Debates of June 12th, 2001

Supply

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

Madam Speaker, the hon. member is absolutely correct. In fact I have with me a copy of the list of criteria that were originally used. There were 11 criteria, by the way, and they were very detailed. I was listening to every word the hon. member said. That comes from a committee meeting, Madam Speaker, and it is kind of an inside issue.

We used to follow 11 criteria. That has been changed to five, whereby it does allow us certainly an ability to deal with those private members' bills and motions that come forward and perhaps do not fit or are perhaps, as the hon. member for Winnipeg—Transcona said, a little frivolous. I think we can deal with that.

As for the private members' business itself, the member is correct: where it is non-partisan it is dealt with by consensus. The problem is that we must choose a number from a number, like 10 out of 30. Every time I sat at that table and we chose the ten, the six, the five or the three that we had to plug the holes with, every member sat around that table and said “They are all worthy and I wish we could pick all of them”. We could not because we only had three or four or five holes to fill and that was all we could choose, but they were all worthy.

If they are all worthy then let them be debated and let them be voted on. That is what we are here for and that is what we are trying to achieve. It is not simply that there are three, four or five holes to fill. That should not be the case.

We do have consensus within the private members' business committee itself as well within the procedure and House affairs committee. Now we must try to work out the model itself so that it can be workable.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to express my appreciation to the PCs for supporting making all private members' business votable.

The question was raised as to why the Alliance did not put a more significant motion forward, such as Bill C-15. The member should realize that we have been addressing the Bill C-15 issue every day in question period. As to his suggestion that I should have brought forth the gun control issue as it relates to Bill C-15, the PC member misses the point of this debate, that is, unless we change the system we will be able to do very little to change what happens in the House.

All of us in opposition have been frustrated by the government's ability to block our initiatives. We could debate Bill C-15 all day. We could bring all our concerns forward. It would probably have little effect.

However because of the change we are proposing today, if we have concerns we can bring them forward. That is the whole point of this debate. If we have concerns about certain bills we have very few mechanisms to address them, unless we change the way we do things. That is what we are proposing here.

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

Madam Speaker, I as well am pleased, as my predecessor the member for Brandon—Souris indicated, to take part in the debate. I commend the hon. member for Yorkton—Melville for bringing forward this matter.

I have the greatest respect for the work he does both in the House and in the committee, but I must echo some of the remarks of my colleague from the Conservative Party. There is an issue that would have been very timely and that is the issue of Bill C-15. I fully acknowledge what the hon. member has said, that this matter has been brought forward, not only by his party but by the Conservatives and perhaps by other parties as well. We would very much have liked to see that piece of legislation enacted, legislation that is so important to Canadians and that would have such a profound effect on the law enforcement community in terms of bolstering its ability to combat pornography on the Internet, to combat stalking of children on the Internet, to bring in legislation to protect police officers from those who act violently towards them to try to disarm them.

All of this legislation and more is packed together in the form of an omnibus bill. For those who are not familiar with that term, it means broad legislation that brings together a number of different elements, albeit under the criminal code. Some parties in the House, including the party of the hon. member for Yorkton—Melville, take great umbrage at and have great difficulty with the fact that cruelty to animals provisions and firearms provisions are included in some of the changes proposed by Bill C-15.

That is not to say that this type of legislation in and of itself does not have to be examined. The cruelty provisions in particular are such that we in the Conservative Party and others would like to see them examined. That is why those provisions should be given greater scrutiny at the committee. They should be severed out along with the firearms legislation, which has no connection whatsoever to stalking on the Internet or the perpetration of child pornography.

That bill in its current form is difficult to accept from the opposition's perspective, because we may be vehemently opposed to certain elements of it and yet it is presented in such a way that if we do not take all of the legislation part and parcel, if we were to vote against it, we would be in the terrible position of voting against 90% of what we believe in because of the 10% we have difficulty with. It is akin to going to a yard sale, seeing a box of items and wanting to buy 90% of those items. There are a number of items that we do not want to have anything to do with and yet we are told to take it all or take nothing.

What we are suggesting, and have suggested adamantly, is to simply sever part of that bill, to sever out part of that legislation, and we can completely pass the bill. We could pass the bill without delay. It would go on to the Senate and could come into being before we recess. Why are we in such a hurry to leave? Some legislation we can pass very quickly. MPs' pay is an example. We can put that through post haste without any delays, yet this important legislation that would impact on peoples' lives is going to languish on the order paper over the summer.

This supply day motion is on an important issue that is receiving attention in a number of committees, not only in the procedure and House affairs committee. We had an opportunity to review this exact issue at a recent special committee that was chaired by the Deputy Speaker of the House. This committee has been meeting over the past number of months and has now tabled a report which will be the subject of a debate in the House at some point in the near future.

Unfortunately the clock is running again and the government is champing at the bit to shut down the House of Commons. In fact there was a motion moved today by the House leader for the government. What that motion does, Madam Speaker, as you know, is essentially limit any real examination or any real opportunity on the part of the opposition to stand up and vote.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Relevance.

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

I know the hon. member is not relevant, but the point is that again an opportunity has been stripped away from the opposition by the actions of the government House leader in saying that there will be but a single vote, that the government by way of a procedural manoeuvre will not allow members of the House of Commons to stand up and express on behalf of their constituents whether they support the government's spending. The way in which this occurs is that essentially we will be passing $160 billion plus of spending on behalf of the Canadian people without the opportunity to stand up and vote individually on those various departmental expenditures.

That is unprecedented. It is unacceptable. It is undemocratic. However it is very much in keeping with the government's arrogant attitude toward Canadians and toward the House of Commons. We have repeatedly seen the government stripping away the abilities that the hon. member seeks to point out in terms of private members' business, in terms of debate, in terms of votes. We see it time and time again.

I know there is another hon. member present here who is concerned about the transparency of government. We have heard very recently about the information commissioner and his concerns that the public's access to information in the country is in fact being severely curtailed. The ability to get at information through access to information has been limited. We are being told that there will be more information deemed off limits, there will be lengthy delays when those requests are made and there will be fees attached.

The current information commissioner and his predecessor as well expressed themselves in a very open way at a forum initiated by an hon. member opposite, the hon. member for Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, who has taken an extraordinary step as a backbench member of the government and initiated the opportunity to review the access to information procedures. He is being told by John Reid and others that the government is in fact doing a great deal. In fact the headline reads quite clearly: “Liberal leadership to blame for weakness of access” to information. We are being told quite clearly that the information law and the access will be weakened, that the “privacy watchdog predicts more limits, higher fees and longer waits” when it comes to this type of information.

All of this very much impacts on the rights and privileges of members on behalf of their constituents. It impacts very directly on the functioning of this place, these hallowed halls, on our ability to do our jobs on behalf of our constituents.

More important, it affects Canadians. It affects the ability of Canadians to have faith in this institution and to have faith in the importance and the relevance of what it is that parliament is supposed to do. In the bigger picture and in the grander scheme of things this is what I think we should all be concerned with.

The most direct indication that public faith is waning and failing in the country is the last election, when there were record low turnouts. Those low turnouts speak volumes as to what Canadians hold dear. Unfortunately it is not our parliamentary system right now.

That is why there is concern among members of our party and others that we engage in a debate on private members' business. It is an important part of the puzzle when it comes to improving the ability of members of parliament to do important work on behalf of their constituents, bring forward independent ideas, draft legislation and have it voted upon. In relative terms that is the way the stamp of approval is placed on initiatives from both the opposition and government benches.

We have seen continual resistance to these types of initiatives. We have seen continual attempts to strip away the powers and ability of the opposition to express itself through the Chamber and various other means.

We speak quite duplicitously about modernization and new ways in which members of parliament can be empowered and made more relevant. The real truth or the real upshot is that we are seeing efforts by the government to strip those powers away.

Hon. members opposite may cackle and laugh because they are sitting pretty. They know that if they vote in line with the government and follow instructions from the PMO they will be happy. They will rush home with their pay pocketed, and away they will go back to their constituents to be quiet. That is very much what the government wants. It wants silence from the backbench and a muzzling of the opposition. That is what this is all about.

[Lynn Myers, Liberal, Waterloo—Wellington, ON]

What about silence now? Sit down.

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

The hon. member who is yapping now knows nothing about silence. He could not be further from it. It is unfortunate that we will not have an opportunity to debate these important pieces of legislation before the House recesses.

It would have been the preference of the Progressive Conservative Party to bring Bill C-15 forward, split it, pass it through the Chamber and put it into law before the House recesses. If we had an opportunity to discuss issues of health, taxation and all sorts of other issues that impact on the private sector we would be far—

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

I did allow a lot of leeway in terms of the content of the member's speech. It is not up to the Chair to censor what is said by the member, but points of order are welcome.

[Joe Jordan, Liberal, Leeds—Grenville, ON]

Madam Speaker, this is merely a question, not a point of order. When I look at the reform of private members' business it strikes me that we run a risk if we start tweaking one place and have unintended consequences in others. Does the hon. member not think it would be worthwhile in terms of the process of reform to address the issue of committees?

In a system that is functioning at a high level, a lot of the frustration people are expressing about private members' business could probably be addressed at the committee. However for a variety of reasons, and these are not reasons or rules that we invented, the process seems to be that opposition amendments at committee do not generally see the light of day. They therefore turn up in one form or another in private members' business.

Does the hon. member not think it would be worthwhile to address the issue, role, function and structure of committees and then pick up what is left in private members' business? I feel we are trying to solve two problems at once.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the question from the member opposite. He makes an extremely good point. Committee work is perhaps the most useful and productive because it is often done away from the glare of cameras and in a more non-partisan and productive fashion. However the member has hit upon a number of elements of the committee that are most important.

Reasoned, logical amendments are often brought forward by opposition members but the committee structure is controlled very much by the government. This is not particular to this parliament. It has happened in previous administrations as well. Parliamentary secretaries sit on the committees. The chairs are hand picked by the government.

As a result the committee process becomes a microcosm or mini version of what takes place in the House. Amendments, even those which would improve a bill immensely, are turned down. They are voted down blindly because the whip comes down at committee in the same way as it does in the House of Commons.

Anyone in the Chamber who has been affiliated with a party that has been in government, as I have been, must take responsibility for that. It was the Progressive Conservative Party which, after having followed the instructions of the McGrath committee to take parliamentary secretaries off committee, put them back.

We must recognize the error of our ways and admit that we do not have clean hands. However if there is now a willingness to change and improve the committee structure, we should by all means do so.

I thank the hon. member for bringing the point forward. It is an important issue in the greater context of how to improve the functioning of the parliamentary system. The committee system is absolutely critical to any type of reform.

[Chuck Cadman, Canadian Alliance, Surrey North, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to once again rise in the Chamber to speak to the issue of parliamentary reform. I will be splitting my time with the member for Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, a riding whose name is sometimes tough to get one's tongue around.

The motion today is as follows:

That the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs be instructed to draft, and report to this House no later than November 1, 2001, changes to the Standing Orders improving procedures for the consideration of Private Members' Business, including a workable proposal allowing for all items to be votable.

I suggest that we all take a serious look at what we are attempting to accomplish here. I particularly appeal to backbenchers of all parties. The constituents of their electoral districts equally elected all 301 members of the House of Commons but only a select few are ever really provided the opportunity to enact legislation for the benefit of our citizens.

Ministers bring forth legislation from time to time. It all gets passed as there is little substantial opportunity for members to influence the government to accept suggestions or amendments.

Backbenchers must overcome private members' business rules when attempting to advance legislation of importance to themselves or their constituents. To be successful they must have their names drawn in a lottery and then be able to convince the subcommittee in charge of private members' initiatives that the proposal should be deemed a votable item. A member's bill or motion is then given three hours of debate and voted upon.

I fully understand the limitations of time in this place to debate private members' initiatives. Everyone with private members' business on the order paper has an equal chance to be drawn for debate, and that is just fine. Over the past few years I have been successful a few times in winning the lottery, so to speak, which is the way we refer to it around here. I have no problem with the system up to that point.

As a footnote I should point out that I had a bill deemed votable and passed by this place at second reading. I got the bill to third reading in the last parliament but it died when the election was called. I had to start the whole process again when we returned for this parliament. There is some good news in that the substance of my bill in its entirety was incorporated into the recently passed Bill C-7. However I have also had bills deemed non-votable.

The bill incorporated into Bill C-7 was the only time my name was drawn in the lottery in the entire 36th parliament, in spite of the fact that I had private members' business on the order paper about 99% of the time.

After first being elected it took me a few days to get bills drafted and on to the notice paper. I also fully appreciate that well over 200 backbenchers are in competition for the lottery. This goes to show how difficult it is to get one's name drawn. Mine was drawn once in over three years. Some of my colleagues have told me that they have never been drawn.

Getting drawn is just a small part of the battle. It seems almost as difficult to subsequently get one's motion or bill deemed votable. I have appeared three times before the subcommittee of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. Each time I made a very similar case on the merits of deeming my bill votable. In each case my legislation met all the criteria to be considered votable according to House rules. I do not know why the subcommittee approved one bill and disapproved the other two.

I will not second guess the subcommittee. It must be difficult for members to decide on the basis of a five to fifteen minute examination with the presenting member of parliament.

I expect that most, if not all, private members' initiatives meet all the qualifications for being votable. Otherwise, why would members even try?

While I will not question or second guess the subcommittee, I will point out some of the problems or questions that arise from a process that does little to enhance House procedure and reputation.

First, the subcommittee has recently not been taking full advantage of its powers to declare motions and bills votable. At times the full complement of items is not deemed votable. The subcommittee can deem up to 10 items votable but seems to seldom go that far. It apparently keeps some space in reserve but that does little to encourage members who are arguing for votability.

I had to wonder about that when my legislation was unsuccessful. Why was my bill unsuccessful when there were vacancies on the votable list? Does the committee determine votability on the basis of party affiliation or favouritism toward certain members of the House? I am not saying it does but the question must be raised.

Is the subcommittee playing politics with private members' business? We all know this whole place reeks of politics, so that too is a fair question.

Private members' initiatives can cover a multitude of issues, almost everything under the sun. I often wonder how committee members can be up to speed on all issues of environment, finance, justice, health, technology or what have you. How can members of the subcommittee know the importance or relevance of all initiatives presented to them on the basis of only a five minute presentation by the sponsoring member and the opportunity to ask a few questions? How can they weigh the benefits of one presentation over another?

Members of parliament may be very capable individuals but I wonder whether we are expecting the unreasonable when we task them to decide on so many disparate issues.

These questions, concerns and others, I should imagine, raise the question of why we do not make all items votable that are selected through the lottery process. Private members' business is the one avenue whereby all backbenchers can bring forth legislation of importance to their constituents and to Canadians.

Why do we allow games to be played to obstruct private members from successfully pursuing the process? If my experience is any example, I was provided three hours to convince this place of the importance of changing the young offenders' legislation. As I said, I was successful.

In another case I was provided only one hour to convince this place of the importance of changing the Corrections and Conditional Release Act. I do not know if I was successful because my proposal was deemed non-votable. The House did not get the opportunity to deal with the matter. Recently some collateral matters of that private members' bill have been receiving a great deal of public attention.

We may all be criticized before long for sleeping at our posts because the subcommittee has spoken for all of us on one issue.

In my other case I suggested that those who commit multiple motor vehicle thefts should face more serious consequences. I specifically attempted to attack what is becoming more and more an organized crime activity. Once again the subcommittee deprived this place of the chance to consider the matter.

I will now briefly respond to skeptics who may think I am trying to mislead or entrap others into agreeing with my arguments. Deeming all items votable would not end the matter. This place would still have the opportunity to vote on each and every issue. For various reasons we all support or oppose private members' proposals. There is nothing wrong with that. If we are forced to make difficult decisions that is good as well. If we are to be paid at the level of senior executives we should expect to be forced to earn our keep, so to speak.

When decisions concern what is best for the citizens of the country rather than what is best politically, they become much easier and simpler to justify. It is that type of choice we should be considering with this motion.

Lastly, the motion we are debating today merely proposes that the issue be sent to committee for further review. We are not making the final determination today. We are sending the matter on for more detailed and reasoned analysis. It is in the interest of all members of parliament to improve our rules so our work may be more beneficial to citizens. That is, after all, why we are here.

[James Moore, Canadian Alliance, Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and speak to this subject. I compliment endlessly my colleague for Yorkton—Melville for having brought it up. It is a wonderful topic.

I was first elected in November of last year, so this is my first term in the Chamber. Unlike my hon. colleagues from Surrey North and Elk Island, I have had the pleasure of having private members' bills drawn twice in the last five months.

[An hon. member]

Buy a lottery ticket.

[James Moore, Canadian Alliance, Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Precisely, so I have hit headlong into this.

I am a conservative person and conservatives by nature are cynical people. I subscribe to what George Will calls the “Ohio in 1895 Theory of History”, so named because in Ohio in 1895 there were precisely two cars in the entire state and one day they collided. That is a true fact. Therefore, as a conservative, I am temperamentally inclined to worry and believe the worst. However I must say that I have not been disappointed with private members' business. I was quite excited when my first private member's motion was drawn.

When we are campaigning during an election we think people will want to talk about the big issues and the ideological divide between parties. However, when we get to the doorstep and actually talk to people face to face, we realize that the issues they are most concerned with are the bread and butter issues, such as how much money they have in their pockets and whether they will be protected when they go to the park with their kids in the evening. These are the core issues.

In my constituency one of those issues was leaky condos. I drafted a private member's bill, put it in the pool and it was drawn and brought to the House. I was very disappointed when I discovered it was deemed non-votable, as were the vast majority of my constituents.

However, there is a broader issue here. At the beginning of all political philosophy there is a stark question that is asked: Who shall rule? There are three basic answers, the first being, a few or many. In a liberal representative democracy, the answer to that question is that the many shall rule but they shall do so through the few.

In the greatest single essay on representative politics, Federalist No. 10 , James Madison said that representation, the delegation of decision making to a small number of citizens elected by the rest, is supposed to define and enlarge the public views.

As Harvey Mansfield, a professor of government at Harvard University says, “the function of representation is to add reason to popular will”.

As members of parliament, our delicate task is to listen to the wants and needs of our constituents. Then it is to deliberate over the longings and desires of our constituents and decide how to advance those views as effectively as possible while acting in concert with our campaign commitments, party principles and priorities, and our private consciences.

Once we have arrived at the point where we are prepared to act, members of parliament, other than party leaders and cabinet ministers, have very few legislative tools at their disposal. One legislative mechanism that we do have is the ability to draft private members' bills and motions which may be drawn by lottery to be brought to the House.

In our current parliamentary mode, because our institutions are so out of date, because of our warped view of what is supposed to be competitive federalism and because it is so disorganized, private members' business for members of parliament is a key element for citizens to feel that their representatives can represent their interests, or, if they represent their own personal interests they can be held accountable at the next campaign.

I speak from the prerogative of advancing the two different forms of federalism that can be represented by members of parliament in the House. One paradigm is the Edmund Burke model, which is to say that members of parliament come to Ottawa to pass judgment.

The second view is that members of parliament come to Ottawa to be bugles for their constituents back home. It is a very different paradigm and I want to refresh the House on that difference.

On November 3, 1774, Edmund Burke delivered a thank-you speech to some people who, upon hearing it, may have wished they had not done what he was thanking them for. They had just elected him to Parliament. His speech was to the voters of the bustling commercial city of Bristol. After felicitously expressing his gratitude, he proceeded to, as it were, step back and put some distance between himself and those who had embraced him. He said, “I am sorry I cannot conclude without saying a word on a topic” then on many minds.

He told them that he rejected the popular theory that a representative should feel bound by “instructions” issued by his constituents concerning how he should vote in Parliament. This doctrine, he said, is incompatible with the duty of a representative...a representative should “live in the strictest union, the closest correspondence, and the most unreserved communication with his constituents”. But all he was saying was that a representative should hear, understand and empathize with his constituents. “Their wishes ought to have great weight with him; their opinions high respect; their business unremitted attention.” But, he said, a representative does not owe obedience. He owes something more than his “industry”. He owes his “judgment”.

And not just his judgment about how best to achieve what his constituents say they want. No, a representative is duty-bound to exercise his judgment about ends as well as means. His job is not just to help constituents get what they want; he also is supposed to help them want what they ought to want.

Burke was taking issue with something that had been said to Bristol voters by another man they had just elected, a man more pliable to them. Burke noted, “My worthy colleague says his will ought to be subservient to yours.” Burke tried to soften the blow of his disagreement by saying that if government were a mere matter of willfulness, an endless clash of wills, then “yours, without question, ought to be superior.” “But government and legislation are matters of reason and judgment, and not of inclination; and what sort of reason is that in which the determination precedes the discussion, in which one set of men deliberate and another decide, and where those who form the conclusion are perhaps three hundred miles distant from those who hear the arguments?”

They were, he said, sending him to a capital, but not a foreign capital. He was going to Parliament, not to “a congress of ambassadors from different and hostile interests, which interests each must maintain, as an agent and advocate, against other agents and advocates.” He should not be guided by merely “local purposes” or “local prejudices.” “Parliament,” he said, “is a deliberative assembly.”

Many members of parliament come to the House with the view that they are here to deliberate, act and pass judgment on what they think is in the best interest of the whole country and of their constituents.

There is an alternative view, a more popular representative view. Mr. Trudeau had this view and many members of the official opposition have had this view for many years, that their primary responsibility is to come to Ottawa to represent primarily the views of the constituents back home as they best determine what that view is.

The problem with our current system of governance in Canada is that because the Senate is so detached from its responsibility of representing regional interests, and because the Governor General is not a national unifying figure because she is not given a mandate through the electoral process, the House of Commons is bound by the responsibility to represent the private interests of individual constituents, the personal views of members of parliament, the national aspirations of a grand vision for the whole country and the regional needs, desires and differences among the federation.

It is very difficult for individual members of parliament to fulfil all those tasks within what is supposed to be a competitive federalist model. We have been handcuffed into that because of the outdated institutions of the Senate and, in my view, of the Governor General, and the fact that this House of Commons is more often than not a rubber stamp.

I was faced with this on May 9 when my private member's motion was debated in the House. When I was standing and speaking to my non-votable motion, there were so few members in the House that I half expected tumbleweeds to blow through because it was so poorly attended. That is a reality. If there is not going to be a vote, then private members' business debates on motions and bills mean nothing. We are wasting, whatever it costs, about $100,000 an hour, to keep this institution running, and there is no point at the end of the line for having done that.

Canadians should know that once a member puts his or her private member's bill or motion into a pool it is drawn. The member then has to appear before a committee. The committee is known as the subcommittee on private members' business of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, whose chair must have the largest business card in the history of western civilization.

In order to make a private member's bill votable, the bill must meet five criteria, as the member for Brandon—Souris mentioned, and these criteria are entirely subjective. The third criteria states that bills and motions should concern matters of significant public interest.

In order to get a private member's bill or motion made votable, it must meet all five criteria. The committee, which is dominated by the government, must give unanimous consent in order to make a bill votable. One of those criteria, that bills and motions should concern matters of significant public interest, is defined by whom?

As I said, in the last campaign people told me that they wanted me to go to Ottawa and address the issue of leaky condos because it was a significant local issue affecting over 10,000 people, so I did that. I drafted a private member's bill and was lucky to have it drawn. I then went to a committee where it had to be unanimous that my motion be made votable, and one of the criteria was that bills and motions should concern matters of significant public interest. My issue was of relevance only to the lower mainland of British Columbia. There was not one single British Columbian on that committee. How would members of that committee know if they do not live with the constituents who are impacted by this issue?

I therefore emphatically support the motion and I am encouraged that it will pass tonight. It is a step in the right direction. It should have happened a long time ago, and passing it will send the right message that we are undertaking the first steps of modernizing this institution.

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

Madam Speaker, I like the member's enthusiasm. He has raised an important issue on behalf of his constituents. It is a file that I am familiar with. A member would certainly want to have local issues, particularly regional or issues that are not necessarily national, brought to the fore with the ultimate objective of making sure the government becomes aware and that action is being taken.

I would ask the member to comment on the problem that sometimes we have issues that are urgent in nature which require action in months. Having been a parliamentarian since 1993 I have had a number of bills and motions before the House, a couple of which have been votable. The process takes an awful long time.

By the time a bill or motion is drawn, goes through the process of getting votability and getting on the list, we get our first hour of debate. We wait 30 sitting days to get the second sitting hour and another 30 days for the third hour and a vote. Then it goes to committee. I actually had a bill that was tied up in the process for almost two years.

Does the member think we should be sensitive to making private members' items more relevant to long term policy rather than short term issues?

[James Moore, Canadian Alliance, Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

Madam Speaker, the two words in a democracy that constituents hate to hear most are the ones I will use. It depends. If I look at the sweep of private members' bills and motions that I have read and frankly the ones I have drafted, they are largely non-partisan bills that affect people locally. I keep raising the leaky condo issue. It is not a partisan issue. One cannot take a clear position and say that it is driven by ideological concern. Local issues that are an urgent need can be brought forward.

My second private member's motion that was drawn was supposed to be debated on June 22. It has been moved back to the fall. It would establish a law that would make it impermissible for the Prime Minister to appoint senators for provinces that have Senate election laws.

It is not time sensitive in the relative context like the droughts in Alberta or the water issue in North Battleford, Saskatchewan. If it were established by the committee after this motion is passed and the member for Battlefords—Lloydminster asked me if we could swap slots, that would be an appropriate consideration the committee should take into account.

I caution that private members' bills and motions should have a local emphasis. They should be local concerns. Some of the issues I have raised in the private members' bills I have drafted, including the one that was drawn, are not issues of concern to Mississauga.

Private members' bills are drawn and deemed votable. What frustrates a lot of us in the opposition, and I know it frustrates the hon. member as well, is that some private members' bills become votable. The member for Notre-Dame-de- Grâce—Lachine had a private member's bill to create a parliamentary poet laureate. It was drawn and deemed votable. Meanwhile, 10,000 of my constituents are being taxed on repairs to their homes that are no fault of their own.

The member for Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey had a private member's bill in the last parliament in which he asked the House to consider the creation and the designation of a national horse. That was deemed votable. Meanwhile, private members' bills and motions to have an elected Senate or to give GST relief to leaky condo owners were deemed non-votable.

The examples are endless. There is another one from the Bloc Quebecois that asked the House of Commons to call upon the Governor General to ask London to give an official apology to Acadians from 250 years ago. I as a member of parliament from British Columbia, and there is not an Acadian within an eight hour flight of where I live, was in the House speaking to that. If that is an issue of concern for that member, I have to respect that. It has to be debated and brought forward.

In British Columbia we are in a particular predicament. We have six senators and a vacancy. Two other senators have said they want to stand for election. We have only six senators for our province.

In my constituency I represent 135,000 people. It is the third largest constituency in the country. The province of Prince Edward Island has eight representatives for the one, myself, in British Columbia. Because of that individual members of parliament like myself should have the authority to bring forward bills of local interest and get them on the national stage because sometimes the government will not.

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Madam Speaker, I should point out to begin with that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Scarborough East.

I rise to speak to the official opposition motion:

That the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs be instructed to draft, and report to this House no later than November 1, 2001, changes to the Standing Orders improving procedures for the consideration of Private Members' Business, including a workable proposal allowing for all items to be votable.

Since the beginning of this parliament six months ago, close to 200 private members' motions or bills have been introduced in the House, which is evidence of the importance MPs attach to these initiatives. As we are all aware, the private members' business subcommittee selects at random 30 of these items, which are then entered on the list of priorities for debate in the House. At the present time, the standing orders allow a maximum of ten of these to be votable.

Let us point out that contrary to what people might think the work of the subcommittee is carried out in a totally independent manner and the government is not in any way involved.

To have all proposals votable presents certain advantages. The vote enables members to officially support or not support a proposal. This way any doubts members may have on the objectivity of the members of the private members' business subcommittee are eliminated. To some members, this could increase parliament's usefulness in the eyes of the public and give it a more democratic face.

As only ten proposals can be voted on, excellent proposals may be left by the wayside. While the simple fact of raising a question is enough in certain cases, members more often want the House to decide. That way we know more clearly what the House thinks of a question.

There are many disadvantages, however. The number of motions and bills put before the House must manifestly be reduced, unless other changes are made to reduce the number of hours spent in debate. The effect could be to reduce the importance given to each, so that the more important ones currently voted on could receive less attention.

In the opinion of the McGrath committee, mandating a committee of MPs to choose votable motions and bills was a fair and just way to proceed. If all proposals are voted on, members will lose the latitude they enjoy at the moment. They may in some cases want the House to debate a matter without holding a vote. They will not have this option anymore.

In my opinion, the way the House manages private members' business is based on two broad principles. First, members themselves run the process; the government is not involved in it in any way. Second, the members are free to manage their business as they see fit.

I agree with the members who feel that the vote is important, but does the best solution consist in making all items votable? Such a measure would ultimately create other problems for members.

Today, the opposition is suggesting that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs take a closer look at these issues and submit its report no later than November 1, 2001, including a workable proposal allowing for all items to be votable. This suggestion is perfectly appropriate.

The committee has been reviewing these issues for many years, thus making it the guarantor of the fairness of the rules relating to private members' business, which are always very complex, and giving it a great deal of expertise in this area.

In recent years, the committee has made numerous recommendations to improve the management of private members' business and strengthen the rules that serve members of parliament.

I expect the committee to determine whether all items should be votable and to look at alternatives, such as increasing the number of votable items, allowing a larger number of bills to be referred to a committee, or proposing other means to allow members to submit to the House issues that are of interest to their constituents and to themselves.

I fully support today's motion and I am anxiously awaiting the report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

[Tom Wappel, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague on this side of the House. I will make a comment with respect to his speech and use my remarks as a vehicle to address comments which have been made erroneously by some hon. members debating today.

The hon. member who just spoke is a member of the subcommittee on private members' business. I am looking at the Hansard for Friday, June 1, which indicates the membership of the various committees. I wonder if the hon. member would agree with me, since he is a member of the committee, that there are six members on the committee of whom two are Liberals and four are opposition members.

A number of speakers, and certainly the most recent speaker, have indicated that the subcommittee on private members' business is dominated by Liberals. I would like the record to clearly show, and the Canadian people to know, that only one-third of the members of the subcommittee on private members' business are Liberals and two-thirds are opposition members. Would the hon. member agree that what I have just said is factual?

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague is right in stating that I am a member of the subcommittee. He is also right in stating that there are two Liberals among the membership of the committee. He is also very right in assuming that it is not a situation where Liberal members dominate the committee. It is the contrary in the sense that there are two Liberals and four non-Liberals.

I am not at liberty to divulge details of how we deliberate in camera at the subcommittee. However I do not think anyone needs much knowledge in mathematics to realize that two versus four does not win very strongly.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough East, ON]

Madam Speaker, this will probably be my last opportunity to wish you well during the summer. I hope all members have a relaxing summer, notwithstanding what some of our constituents might think.

The reason for the motion is quite simple. A lot of members in the House are pretty frustrated with the whole issue of private members' business. I dare say that the frustration opposition members have expressed is probably matched by the frustration government backbench members feel. Indeed I dare say that certain ministers feel somewhat frustrated in their ability to move departmental legislation forward.

The reason is that government is quite a large entity. It takes a great deal of willpower on the part of individual members of parliament, or indeed ministers, to move a government on items of legislation no matter how seemingly simple or obviously correct they may be. We had an example of that just last week.

The motion is well framed. It speaks to a frustration that exists in the House as to the relevance members feel in terms of their role here.

Usually when a bill comes forward the government's easiest response is to say no. It may say the bill would create too many complications. The reasons it gives are sometimes devoid of logic or common sense, but no is the easiest answer. That in turn creates an atmosphere of exasperation which spills over into cheap politics. We say nasty things about one side and it says nasty things about us.

I will break out some of the ideas that are presently on the table and indicate why I think some of the problems exist. One of the problems we must deal with is the dumb idea. I say with the greatest respect that some of the ideas that go through the House affairs and procedure committee are just plain dumb and should not see the light of day.

Some ideas are awkward and create difficulties for the government. That makes life for us on the government backbench somewhat more difficult. I will use the illustration of the private member's bill with respect to tools for mechanics. On the face of it, who could oppose such a bill? It seemed plausible and sensible so why would we not support a bill of that nature?

The government took something of an ambiguous position on that bill and suggested in the end that the bill would favour one class of Canadian taxpayer over another and was therefore not a good thing to do. It then sought to expand the category of person who would benefit from the bill.

Such ideas can also bring us into difficulty on this side because votable motions such as that cost the government moneys in terms of credits or deductions. They therefore limit government revenues and reduce the government's ability to move in other areas it might see as more preferable.

For members opposite that is of somewhat less concern, but for those on this side of the House it is of more concern. That is why I think members on both sides tend to feel frustration. There are no real consequences when a problematic motion goes through the House, costs the government money and leaves it in a very awkward situation.

The question is always how members on both sides of the House will take responsibility for what they are doing. As I say, for members opposite there are no serious consequences. For members on this side, however, there are serious consequences. Ultimately we end up in a situation where we are intellectually lazy and do not weigh all the benefits. When we are uninformed we frankly tend to make poor decisions.

I appreciate that the so-called Kilger commission has done some work on this. Every member believes that his or her ideas are the best and should be votable. My idea of course is also quite brilliant and should be votable. I am going through a level of frustration right now with my bill before the committee. I have basically five minutes to convince some of my colleagues that my bill should be votable.

My bill is very simple. It deals with fire safe cigarettes. The industry has known for years how to make cigarette paper less porous and tobacco less dense, the result of which is a fire safe cigarette. If it is dropped on furniture it meets certain flammability tests and the whole place does not burn down. The irony is that had that legislation been in place a number of years ago this building would not have burned down.

Such legislation has been adopted by New York state unanimously so that cigarettes cannot be manufactured, sold or distributed in that state without meeting certain flammability standards.

The response I get from the minister and the government is that we cannot do it for a variety of unacceptable reasons. Needless to say, I think my idea is quite brilliant, and I have unanimous consent from those behind the curtains. The chance of my bill actually seeing the light of day is pretty remote.

That is the frustration that all of us face. Setting aside dumb ideas and setting aside the problematic ones, even very good ideas have some difficulty getting out of committee and on to the floor of the House to be debated in some sort of reasonable fashion.

In the way the system is presently structured the determination of votability is based on things that quite frankly are irrelevant to the bill. We end up lapsing into some sort of political speak, whereby members on the government side do not worry about embarrassing the government and members opposite worry that the only good thing is an embarrassed government.

My bill will have some difficulties getting out of committee, not on the basis of whether it is a brilliant bill, a good bill or a bad bill, but on the basis of irrelevant political considerations.

That kind of thing turns Canadians off. They send us here and expect us to be legislators. They have good reason to question how we can be legislators if we set up a system of inertia which prevents good ideas bubbling up and being made available for the benefit of all Canadians.

Hon. members will be considering the motion, which I think is supportable. As it goes forward and returns to consideration by committee, the system should be given some modification. One possible modification might be that each member, once during the life of a parliament, gets an opportunity to insist that his or her bill be votable regardless of whether the committee thinks it should be votable.

It does not mean that members cannot have other bills before committee. It does not mean they cannot argue before committee that they be votable, but they have the opportunity to decide unilaterally.

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

Madam Speaker, I enjoyed the speech of the member opposite. It is interesting to hear today a number of backbench Liberals giving an indication that they will support the motion. I thank the member for his speech, for his sentiments, and for his tangible support later on today.

If private members bring forward motions pertaining to the wishes of their constituents, does he have any fears that it could potentially bring them into conflict with their party and with loyalty to their party, which Liberals opposite have been very good at showing at various times throughout the seven years I have been observing it? To a fault they follow their party leadership.

If all private members' business becomes votable, does he see a danger that the government would begin imposing party discipline on private members' business and undo the good that has come in the last number of years where private members' business has been deemed a free vote by all parties of the House?

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough East, ON]

Madam Speaker, first of all let me deal with the member's reference to the wishes of the constituents. Some ideas that I receive from my constituents frankly should not see the light of day as they are awful. I am elected as a member to exercise judgment. There are ideas, however, that should see the light of day and that I should be able to advocate.

For a government member the equation becomes somewhat more difficult because, first, we have to deal with the issue of confidence. When dealing with the issue of confidence clearly a government member cannot be seen to be voting against the government on a matter of budget or money bills. It is certainly within the narrow confines of a budget and possibly even extended to money bills.

The second difficulty is the area of platform. If my party or the member's party ran on a platform and a motion is inconsistent with the platform, I would say that government members would have difficulty.

The third is the throne speech. If an initiative is not consistent with the throne speech, I would say a government member would have some difficulty supporting the initiative. Having said all of that, we would have to argue a government member into having a whipped vote at that point.

[Gurmant Grewal, Canadian Alliance, Surrey Central, BC]

Madam Speaker, I rise on behalf of the people of Surrey Central to participate in the debate on the Canadian Alliance supply day motion asking that all items of private members' business votable in the House. It reads:

The House does not attach any great importance to private members' business as it is now organized. This is evident from the fact that members are seldom greatly concerned to claim the priorities they have drawn in the ballot governing the use of private members' time, and this is largely because private members' bills and motions rarely come to a vote.

This was the observation of the McGrath committee in June 1985. It is as true or even worse today. Of the private members' bills and motions introduced in the first session of the 36th parliament less than 16% were drawn and under 4% were votable. In the second session, just 9% were drawn and less than 3% were votable.

In the 37th parliament 8% of private members' bills and motions were drawn and only 1.6% were votable. That is less than 2 out of 100 votable items. The ratio of votable private members' bills for the Canadian Alliance is so far one-third of the average of the House in the current session.

There is certainly something wrong. This emphasizes a dire need for reform of the House of Commons to restore to private members an effective legislative function, to give them a meaningful role in the formation of public policy, and to restore the House of Commons to its rightful place in the Canadian political process.

Some years ago it used to be said that members of parliament were nobodies outside the House of Commons. Under the arrogant Liberal government, members of parliament are nobodies inside the House. MPs are rubber stamps and backbench MPs are used as pawns by the Prime Minister's Office where the power is concentrated. As a result, members of parliament are frustrated and many lack morale and initiative.

[Some hon. members]

Are you talking about Liberals?

[Gurmant Grewal, Canadian Alliance, Surrey Central, BC]

Yes, backbench MPs. The Liberals curtail, cut off and close debate. They vote for time allocation more often than ever before. There are no more free votes in the House, particularly on the government side. I bet that sometimes backbenchers do not even know what they are voting on. Committees are a farce and a partisan exercise to keep backbenchers busy. Their priorities are often wrong and their deliberations become good for nothing exercises.

Question period has become a circus. Some ministers are consistently in the habit of rejecting even the preamble to legitimate opposition questions. There are no answers given to legitimate and serious questions. Perhaps it is true to its name; it is only a question period and not a question and answer period. It should actually be called the accountability period.

I have tabled Motion No. 291 on the order paper calling for the name change. I hope with a name change that the nature of question period will also change.

Citizens work hard to collect thousands of signatures on petitions highlighting important issues and demanding the government's attention. After the petitions are tabled in the House they gather dust on a shelf rather than get a government response.

Debates have become a joke. Decisions are already made before a debate even commences. Rarely is there a quorum during a debate in the House. Sometimes there are more pages than members in the House. What good are take note debates without a vote?

The officers of the House are regularly snubbed by the Prime Minister's Office, including the auditor general, privacy commissioner, chief actuary, information commissioner and so on.

The Prime Minister has failed to hold his ministers accountable, even after boondoggles and serious unfounded allegations about things like cross burnings. It is no wonder that the public's perception of the integrity and credibility of politicians is so low and that voter turnout has fallen in recent elections.

The Canadian Alliance strongly advocates parliamentary reform and private members' business is one of the serious issues. The Canadian Alliance wanted every MP to have at least one votable item per session but the NDP opposed it.

Here we are today debating the motion. We are continuing our battle with the arrogant Liberal government to empower members of parliament but it will not. Since I have been a member of parliament I have seen my party dragging the government along while it kicks and screams. The Liberals are dragging their feet on this issue. They talk the talk but they do not walk the walk.

Private members' hour occurs every day. I have spoken on many private members' business items. It is the purest form for MPs, representing their constituents, to truly speak on behalf of their constituents in an attempt to contribute to the legislative process.

MPs work hard with stakeholders to prepare their bills and motions. The legislative branch of the House is involved in getting the bills drafted, translated and printed. Members and their constituents have high hopes and expectations from a bill or a motion.

I would like to give an analogy. When a baby cries, a mother sometimes gives the baby a pacifier. The baby starts working at the pacifier with expectations that something will come out of it. The baby actually gets nothing, even after a lot of work. Eventually the baby shuts up and remains busy. After some time, both the mother and the baby understand each other's role and, as a routine, both become habituated to the exercise.

This is exactly what happens with private members' business. It is an exercise to shut members up and keep them busy for some time with false hopes. It becomes a vain exercise with both the government and the members knowing their roles and what outcome to expect.

Veteran MPs know the usual outcome. They have a lower standard of expectation and aim for highlighting issues just for publicity purposes. This can bring media attention to some of the issues. That is the best outcome to be expected from private members' business rather than it becoming a law. The government keeps members busy and this bars them from lobbying the government.

There is no use for private members' business unless it is votable, adopted in the House and some concrete action is taken as an outcome. That is why the official opposition is trying to get the government to realize this and help change the procedure.

We are here to make laws. We are legislators. We should be working on legislation and voting on legislation. When an MP goes to the trouble of working the legal beagles in the House to the point where he or she develops a private member's bill, the bill deserves debate and a vote.

When was the last time a private member's bill was passed? Rarely, hardly ever. In the last parliament I submitted sixteen different private members' items, four of which were bills. I even had two motions for the production of papers. So far during this parliament I have half a dozen motions and almost as many bills prepared.

However I am not optimistic about having the government debate and vote on any of the items that are important to the people of Surrey Central. The Liberals will try to ensure that the voices of Surrey Central and other members in the House are muted. My whistleblower bill cannot even get to debate stage.

The process is very disappointing. The Liberal chair of the subcommittee has control. Unanimous consent or unanimous agreement has to be reached before an item can become votable. It does not work. Members on both sides of the House are frustrated.

We are looking forward to making meaningful change in the House. One of the initiatives in that change is that private members' items have to be votable. There is no use debating when we cannot vote.