For four years I have stood on this side of the House and I could not address those issues. When I was returned to the 37th parliament I reintroduced the same bills and two of my private members' bills were selected in the lottery system. I thank God for having my bills selected because it is only through His hand that these bills were selected.

When I was preparing my private member's bill I consulted Canadians across the country and received their input. Those Canadians who felt these were important issues got excited. One of my bills dealt with emancipation day to recognize Canada's contribution to the abolition of slavery. Members of the black community were extremely excited and happy. They gave me full support. They even came here from Toronto to recognize this important day.

I also had a private member's bill dealing with a minimum sentence of two years for repeat break and enter offenders. Over the last parliament I went across Canada. I spoke on radio talk shows. I received the support of Canadians, including the chiefs of police of Toronto, Saskatoon and Calgary, the police association of Calgary and the Canadian Police Association. There was a huge amount of support from all those groups. When I brought my bill forward I thought it would be a non-partisan event and that it would be debated in the House of Commons so that Canadians would know on which side of the issue the government would be.

The subcommittee that was set up to select private members' bills said that my bill would not be votable. Suddenly all the hard work and excitement and all the associations that provided support meant nothing. With it saying no, all I could do was stand in the House to speak to the bill for 10 minutes. I spoke for 10 minutes on the bill. I might as well have gone home and spoken in front of a mirror because there was nothing I could do about it. I was angry. I spoke, sat down and said goodbye to all the effort that was put into the bill.

I reintroduced that bill in the House today. Unless we change the system the same thing will happen. All the groups that work hard to bring issues to parliament will not have their voices heard because the government has a different agenda. The government's agenda is not to represent every Canadian. It is running the country and it has a different agenda, but as members of parliament we can bring issues forward through private members' bills. We spend a lot of time getting support. Then we come to the House, and why is it that three or four people decide whether or not a bill will be votable?

My friend on that committee felt frustration arising out of it and brought forward the motion we are debating today. I was very pleased, in one degree, when I listened to the government House leader say he will support the bill. All the other parties have said they will support the bill, so let me say that I am literally looking forward to returning to parliament in September when private members' bills are votable.

Now I can go out there and work hard as I can to bring a bill here and I can tell Canadians, yes, it will be brought to the House, it will be put to a vote and we will vote on it. If the members over there on the government side and other members feel this is an important bill and vote for it without following party lines and not playing at teamwork, this will become a House that will gain the respect of Canadians.

[Darrel Stinson, Canadian Alliance, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague speak in regard to private members' bills and I have to agree 100%. I also agree with my colleague who brought forward the motion.

I too had the misfortune of sitting on the private members' committee. I sat there and saw good bills from all parties in the House brought forward. I watched the committee members bargaining away and heard them saying that bills could not come forward because they were too controversial. I myself had the same frustrations with some of my own bills. As a matter of fact I sat there in front of the committee on a bill regarding separation and had the committee tell me that the bill was too political to bring forward in the House of Commons. The committee said it was too political. This is supposed to be the most political House in the land and yet my bill was too political to be brought forward for debate in the House of Commons.

I have to agree with the hon. member when he says that if this comes forward tonight—and it should pass—finally we will have a House that will truly represent the people, the constituents and the wishes of all parties in the House to see some good legislation come forward.

Why does the hon. member think it has taken so long for the frustration level to build up in members from all sides of the House? This is the hon. member's second term and my third term. Why has it has taken so long for this to come forward in the House? Does the hon. member have any answer for that?

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

Mr. Speaker, I can speculate. It served the purpose of the government. As I said, the government has a different agenda and the government controls this whole situation. By not allowing bills to become votable, by going through the committee, the government could control what is going on. We have seen that happen all year. It was one way for the government to have total control of parliament.

My ex-leader, the MP from Calgary Southwest who is in the chamber today, has stated on many occasions that the House has become dysfunctional. As a matter of fact he has indicated his desire to leave politics because, as he has said, the House has become dysfunctional. He is a member whom Canadians highly respect, a member who has worked tirelessly for the country, and who, as the Leader of the Opposition in this Chamber, has firsthand knowledge of how dysfunctional the House has been.

To answer my colleague, that is why Canadians were losing respect for the chamber, because it was dysfunctional and everything was controlled by the government, by a small government and a concentration of power in the PMO.

This is the first step. I can speculate that the reason it is the first step and the government has agreed to this is that because finally even Canadians outside have spoken out and have said they need some substance out of the House. They have said “We have given them a pay raise. They had better deliver”. I am glad that we have been given this opportunity to work for that.

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member talks about this place being dysfunctional. Would he agree with me that it is because we have been spending all our time at our jobs in Ottawa dealing with the issues that surround individual MPs or all of the problems that are occurring within the caucus of the hon. member's party? Would he agree with me that this dysfunction just might be what is causing Canadians to lose respect for MPs and for this institution?

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

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question and I thank the hon. member for asking it. Today this motion, this hard work, was put through by my colleague working as the official opposition. That is what we are doing over here. That is what our job is as the opposition and we are doing it. That is why today we are debating the motion. I remind the member that the motion came from the Alliance, not the Liberals.

[Vic Toews, Canadian Alliance, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on the supply motion because I believe private members' business is a vital tradition in parliament and I believe that we need to revive the spirit of the tradition in order to maintain the confidence we have in our democracy and in our parliamentary system. Despite some of the cynicism we hear, people are still convinced that it is through parliament that true democratic reforms come, and we need to ensure that we revitalize our democracy.

I would like to begin my remarks by citing a 1985 report of the McGrath committee, which was established to make recommendations in the House in respect of House reform. I will quote from page 2 of the report:

If the private member is to count for anything, there must be a relationship between what the private member and the institution of Parliament can do and what the electorate thinks or expects can be done.

There is a connection among the member, the institution and the electorate. This is a fundamental point of what we are trying to do here, I think. The people of Canada elect us their representatives to the House of Commons and they have the expectation that each of us will be permitted to be productive and useful members with ideas and initiatives of our own.

When members are authorized to be little more than voting machines or seat warmers, it not only feeds into our own cynicism about what we are doing here but more significantly it fosters public cynicism, pessimism and mistrust in parliament and in politicians in general.

I have been a member of parliament for about six months and, if one does not guard against it, I think cynicism can overwhelm one. Except for minor variations with government bills, we know exactly what will happen time and again. The government introduces a bill, we debate it, we sit through committee testimony and we propose amendments, which are usually shot down. We debate it some more and then we vote and the government bill passes. This is a fact of life when we have a majority government.

I served in a provincial legislature. I understand the need for majority governments to control the agenda, to move certain issues through. I understand and respect it, but the realities of a majority government to me present all the more reason to revisit the procedural aspects of private members' business.

I do not think the two are inconsistent. The agenda of a government is a legitimate thing, but there is also the agenda of private members. Private members are the backbone of the House. The executive is here to serve the private members, but in our modern age parliament has been stood on its head. In order to at least regain some balance, this initiative by my colleague from the Canadian Alliance is crucial. I think Canadians expect it of us.

Private members' bills and motions now are not effective. Yet they are really the only way that a member outside of cabinet, whether on the government side of the House or on the opposition side, can advance his or her own proposals and initiatives. Government business is government business and that is fine, but private members' business should not be dictated by government, directly or indirectly.

Right now the process is that we have a subcommittee of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, which includes just six members in the House who determine what private members' bills will be heard. All initiatives of members outside of cabinet are governed by only six individuals, and the consent of those six individuals must be unanimous to make it votable. Six individuals control the entire private members' agenda.

Since the beginning of the 37th parliament, Alliance MPs have had 24 items drawn to be placed on the order of precedence, but only 2 items have been deemed votable. In the second session of the 36th parliament, there was a total of 772 bills and motions introduced. Only 70 of those were drawn and of those only 21 were made votable, only 21 private members' bills out of 772.

Yet we continue to go back to our constituents and tell them “I want to represent you and I want to represent the concerns in my constituency”. Yet six members in the House, unless we acquire unanimous consent, will shut down the voice of my constituents each and every time, only six members.

Why does this happen? Let us say I get an idea in my head. The member from Mississauga might not think it is a good idea but it is an idea nonetheless. I get an idea in my head, I call legislative counsel to draft the bill, the bill goes on the order paper, it is drawn to be placed in the order of precedence, it is debated, it is dropped from the order paper, and we never hear about it again if this six person subcommittee has not already decided that we ought to vote on it.

What are the criteria for the votable items? I do not know. I am just a private member. I am only here to represent my constituents. I do not know what criteria this secret committee applies. Who influences these criteria? Who tells these six members how this is done? I do not know and I also do not know if the House will ever find out. We can draw up all kinds of lists and say this is what we will do, but who influences the agenda? Because if that agenda does not come before the House, we know that the government influences that agenda. As long as the government does not think it too controversial or too divisive or too embarrassing, it might allow it.

Even if I am wrong on the six members, as some members from the Liberal Party are saying, the subcommittee gives the perception of a star chamber where decisions are made in secret, away from the public, away from the eyes of the electorate who have a right to know.

[An hon. member]

There is somebody from your own party on that committee.

[Vic Toews, Canadian Alliance, Provencher, MB]

They say even a member of my own party is on that committee. Yes, and we are not allowed to say in the House why certain things are not made votable. Can I stand up today and say in the House why a certain thing was not made votable? We cannot say it in the House. Those are the rules and the Liberal members know that. I cannot say it was a New Democrat who shut down a matter that was non-votable. I am not allowed to say it to the members. I am not allowed to say it here in the House. We all know that, so let us not pretend.

I believe the best way to reflect the democratic nature of our parliament is to make all private members' bills and motions votable. I think we could reduce the number of bills, but I say we should let them all be votable.

I have to stand in support of this motion and I would ask all of you to support it.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

I ask the hon. member to address his comments to the Chair.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that the member has such a cynical view of what happens. In fact some of the information he has presented has cast a light on this that quite frankly is not a fair reflection. For instance, he gave the example that only 21 private members' items in the second session of the 36th parliament out of 772 were actually votable.

First, the second session of the 36th parliament had private members' business on every required day. There was only room for that many, for 72. We could have had a million bills put in and it would not have mattered. We could only deal with 72 during the second session of the 36th parliament. In fact, 21 out of the 70 were votable. That is as prescribed by the rules of the House.

The member also asked about the criteria. The criteria are published. He also talked about some secret committee. There are two members of the government and four members of the opposition on the committee. It is not just somebody controlling it. They happen to be our representatives.

The member made one statement that I really disagree with. He said that private members' business is ineffectual. I want him to answer this question. Does he know what Bill C-204 was in the last parliament? Does he know it was never drawn? Does he know that it was never voted on? However, does he know that it was in the last throne speech and that we now have parental leave for a full year because a private member had an idea and put it in a bill?

[Vic Toews, Canadian Alliance, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, why would I want to get up and do anything but praise the one member who had an idea and who was lucky enough to get it through this maze?

What this member did not tell the people of Canada in his question is that even if the bill meets all the criteria, it still does not mean it is votable. There is still a huge element of discretion, the discretion that is influenced by political thought and political correctness, by questions like “Is this divisive? Will this be embarrassing?”

I am not disagreeing with the member. These are my observations after being here for six months. Maybe I am mistaken. Maybe I will grow to be just as cynical as he is.

What I am saying is that the government presently has a very effective means of presenting its agenda and getting it through the House. Every government bill is votable unless the government itself hoists it. However, that is called government business. Why can private members' business not simply be the business of private members? If a private member is lucky enough to get the bill into the House, it should be votable unless that private member deems it not to be votable.

Congratulations to whoever the member was on Bill C-204. I commend that member. That is a shining example of what can be done with many more bills. I would encourage the member to support this bill.

[Guy St-Julien, Liberal, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened carefully to the words of the hon. member for Provencher, and I must say that he made several points of interest to us in his intervention.

As for his final remark about not knowing the criteria, I would state that, just by chance, I have them here before me. I would like to make a comment and then ask a question.

In April 1999, in a report to the House, the standing committee on private members' business established the new list of criteria for selection of votable private members' business.

There are five points. What is important is that, in the House of Commons, it is his party that ought to inform him on this, or he ought to contact the committee to find out what the criteria are.

Should he not get these directly from the House of Commons or from his party?

[Vic Toews, Canadian Alliance, Provencher, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I think I have already answered that. I do not have any dispute with the criteria, but if the member is saying that these criteria will determine that these items are in fact votable, he is wrong. My understanding is that even if every criterion is met an item is still not votable. There is still that hidden amount of discretion. As hon. members, as private members on both sides of the House, we need to maybe narrow down the number of bills but make them all votable so that the exercise is a realistic one.

[Carolyn Parrish, Liberal, Mississauga Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have been sitting here listening for the last couple of hours to three years of my life being bandied about.

The member opposite who introduced this motion and who I respect greatly knows that I spent two years as chair of the committee, in 1996-97, and that I just spent the last year chairing it. Despite what members think, the easiest thing in the world for me would be to vote to make everything votable, tomorrow, tonight, whenever we vote on it, because it would get rid of a very tough job that I am forced to do.

However, I honestly have not made up my mind how I will vote because I do not believe it will help the private members' process to make everything votable. I sincerely believe it will diminish the process. It will make it partisan. It will make it irrelevant. I have to learn to get over that.

Mr. Speaker, excuse me, but I forgot to say that I will be splitting my time with the member for Mississauga South.

The process has developed and improved since the 1980s. Several people have referred to the McGrath report. We brought in modifications in 1997-98. Although the party opposite takes credit for slipping that through the House, some of those modifications sprung full blown from my head, one of which was voting from the back rows down because it took the obligation away from the back rows of both sides of the House to follow the front rows.

We streamlined the criteria so that members can bring in private members' bills that do focus on one province or one area. Before it was not allowed. We brought in and tested the one hundred signature rule because people were very frustrated with the lottery. We brought in another one that no one has referred to all day, which is an obligation for a committee to report back within six months so an item could not be deep-sixed at a committee. Otherwise it is deemed brought back in its entirety.

We have made amazing progress and I would like to take some credit for that. That is why I am not sure. It is like the old adage “Be careful what you ask for because you might get it”. We may find out that it is not what we really wanted.

In regard to the lottery, I think we will be dropping it because of the confusion. People do not realize when they sign in the hundred signature rule whether they are supporting the concept of the bill or signing to get it to go through without the lottery or signing it because they think an item should be votable. We have had some confusion on that, as members know.

The criteria, as I mentioned, have been diminished. They are down to five simple criteria, one of them an improvement that says if the member is from out west the member can bring in an issue that is strictly for the west and the member's item will not be thrown out because it does not apply to the whole country.

I have a concern that a lot of the private members' bills we see now are reruns of government bills that passed through the House. Gun control has come up many times in the lottery. I do not know how many times the House could take another run at a bill like that. We would be opening ourselves to a lot of that.

Members would need to filter the bills no matter what is decided. If the House decides that they should all be votable, they will still have to be looked at using some criteria that we have talked about.

The idea of making everything votable has been the subject of two surveys, one in 1998 and one in 2001. What has been consistent in those surveys is that people are disaffected. People do not like the system. In 1998, 71% were unhappy with the system. This year 77% are unhappy. In 1998, 48% wanted everything votable and this time we have 62%.

However, I think it is also important to note that only 109 people out of 301 responded from the House. Seventy-five of those people have tabled bills. Fifty-six have had them drawn and 36 have had them made votable. I do not know where the statistics I have been hearing bandied about came from, but fully 33% of those bills have been votable, which is exactly what we were asked to do.

Only two-thirds, two or maybe three bills before 1993, ever became law in this country. One was the Prime Minister's, which named Air Canada. Another in 1993 was my opponent's, whose bill banning hookah pipes was passed, which I am sure has had a devastating effect on the country.

We have had a dozen passed and made into law since 1993. So despite the bleating to the contrary that the Liberal government has been restricting democracy, I think we have done very well.

If I sound like I am taking this personally, I am. I have spent a lot of time on this.

I think members will be very concerned when they see that with the 312 hours allocated we could get 104 bills and motions through in three and a half to four years. How would members choose those bills? We would have to go back to the nasty old lottery. The opportunity for whipped votes would increase because there is far too much for people to pay attention to in the House. If everything is made votable, I think the adage after a while will be “if it is proposed by the opposition we will vote against it”.

It would reduce the significance of the bills because anything could get through. As for the ones that do get through now in this nasty process that has been described, everybody pays attention to them because they have already come through one hurdle.

Many members choose to introduce motions and bills, as the member for Mississauga South mentioned. They never make it into votability, but the concept gets introduced. Somebody pays attention to it. Even though it was not votable it got an hour in the House and sometimes the government pays attention to a good idea even if it was not votable.

I am very concerned that we would get into the old U.S. style system whereby paid lobbyists and huge corporations will be forcing members to put bills into the House as their private members' bills with threats or with the rewards offered by companies that have a lot of money. I think we can see that happening in the States.

As I mentioned members would need a screening process, because I cannot understand after living this for three out of the last seven and a half to eight years how it would be done.

Some members would also have an obligation to put bills forward which would reflect small, noisy, highly skilled lobby groups in their ridings. Members might not agree with them. Members can see that when they put in petitions. Some of the petitions members put in they agree with. Some petitions members have hard time putting in, but it has to be done. Members might also be subjected to intense lobbying by single issue groups in the ridings that say they know there is one bill that is votable and they have one they want put in.

Despite the fact we have been royally dissed today, I would like to thank everybody who has served on the committee. It is not an easy task. I actually had one of my own members of my own government kick my door and leave marks all over it because he was angry that we did not make his bill votable and he thought I had something to do with it.

It is a tough job. I compliment the members of the opposition because it is not always unanimous, but it is by consensus, and it is based on criteria and, yes, it is subjective. However, I think we function well and I am very proud of everybody who sits on that committee.

According to the process already ongoing, we have a survey and the results. We have the Kilger committee looking at parliamentary reform. I really believe the motion itself is redundant because it asks that all private members' bills be made votable, and we have heard from the government side that it is ready to do that.

In summary, I care very much about private members' business. That is why I have been cautious since we started the review in 1997. If I did not care about it I would say that we should just let it go because it does not matter. I am very concerned that members will get a package that they do not really understand. They will not know what happened to them. They will not understand how difficult it will be to fight off the lobbyists, the heavy groups in their ridings that will try to force them to do this or that and stand up in the House of Commons and sometimes fight for things they do not understand or believe in.

I really believe each bill will become less and less important as more bills are introduced without any screening process.

[Garry Breitkreuz, Canadian Alliance, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I have to take exception to a couple of things the hon. member said, and I respect very much the work she has done. However I believe we can make it work. If it works in other jurisdictions, why can it not work here?

We heard an example given by her own colleague who had experience in the Ontario legislature, where all bills and motions that went through were deemed votable. If it can work there, why can it not work here? Are we somehow that much different that it cannot work here?

She expressed the concern that there would be too many whipped votes. I maintain it must continue to be a free vote in order for it to be meaningful and that we must take more of an interest in the issues that are before the House. This has the potential to revitalize parliament. Therefore, we should try to make it work, and we can make it work.

Why are the bills or motions not deemed votable even when all the criteria are met? Obviously, they are not and that is a concern.

Last, if an issue arises that the government has had in the House, would that not indicate that Canadians still had a concern about that issue and that we should still listen to those concerns? I do not think that is an argument for not bringing an issue to parliament.

[Carolyn Parrish, Liberal, Mississauga Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a huge respect for the member who just asked the question, but I will correct him anyway.

I think the member for Mississauga West was not absolutely sure if all the bills are votable in the Ontario legislature. Since I have never been a member there I am not sure either. Therefore, I do not think we can use that as an example of something that works because we are not absolutely sure if it does turn out that way.

The whipped votes are a serious concern of mine. It is not because we are whipped on this side of the House on private members' bills at all. We are not.

As a perfect example, I would cite the bill put forward by the member for Davenport, which is very difficult for the government to cope with right now. I am sure when we selected that as a votable bill we were less than popular with our side of the House. However the labelling of genetically modified foods was an issue of significance to the whole country. The committee, in a non-partisan way, made that votable.

Therefore, I am not concerned that it is going to be whipped that way. I am concerned that we will have a volume of material come through that will be a little bewildering. If it is assumed that we will be able to force 301 members to pay close attention to every bill, I cite the fact that we had 109 responses out of 301 on a survey that was very carefully worded, very carefully put together and hand delivered to every office. We will have a really hard time ensuring that. I am not just being pessimistic, I am legitimately concerned.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to commend the member for Mississauga Centre. She has done a pretty good job in a very difficult position. I had the opportunity to serve with her when she was chairperson. It was an interesting challenge and very frustrating, yet at all times she managed to sort of keep her head and keep us moving forward.

With respect to the actual choices, basically our motion today would take away from her and her committee the right to scuttle a bill before it comes to the House. In other words, we are saying that all private members' business should be votable and it would be then the duty of the member to make sure the criteria was met so it would have a reasonable chance of passing.

Does she agree with that? Does she support the motion we have today?

[Carolyn Parrish, Liberal, Mississauga Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I already have mentioned, I am having trouble with it because I am more pessimistic than the member is. I legitimately believe a year or two from now we will look at this and say oops. It is like the 100 signature rule. I am not optimistic about it.

Whether or not I will support it will be one of those moments when just before the vote comes to me, I will make up my mind in a non-partisan way.

As the member for Elk Island mentioned, he also sat on the committee under my tutelage. I was very pleased he was there. He is a very mathematical person and liked to give things points. It was a very subjective committee, so I admire him for not killing me in the process.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be supporting the motion today.

Private members' business has been a big part of my career as a parliamentarian. Since 1993 I have had the honour of having over 20 bills and motions presented and tabled in the House. I also had about eight items selected in the lottery. Half of them turned out to be votable. I have had some success, and it was very rewarding. However the best outcome one could have for a private member's item is not going through the whole gyration and cycle and having the government adopt the item and implement it. That is what is most important.

In fact that is exactly what happened in the last parliament with Bill C-204 extending parental leave to a full year from six months. My bill was sat there for six months and never got drawn in the lottery. However the government decided to proceed on it and included it in the throne speech and the very next budget. It has now been implemented and is a very important and valued program for Canadians. The bill itself never got a moment of debate in the House other than on the budget. There are many ways to look at this.

Since we will support the motion, one of the things I would like to do is open the envelope a bit and propose to the House another way to do this. I do not believe that everyone can have a votable item. It is just not practical. I do not believe that everyone is interested in having a votable item either. Our history shows us that a very small percentage of House members even care to participate in private members' business. They have other responsibilities and are not prepared to do the work that is involved.

All members who wish to participate should submit their names. I do not how many that would turn out to be. Then we could have one lottery only to determine the order in which the members would bring forward their items. All we establish is their placement on the list so members can plan for when their items will come up. I think that is the best way to ensure we include members who want to participate, and to establish an order, which has to be done somehow. A lottery seems to be as fair as anything.

Regarding the issue of the private members' committee business, the credibility issue is something that will be very difficult to deal with. I believe the committee should continue to exist but it should be there to ensure that items meet the published criteria. The committee should say yea or nay. If it says nay a communication should be passed on to the member proposing the bill or motion that the criteria has not been met. That is its job.

How do we determine votability? Members who have been to the private members' business committee and have done their three minute dog and pony show know that there very few questions are asked. In fact, very few substantive questions are asked because the members are dealing with dozens of items. They cannot be prepared themselves. They cannot do the job. It really is not doing anyone's bill justice quite frankly.

Most members know that private members' items cannot be complex animals. They have to be quite focused and quite specific because we do not have a lot of time to grasp the attention or the interest of the House to support it. It has to be somewhat focused. We can see by those that have been successful over the last few years in the parliaments that many of them are quite straightforward.

The one I remember and thought was excellent had to do with employment insurance benefits and what happened to someone who was called on jury duty. The old law said people would lose their EI benefits because they were being paid for jury duty. It did not make sense because jury duty paid $10 a day and employment insurance paid something different. I thought it was an important bill. It was a small one but an important one because it was an inequity situation. I think those are good, solid types of bills.

With regard to the votability, I like the process that we went through recently. We operated under a committee of the whole procedure whereby members who were interested assembled around the Chair in somewhat informal fashion. I would like to see members whose bills or motions have met the criteria and have been approved by the committee come to the House, do their five minutes and give their best reasons and arguments why their item should be votable. They would then be subject to questions and comments from anyone who wanted to participate. A record and transcript would be available for people who were interested.

Members could ask questions if they did not understand something, or if they thought the motion was off base or thought it was a great idea. There would be some feedback, which we have never had. We would then have a process. Members would determine whether an item was worthy of taking up any more of the House's time and whether, was worthy of additional hours of debate.

We could take that committee responsibility and put it as part of a committee of the whole. We could let members stand in front of their peers, make their best case and ask their peers to consider it. I think in one evening, with a five minute question and comment on a five minute or three minute presentation, we could probably do six bills and motions in one evening. We could then have a vote on a scheduled day of votes to determine the items with which we would proceed. It would be open, transparent and fair. Members would have to do their work to earn the support of their colleagues for this.

Private members' business should have the same status as government bills. The process we go through has a subsidiary role in terms of importance in how it is dealt with in the House. Once this Chamber decides an item should be votable, it should be accorded all the attention that any other government bill should have. That would mean if members wanted to debate it for more than two hours or three hours they could.

Also, when a bill goes to committee then comes back, it should not have to go to the bottom of the list and wait 30 sitting days before it can be brought up again. It should depend on when the item should be called and there can be rules there.

I agree with many members that private members' business ought to be accorded the same weight of importance in this place because it is important not just for the members proposing it, it is also important to the people of Canada because their representatives are here.

That kind of process basically puts the challenge to members. It is an important challenge not to be frivolous, not to abuse the process, because if we come forward here and put items in front of our peers which are not meritorious of taking up the House's time people will develop a reputation. We know that to get a private member's item or anything passed in this place a member must earn the respect of colleagues on all sides. Members pay a price when they play partisan and petty politics in this place and do things that they should not. When they embarrass this place, they should not expect to earn the respect of the House for their bills or their motions.

The challenge is to us all. I think we are looking for transparency, but I do not think we should try for a panacea whereby everyone gets everything they want. That is just not possible. Let us be reasonable and professional. Let us be members of parliament and make decisions based on merit. Those who do good work and earn respect and credibility within this place are the ones who will be successful in parliament.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member has participated very enthusiastically in private members' business, not only in the process but also in promoting his own private members' bills.

With respect to votability he said that some members did not want to participate and never prepare private members' bills or motions. That would certainly reduce the number.

It was proposed earlier today during debate that we might increase the number of hours allotted per week to private members' business by adding an hour first thing in the morning and another in the evening. Another suggestion was to have all day Friday devoted to private members' business.

If Friday were devoted to private members' business, would that not make it very difficult to ever promote the idea? Most members would take Friday as a day to go back to their riding as many of them do that now for legitimate reasons. It would mean that we would be trying to promote the idea of private members' business without members being present to hear the debate. When it would come time to vote it would be very difficult. Could the member respond to that idea and how we would handle it?

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the principle that I would prefer to follow would be that private members' business be accorded the same attention as government bills. I would not want to ostracize or somehow categorize private members' business as something bunched together and brought forward on a day when somebody might not be here.

If private members' bills are to be given the credibility and the respect they deserve, they should be built into the calendar so that they get regular attention in the scheduling of parliamentary business. I would have some difficulty in suggesting that we do this on Fridays. It would be contrary to the spirit of equality between the status of bills.

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

Mr. Speaker, I had a funny idea. We talked a bit about MPs getting a raise in salary. There is no doubt in my mind that increasing the authenticity of private members' business by making things votable would do something to justify paying a member of parliament an executive level salary.

This is my hare-brained idea. What would happen if we were to tell members that a random roll call would be taken at some time every month during private members' business and receipt of one's salary for that month would be dependent on the member being in the House during private members' business? It is a hare-brained idea but maybe it would work.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think the member speaks for himself. I would like to take the last moment that I have to reinforce the basic principle that although I would like to have all members have everything they want, good bills require special attention, research and a lot of work. I do not believe that all bills and motions introduced in this place meet that standard.

If we are to earn respect for the work we do on our private members' bills and motions, there must be a mechanism which demands excellence in the work done. It would be reflected in the quality of the bills and motions brought forward if the standard were set high enough to warrant private members' business having the same status as government bills.

[Scott Reid, Canadian Alliance, Lanark—Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Yellowhead. It is a great pleasure to rise today to address the motion put forward by my hon. colleague from Yorkton—Melville. I wish to unequivocally state my 100% support for the motion.

For the benefit of the vast audience out there in TV land watching the debate, I will begin by explaining what private members' business is and why it is so vital to our democratic process that the mechanism be strengthened from its current form.

In our parliamentary system the vast majority of time, resources and attention is devoted to government legislation. Bills introduced by ministers of the crown further the political agenda of the government of the day. However we as members of parliament are elected by our constituents to represent them here, rather than to represent this place to them, and to raise their issues of concern. As most of parliament's time is devoted to government legislation, our opportunity to act in a legislative capacity on behalf of the people we represent falls to the one hour of debate each day that is allotted to private members' business.

To give our audience an appreciation of the frustration that MPs feel over private members' business and the process through which it is chosen, I will briefly review it.

Hundreds of bills and motions are introduced in the House of Commons. Each one represents hours upon hours or in some cases days and weeks of research and work, but most never see the light of day. In order for a bill to actually be debated in the House, an MP's name must first be drawn from a lottery. The competition is fierce. There are 301 MPs with just one hour a day, one item per day, and approximately 135 sitting days per year. The math should be evident to everyone, particularly to my hon. colleague from Elk Island.

When and if a member's name is finally drawn, he or she can put forward a bill for debate and then the real challenge begins. Having beaten the odds and come this far, the bill in question is still not even eligible for a vote in the House of Commons. This means that we end up using the precious little time we have available to debate motions and bills which simply disappear upon the expiry of their one hour debate. Such non-votable bills and motions have absolutely no chance whatsoever of becoming law. It is debate for debate's sake and in my opinion it is a waste of valuable time.

If we as members of parliament want our issues to come to a vote, we must appear as witnesses before a special subcommittee to plead our case and argue why our bill or motion should be granted one of ten designations of votable status. The rules of the House explicitly ensure that most private members' business, if debated, does not get to a vote.

To make matters worse for opposition members, many of whom naively look to private members' business as their sole source of parliamentary effectiveness, the government maintains a majority of members on the subcommittee that decides which precious few bills become votable and which ones get to be a waste of valuable time. The government can use this majority to ensure that issues which run too contrary to the government's own vision have no chance of being subject to a vote in the House of Commons and therefore becoming law.

The very lucky items which, against all odds, are drafted, tabled, drawn, argued and finally awarded votable status go through a slightly different process. They get three hours of debate, one hour at a time, separated by about 30 sitting days, which means that in reality it takes about half the year just to get through the first stage of debate and come to an initial vote.

In the very exceptional circumstances when the government cannot force its own MPs to vote to kill a private member's bill, it has other levers to kill private members' bills more quietly.

First, if a bill passes second reading and is referred to a committee for further review, the government uses its numerical dominance of the committee to simply see to it that the item on the agenda mysteriously never comes up for consideration before the House has prorogued. The bill is thus buried in committee and never seen again.

Second, another famous tactic, one which the government employed against one of its own members in the last parliament, is strong arming its committee members to debate every clause of the bill and report the bill back to the House as a blank piece of paper. This actually happened, as the member for Mississauga East can attest. It is one of the greatest affronts to representative democracy that we have seen.

Third, failing even such draconian measures, if a private member's bill hypothetically manages to pass all stages of debate in the House of Commons, it must be brought forth for debate in the Senate. The Senate is faced with the same issue of whether or not it is to be given votable status in the other place. Our colleague from Scarborough Southwest has fallen victim to this sort of game in the previous parliament.

Finally, these measures are not even necessary. The whole private members' process is so drawn out that most bills and motions end up dying somewhere on the order paper when an election is called. I hope this summary serves to illustrate the absolute futility of the current private members' process. A mechanism which should be the greatest tool of parliamentarians becomes a joke.

The process is designed to be merely a show and to maintain absolute government control over what happens in the federal legislative sphere. Individual representatives of the citizens of Canada do not have the means to overcome government partisanship and to effect real legislative measures that matter to their constituents.

Private members' business has evolved dramatically since Confederation. We have tried models ranging from entire private members' days to the current system of one hour per day every day of the week.

Our current structure originates with the McGrath report of 1985 which established the votability rules and the lottery system that created the order of precedence for debate. The McGrath report summarized the state of private members' business when it stated:

The House does not attach any great importance to private members' business as it is now organized. Our proposals are designed to achieve a number of improvements in the way private members' business is dealt with. They would tighten the conditions of the ballot, widen the scope of private members' legislation, and ensure that some private members' bills and motions come to a vote.

It is evident that the democratic bar was already so low that a major objective of the single and greatest private members' business reform had to be to ensure that some private members' bills and motions came to a vote. The low bar has meant that the reformed system, with some minor subsequent reforms, has led to the mediocrity with which we operate today.

The single greatest impediment to the effectiveness of private members' business is votability. While other matters of procedure also require attention, I would argue that by the very act of making all private members' legislation votable we would be forcing the House to take private members' business seriously. Members would attend the debates and consult their constituents over the issues put forth.

Among the defenders of the status quo the same arguments tend to resurface. I will recount just a few. First, non-votable bills are useful because they raise awareness of issues. This argument is uneconomical. Why not raise awareness of important issues and give the House the power to pronounce upon them without having to repeat the process at a later time? Private members' business is scarce enough as it is.

Second, if all bills were votable, fewer bills would be considered because of the differential in debate time between votable and non-votable items. This argument is also an obfuscation. I believe that all members of this place would gladly see a reduction in the debatable time to a standard one hour if it meant their bills would have a hope of actually coming to a vote. This solution would increase the number of bills considered in the current structure.

Third, a democratically elected majority government should have control of the legislative agenda and not cede it to opposition members. Such an argument is an insult to opposition members and government backbenchers alike. The regional cleavages in Canada dictate that if private members' business is shut down then certain regions are effectively shut out of the legislative process.

Furthermore I would argue that if a government is scared of ideas and of free votes in the Commons it is no longer deserving of the right to govern. How much more legitimate can a government be than if it allows absolute freedom to debate and freedom to vote while still maintaining the confidence of members of the House?

Does general votability work? I want to point to a few examples. The Quebec standing orders state that apart from being referred to a committee before second reading “the general rules pertaining to bills shall apply to private bills”. The Alberta standing orders state that “the standing orders relating to public bills apply to private bills”. The Ontario rules state that the speaker is to put the question at 12 noon each Thursday for all private members' bills considered that week. They all get a vote.

I urge all members of the House to look upon today's debate as a golden opportunity to restore an important pillar of democracy to our assembly. In an age where power is increasingly concentrated in the Prime Minister's Office, and where party whips dangle carrots of travel or promotion in exchange for obedience, we must stand guard against allowing our House of Commons to become a technical afterthought to elite decision making.

We as individual members have the power today to support the motion and take back a part of the democratic power that has been bestowed upon us by our constituents and is a vital institution of the Westminster parliamentary system of which we are proud to be a part.

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

Mr. Speaker, I hesitated for a moment to ask questions or make comments because I wanted to give others an opportunity to participate in the debate.

I enjoyed the speech from our rookie member and congratulate him on having such insight into private members' business. Does he have any comment with respect to what people in his riding are saying are the issues and what they would like him to bring forward? Does he think that if the motion passes today, as we anticipate it will, it will enhance his ability to represent his constituents?