Debates of Oct. 31st, 2002

Committees of the House

[Gerry Ritz, Canadian Alliance, Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to the amendment which the Liberals dropped in our lap at the 11th hour.

There is a lot of talk in the House today about committees being the masters of their own destinies. We found out in spades today that is not so. They do make recommendations to the House, but we find today House officers from the government side taking those recommendations and twisting them into a pretzel so that they no longer resemble anything near what the committee actually decided.

This is a question of control. Backbenchers and opposition members who should have some say in committee and make this work the way they think it should work are controlled by the Prime Minister's Office. The Prime Minister has a carrot and stick mentality to keep people onside, put his friends in place, reward them a bit and make things run better.

This is like some of the elections we have seen in other countries. We saw it in Iraq a short time ago when Saddam Hussein was elected again. There was a reason that. There was only one name on the ballot. That is basically what the Prime Minister and his henchmen over there are seeking to do with committee chairs. One name will be on the ballot and it will be an anointment, not an election. Whether it is a secret ballot or a show of hands, it is controlled by the Prime Minister's Office.

I sat here this morning and listened to the amendment put forward by the chair of the committee. It is counterproductive and completely counter to what he talked about in committee the other day. Today it has been reinforced by the deputy whip of the government. They want to hoist the recommendations of the committee for 15 sitting days. To that end, the committee did a tremendous job. It is not going to take 15 days to revisit this issue unless it is going to completely rejig the sitting members on the government side to hammer this through and come up with a different result.

Mr. Speaker, I move:

That the amendment be amended by replacing the words “fifteen sitting days” with “one sitting day”.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The subamendment is in order.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in debate today. I must admit that I had no plan to comment on the kind of behaviour we have witnessed here today.

Like just about every member who spoke before me, I will definitely talk about democracy. I will focus on the definition of democracy given by the Prime Minister of Canada.

I think it is pretty far removed from the major democratic issues in the history of western civilization, and eastern civilization for that matter. Democracy has not been debated for quite a while. It was probably instigated by the great Greek philosophers, who had a very comprehensive and well articulated definition of democracy. They practised what they preached.

Since I came here in 1993, I have been noticing a real erosion of democracy and ability to exercise any power.

There are several definitions. Winston Churchill said that democracy was the least objectionable political system, but I find that the goings on here today have set a new record for low.

For the benefit of those watching us, I would like to state the facts. A committee approved a report providing that, from now on, the chairs of all House committees may be elected by secret ballot. This would depart from what has been the practice these past years, with chairs being systematically appointed by the Prime Minister's Office.

Some people have felt that the concept of democracy that has come down to us over thousands of years and has become better and more sophisticated over time could not be allowed to regress to the state it was in in 1993, when a member got a call from the Prime Minister's Office saying “There are seven or eight of you, Liberal members, on this committee, and all of you are going to vote for so-and-so”. The meetings are often run by the clerk. The first member to raise his hand is a Liberal member who nominates so-and-so. Because they are the majority, the Liberals all raise their hands, and so-and-so is elected. That is how it works. This is cutting a few too many corners.

Members who wish to speak on who should be elected as chair cannot do so, and a vote is taken. There follows the election of the first vice-chair. Hands go up. Again a Liberal member. The second vice-chair is usually a member of the opposition. I have also seen attempts by the Liberal Party to take over the whole meeting.

What is happening here today is terrible. It must also be understood that committees are democratic forums where we want to apply more flexible rules to give some weight to the opposition.

As Socrates used to say to Greek philosophers, opposition is important in a democracy. We know what happens in a country where there is no opposition. Do people think that Iraqis had a choice between Saddam Hussein and someone else? They had a choice between Saddam Hussein and Saddam Hussein. There was only one name on the ballot and they voted for him. Moreover, they were forced to vote.

We too, in committee, are forced to vote, but the vote is often controlled by the Prime Minister. It so happens that our Liberal friends all vote the same way. Often, the opposition will split when it sees that it is beaten.

What is happening here today is important. People must realize that we cannot let democracy deteriorate like this. There must be a more flexible process in committee. We also understand how a democracy works.

Usually, before a vote is held, a debate takes place. We could talk about this for a long time too, and I have often condemned this situation. Whether it was on the sending of troops to Afghanistan or other issues, we had a number of debates. In the case of Afghanistan, the troops were already aboard and on their way overseas when we were discussing whether or not we should send them. We had a take note debate that was not followed by a vote. Is this a democratic way of doing things? One might well wonder.

As we can see, democracy is constantly being eroded. I think it is important to have this debate today. I also think that democracy is being somewhat undermined by the Liberal party.

What are the career aspirations of every backbencher? They involve a key: the key to the ministerial limo. That is what is important.

When the time comes to vote, what are the Liberal members thinking of? The limo and the key to the limo. If a minister gets in trouble, and has to step down, as often happens, then some backbencher is going to end up with the key to the limo on his desk. So all the Liberal MPs rush back to their office, where they wait for the phone to ring and someone to tell them they are going to get that key. That is their key concern.

When democracy is flouted and the position is filled by bulldozer, there are no problems. What we often hear from the members opposite is this “We got the power, because of our majority”. I consider that to be flouting democracy to some extent. It is reducing democracy to a matter of a mere majority. When one exercises power, one must be far more subtle than that.

Now, for the people who vote. We have always said that, in a democracy, one vote is as good as another. And so, one MP should be as good as another. This, however, is not how the Liberal Party looks at it. In its view, the votes it records are the most important, and never mind democracy, or the opposition, which must exist if there is to be a democracy.

We have reached the point now where the Prime Minister calls all the shots, including committee appointments. There are two lines of defence for the Prime Minister: first the committee; since all of the Liberals must vote together, and they are all haunted and worried about their future and the limousine.

If things go wrong in committee and if there are a few members who take a courageous stand at this point and say, “I do not care about the limousine; they are asking too much of me”, then there is the second line of defence, which is the House. Committees can study a matter for a few days. No reason to worry. The Prime Minister expects his Liberals to vote together. So, if there is a problem there, it is taken up again in the House.

If that is going to be the case, I do not see the point in having committees. How is there supposed to be any intelligent debate in committee, when we know that we will never make it past the first line of defence. It is not the government members who will stymie us, but more the great Liberal democracy, because there are more Liberals than opposition members.

It seems to me that democracy has been distorted. There is another thing that I do not understand. We know that there is a leadership race going one, and that the member for LaSalle—Émard is touring from one end of Canada to the other talking about the great Canadian democracy. He has said that we must give more powers to the standing committees of the House of Commons. We have his speech here, we have seen it. Yet, when we move a motion that contains the exact same terms that the honourable and august member for LaSalle—Émard used publically, he stood and said, “I will vote against it”.

How is this logical?

[An hon. member]

The great democracy—

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

In public they talk about a great democracy, but when the time comes to act, they do the opposite. It gives one pause.

And everyone is worried about the keys to the limousines, because if there is a change, the limousines will also change owners. Some games are being played and, in my opinion, this is detrimental to democracy. Bills and everything else that is currently going on in the House and outside are being influenced by the Liberal leadership race. The government could care less about the public's concerns.

We witnessed some strange things this week. We asked questions of certain ministers and these questions were answered by other ministers or parliamentary secretaries, even though the minister responsible was in the House.

We are doing our best here, but we cannot perform miracles. The holy Liberal democracy has imposed its pattern. “Regardless of what the opposition may say or do, we will bulldoze right over it. And if we do not do it in committee, we will do it in the House of Commons.

This is a denial of democracy. The government does not listen to the opposition. No matter what the opposition may say, the government does not listen. This undermines democracy. It is necessary to have an opposition in a democracy. If there is no opposition, the government is free to do what it wants, and this is often detrimental to public interest.

This is why I am pleased to have had this opportunity to address this issue today. I will sit down and listen to other speakers. Of course, I am prepared to answer any questions from hon. members and I will be pleased to get the discussion going again.

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

Mr. Speaker, we are debating a motion to concur in a report related to the election of chairs and vice-chairs of standing committees of the House. There is an amendment and a subamendment but the essence is still the same, the democratization of Parliament. It is an important issue and I do not think there is much disagreement within this place that it is something we constantly have to strive for to ensure that this place has the tools and the processes in place to do the business of the nation and to represent our constituents.

I find it interesting to hear the opposition members plead for democracy in Parliament when they know very well that Parliament, by its very nature, is a partisan institution. We ran in elections for a particular party, with a particular leader, with a particular platform and with a political philosophy which generally guides members in many of the activities and the positions that they take on issues. They are well discussed in advance.

Often parties do not agree on a lot of issues and sometimes members in this place would be accused of being sheep, voting the way they are told.

I think most members would agree that if members ran for a party with a leader and a platform and a matter on which they ran came before this Parliament, their constituents would expect them to support the position on which they ran. That means, notwithstanding that everyone would like to believe we were elected as individuals, that our word is our bond and our credibility is probably the most important asset that we could have in this place.

If I ran in support of a particular measure and said that if, as and when that matter comes before Parliament this is the position that I am going to take and it happens to be my party's position, well we know what happens. Members come here and it just turns out that everybody in a particular party would support a matter on which they ran.

We also know, however, that there are other details. There may be details below the main motion with which members may disagree. We have had many members in this place who have taken a position contrary to their party, and without consequences, I might add.

When we had the gun control debate in the 35th Parliament there were members who, on behalf of their constituents, felt that they could not support that. There was a consequence but it was kind of an inverse consequence in that they were taken off a committee that they were serving on and put on another lesser committee, et cetera.

I would think that most members here would agree that the consequence would be something whereby if a member were on a particular committee that the member would be put on a second committee to make sure the member' time was tied up. However that is getting a little bit away from it.

The point is that we are talking about democracy but we are talking about democracy in the context of a majority government. There is no question that to be a member in the opposition parties today there is an important responsibility and that is to keep the government accountable. It means that the opposition members must necessarily ask the tough questions. They must necessarily be disruptive when it is in their interest to demonstrate a point. It is in their best interest to obstruct the process or the progress of the House when again it would demonstrate a position on their behalf.

We have had that before when we have had, for instance, a myriad of report stage motions which would require the House to vote on each and every time. It would have kept the House here, and did on a couple of occasions overnight and for 36 or 48 hours in a row, but that is the democratic process.

The suggestion that there is no democracy in this place is perhaps a misrepresentation of the realities of a partisan institution called Parliament. The fact is that demonstration, delay, obstruction, et cetera, are very important parts of the democratic process. It also is a fact of life that should a particular party win a majority in a general election, it is fully expected that it would implement its mandate and platform and continue to govern to the best of its ability. Its accountability is to the electorate as a whole.

It may not coincide with what the opposition would like to see, but it is doing its job when it raises issues such as absence of democracy or try to divide, conquer and all of those other things. There is no question that it is doing a very good job. I know many of the members very personally in this place and, notwithstanding what the perception of the public might be, there are some excellent relationships between members here because there is some excellent work done in a variety of our committees and on legislation. Real progress is made.

Unfortunately in this democracy we do have a thing called question period. Question period is a 45-minute period everyday. All the members are here and the press is in the gallery. What we basically have is a jump ball to see who can get the news clip or the television story for that evening's news or the next day.

Many of the people I talk to about this express some discontent about the optics of what parliamentarians look like during that 45-minute period. I would ask people to reflect on the following. Imagine that 300 people are put in a room, divided in half and told that all but 20 are to sit on their hands and say nothing. Then someone stands up and says something that is provocative. Could all but the 20 people actually just sit there and not react? We know what happens. There is reaction. In fact it is a longstanding parliamentary tradition of strategic heckling, of highlighting weaknesses in answers or of trying to throw someone off so that perhaps that person will make a mistake. Perhaps the individual is not so sure of his or her facts.

Every time a member speaks in this place, he or she is taking a risk. We may have immunity in this place to say things that members could not get away with outside this chamber, but people also watch what we say. The media watches what we say. Over a period of time the collective inputs or outputs of a member tend to characterize credibility. As I said at the beginning, the credibility of a member of Parliament is the largest, most important asset a member can have in this place.

If we were to look at the curricula vitae of members here, we would find that the vast majority of them come from a background where they have enormous credentials in terms of community service and contributions to their communities in a number of ways on a voluntary basis without compensation. Many of them became candidates and members of Parliament not for what they promised to do but because they showed what they can do. Candidates for public office have a significant victory simply in garnering the nomination for their party.

There are lot of people who run for political office who are very good people, who probably would make very good members of Parliament and who are not elected here. Quite frankly, people do not get elected to the House of Commons because they are good individuals. We cannot win elections as individuals. A person cannot run as an independent and win in this environment. It has to be someone who has a party with a platform and a team that can represent itself as being a government in waiting. It is up the voters of Canada to determine which team they want to carry the torch for the country through the times of the day. A majority government has a very strong mandate and an important responsibility.

I understand the frustrations in opposition. I have not been in opposition myself, but many of my colleagues were before 1993. We have learned lessons. We know how opposition works and we know what its responsibilities are.

Committees are the subject of discussion here, and I suspect that we will have a lot more discussion not only on committees, but also on other appointments, whether they be order in council appointments or parliamentary secretary appointments, and other things that parties must do. However in this case there are current orders. In fact what is being proposed is that, with regard to the Standing Orders, the chairman of a standing committee would come from the government party and that of the two vice-chairs of a standing committee, one would come from the government side and the other from the opposition side.

In terms of the election, that means that since the government would have a chair and a vice-chair on all the standing committees except two, and with some exceptions, it really is not relevant what the opposition feels about who should be the chair of a committee. It really becomes the decision of a party. The question is whether this is a decision of the leader, the House leader, the whip or a collective decision of a caucus. Those things have to be discussed and I have a feeling they will be the kinds of discussions that will continue to go on for some time yet.

I must at least suggest to hon. members that even under the current rules of electing chairs, if there is unanimous consent of the committee, any standing committee can elect its chair by secret ballot, and that now happens in a couple of our committees. The move suggested here is not unusual or even foreign to our current rules, but it may impose it to a much broader or more general application.

I re-emphasize the point that a lot of members would like to say, and I have heard it from a lot of them, that this place is not a meritocracy. There have been discussions about the importance of regional balance, representations on various aspects of the business of Parliament and for each region to be properly represented and to have the input of people of that region because regions are different in a number of ways and are similar in a number of ways.

Gender balance is important. I am a very strong supporter of gender balance. I have always been a very strong supporter of gender analysis in our legislation. It is a value system which individuals and parties would adopt. Indeed the Liberal Party has strongly respected the aspect of gender balance and of regional representation.

I am pretty sure that regions would be sensitive to and would notice whether they had representation in the cabinet. I am not sure if they would be aware or concerned about whether they had a balanced representation of parliamentary secretaries. I am not sure if they would be concerned about whether there was regional representation of committee chairs.

When we get down to the level that really hits the backbencher, and the discussion here with the cry for democracy is a backbench cry, committee work is where most of the good work of members is done, and having a good chair makes all the difference in the world. Every member has had an opportunity to experience an experienced chair, someone who has earned the respect of members of the committee, and maybe something quite different than that scenario. There is no question that, if anything, there is a consensus that we need to ensure that committees not only are functional, but have the opportunity to do the best work possible.

However, the reality is the opposition has a responsibility and that is to oppose the government at every opportunity, to embarrass the government, to make the government slip and get into contradictions. Its role is to try to make the government look bad.

However in that committee there are more times beyond partisanship when members work together. They want to ensure that legislation or studies before a committee are complete. They want to be proud to put their names to those studies. They want to be proud to get into the House and debate the important aspects of a piece of legislation or identify the areas where they maybe disagree with some remaining element of the legislation. That is democracy and it is part of the process.

Democracy in this place falls down when the partisanship takes over, but partisanship is part of democracy. The obstruction, the delays, the contradictions and hanging the House up are part of democracy. My hypothesis is that one cannot argue an absence of democracy in the House but one can shape it in a way in which it can do the best good on behalf of the people of Canada.

Canadians will not tolerate abuse of the House and this institution for partisan reasons ad nauseam. They still have to see work being done. Members, parties and any other special interest group that might influence this place have to be extremely careful not to push it to a point of abuse of Parliament.

We are discussing the concept of democracy. This has to be discussed in terms of a partisan reality and in terms of a majority situation. However as we change rules here, we have to take into account that those rules, if possible, should be a better fit to the realities of the day. We have had many changes in the way Parliament operates. The modernization committee, which was an all party committee, got together and made some important contributions to streamlining the processes of Parliament. I know there is an appetite for extending that process even further so we can look at other ways of doing this.

I believe that if there is a consensus in this place which can get beyond the partisanship and the opposition mandate, there are areas within the modernization concept, or even through the procedure and House affairs committee, that should and could be discussed for the best interests of all parties.

The way in which it happens is the issue. It is not what is trying to be done; it is how it is being done. The opposition will make its best case that it made things happen here, and the government will do its best to ensure that it gets credit for what happens. That is part of it.

I want to use the last couple of moments to caution the House because we have to remember that this is a fragile institution. We have adopted certain changes in the rules of this place, for example, the application of votes. I do not like the application of votes because I am always coming across people who say we all vote like sheep, the same way. However when my whip stands and says “with all Liberal members voting this way” and every other whip gets up and does the same, what does the public perceive that to be? We made a mistake when we went to that system.

There are also the number of times when unanimous consent is required to do things in this place. The sensitivity in this place is such that, should there be a member who is disenchanted with this place, we could be ground to a halt. There could be concurrence motions put on the order paper. We could be debating committee reports every day which would grind the business of this place to a halt. We cannot let this happen.

I appeal to all members that, when we proceed with these discussions on the democratization of Parliament, they remember we are all responsible for ensuring that this is a functional Parliament.

[Greg Thompson, Progressive Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Mr. Speaker, the member clearly talked around the issue and did it quite effectively, but he did not focus on the real issue. The real issue is the power of the Prime Minister and the PMO to have their way in the House on every issue all the time. That is the issue that I do not think we can skirt in this debate, because if they lose a vote in committee they will or will attempt to change the rules to vote over again, simply to get it their way.

It is unfair for the member to get up and waste the time of the House in skirting all around the issue. The issue is control, absolute control. It is the issue of the present Prime Minister versus the former finance minister, the would-be prime minister, if we will. I can see the Prime Minister today talking to his caucus just simply laying it on the line that it is either his way or we go to the polls. I would bet a dollar to a donut that is the threat he is squarely pointing back at his caucus to corner the former minister of finance's supporters versus the Prime Minister's supporters.

I would like to hear the parliamentary secretary for once address the honesty of the topic: simply the extreme power of the Prime Minister. Did the Prime Minister threaten them with an immediate election call if they did not all come in here and vote for the Prime Minister on this issue? In other words, if he did not get his way there would be a snap election.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think those who were following the debate and heard my speech should take this as an example of an opposition member doing his job. It is to take the situation and spin it or present it in a way that suits his purpose. I congratulate the member. I will give him a ten on being a good opposition member.

[John Reynolds, Canadian Alliance, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, BC]

Lots of good opposition here.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Absolutely. There are some excellent members. The House leader of the Alliance says there are a lot of good opposition members. I have worked with members throughout this place and in all parties and I can list a large number of members who have made an enormous contribution.

First, though, the member said I skirted the issue and quite frankly I think I hit it very squarely by virtue of referring to the fact that we have a majority situation here. The Prime Minister of Canada today, someone who served this country over a 40 year period, was elected by the members of his party to be the leader of that party.

Suddenly such a person in that position represents that party and leads that party through an election. If he and his party win the election he becomes the Prime Minister. He is the only cabinet minister who is known on election day. That person has been given an enormous mandate, not only by his political party but also by the voters of Canada. That means he has to build a team. That means he has to make decisions. That means he is accountable, he is the bottom line, where the buck stops.

How much authority does that Prime Minister have to delegate down the line? As much as possible, because there are good people within caucus, but he cannot delegate and say let us have a vote on who will be in cabinet. Obviously there have to be some strategic choices and we cannot all participate in those discussions. What level would we go with next, with parliamentary secretaries, committee chairs or special caucus committees? There are various levels of appointments.

I would say to the member that what is happening now is an example of democracy and he should understand that in a majority situation someone must be in charge.

[Carolyn Parrish, Liberal, Mississauga Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of comments to make, hoping that I will get a few responses from the previous speaker.

First, I find it a very unusual argument from the parliamentary secretary for public works when he talks about giving out jobs based on sex and based on ethnicity when we currently have two parliamentary secretaries for public works who are male and white and in the city of Mississauga, so I do not think that is working too well.

I think he talked about the majority of the committee selecting the chair because in fact the Liberals are the majority, but that is the sort of argument that causes the us and them argument in the House. Committees are not supposed to be like that and I would like him to comment on that. He actually suggested that the opposition should not be involved and I find that quite unusual.

He talked about the way things are done. I cannot resist commenting on the way this argument has gone today. Procedure has been used to defer a vote into oblivion, so I would like his comment on the way things are being done here right now.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in this place we always want to have the highest respect and regard for other members regardless of party. It is always good to hear contrary opinions. It gives people a benchmark or a framework.

I would have expected the opposition to say there are two white male parliamentary secretaries from Mississauga and is that not terrible? But what the member did not say is that the two white male parliamentary secretaries now from Mississauga had to wait in line until after that member and another female member in Mississauga South were parliamentary secretaries before us, and there were no men, so in fact there is a perfect gender balance here. This is an excellent example of where a member would like to take the facts and spin them or twist them in a way that makes the point. I congratulate the member for being a good member of the opposition.

With regard to committees and how they operate, and maybe more important, the point she made about what is going on today, first, as a member of Parliament I have an opportunity and a responsibility to participate in debate and to have a position on almost any subject I want to. That is because this is a democracy. I may not agree with everything that the member has said, but I respect her right to have those positions.

What is happening today is part of the democratic process. I still firmly believe that the opposition has a role. It is to be totally contrary to the government's position and that is its job. One cannot be friends with the opposition.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

By their chattering I can see that the members all agree.

In this place we hear a lot of dissension. It yet again is evidence that democracy is alive and well in the House of Commons.

[An hon. member]

You didn't say that last week.

[Bev Desjarlais, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, obviously my colleague from across the way was not here a little earlier, so I think it is important that we re-emphasize some facts about the committees as they were.

Before I do that, I also want to reference the government whip's remarks that it would make it hard for the government to ensure gender and regional balance among committee heads if they were elected. We all know, although obviously the member across does not know, that within committees right now, without the members being elected, there is no gender balance. There is no regional balance. Of 22 committees, 17 are chaired by men. Twelve of the vice-chairs and chairs are from Ontario. Where is the regional representation? Where is the gender balance?

There is a problem on that side. It is all the way across. If their own members, their own chairs, do not know what the heck is going on they need to take a look. It is a problem.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let us take the point on Ontario. The member suggests that 12 of the vice-chairs are members from Ontario and asks where the regional balance is. She is probably correct. In terms of mathematics it should be more than 12 because two-thirds of the Liberal caucus are members from Ontario. It is not that there are too little from Ontario, it is that there--

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Order. I heard the question, but I am having a great deal of difficulty hearing the reply. Please, let us just give each other the courtesy of listening and we will try to proceed with the remainder of the debate.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member wants to get it to committee. I am not sure I agree that it would be easy to achieve gender and regional balance at each and every committee. Quite frankly, I have been on committees where it was difficult to get quorum. I have been on committees that have been dysfunctional. We have work to do in terms of making sure that each committee does its job. In a cabinet scenario I certainly am very supportive of regional representation and gender balance. As we get down the line, certainly capable, qualified, respected and leadership people ought to be holding chair positions, and I will do what I can to ensure that we have the best possible people representing our committees.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today on this debate on the motion for concurrence in the report of the procedure and House affairs committee, a report that calls for changes to the way the chairs of committees are elected. We have an amendment to that which would return the issue to the committee and ask it to reconsider it and report back to the House in 15 days. We have a further subamendment which would have the committee report back in one day.

It seems to me what we are really talking about and what we have heard a lot about in the last year or so in relation to democratic reform has been the question of the power of government backbenchers. We have heard constant criticism from the opposition, and concerns from members on this side as well in some cases, about the question of whether or not backbenchers on the government side, members of Parliament who are not members of cabinet or parliamentary secretaries, have the kind of power they ought to have. I think that is really what members, certainly on our side, are interested in dealing with and interested in addressing. I guess the question is, how do we do that?

There is a variety of views on how we go about considering the question of how to give members of Parliament who are not members of cabinet more control over how government operates so that they can be more accountable to the public and so the public can see that the people they elect to Parliament are in fact having some say. I do not think the discussion that I have heard in the House or elsewhere has been about whether opposition members have had enough power. That is not the discussion I have heard. It has been about whether government members who are not in cabinet have enough power. It seems to me that this is what we have to focus on here. Within our own party we certainly are having discussions of late about the question of what we can do and how we can improve our own operations within our party and our caucus to ensure that the views and concerns of members of Parliament who are not in cabinet are fully taken into account and that they have much more power.

When we consider the results of the last election and consider what the polls tell us, it is clear that the public prefers the Liberal Party as government. As my friend from New Brunswick Southwest pointed out a few minutes ago, the government was elected with something like 40% of the votes of Canadians across the country. But I want to suggest that when we look at the question of who is the second choice, if we ask Canadians who would not vote Liberal who their second choice would be, they would say the Liberal Party. I think that tells us that if we had what is called an ordinal system of elections whereby there is a runoff or a preferential ballot and the voter marks the first choice candidate, the second choice and so forth, we would in fact have even more Liberal members because members of the public as their second choice would more often choose Liberals.

What I am suggesting is that members on this side reflect much more clearly the views of the vast majority of our public than do those in opposition parties. Let us take for example the Alliance Party, which has, we have seen in polls, the support of something like 9% of Canadians. Are we suggesting that the members across the way in the Alliance who have that very small proportion of the voting public on its side really ought to be controlling how government operates? That is what this is about. This is what they have been trying to tell us today. It is all about them saying that in fact they are non-partisan, that they are not going to be partisan, that they want a non-partisan process. I think the idea of having the whip uninvolved in the process of choosing chairs is one where we are probably going in that direction. We will have to work on how it is going to work among ourselves but it is a positive thing. But clearly the suggestion that they should be controlling it does not make sense to me, and I do not think it is what the public is looking for.

I heard members yelling the word “dispense” earlier today. It seems to me that if members really believed in democracy, they would recognize that members in the House have the right to speak. Democratic reform involves everyone in the House having the right to speak their view. We should be able to have disagreement. Even within our party we clearly have disagreements on issues. That is valuable. It is important that we have those debates, but if members are suggesting here that it is unfair for a member to stand in this place and disagree with them, how can they claim to be democrats at all? It makes no sense at all. I cannot imagine where they are coming from.

When we talk about committee chairs, it is also important to realize that their role is a little different from the role of the Speaker. We do have a secret ballot for the election of the Speaker which was decided on a few years ago and which has worked very well. It is important that we look at this further and work out where we will go with this issue. We have to consider that a chair of a committee, unlike the Speaker, remains in caucus. He does not become independent in the way the Speaker does. A committee chair remains in caucus.

In Britain it is interesting that the Speaker, when the member is chosen as Speaker, does not usually have to run and does not have to re-offer against someone. The person is often unopposed. The tradition in Britain has been that the Speaker is not opposed in the next election. The person remains Speaker until retirement basically, so the Speaker truly becomes independent.

I do not think anyone is proposing that the chairs of committees do that. They have a different kind of role and it is important that we consider that.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I will interrupt the member, but of course he will have time to resume his intervention after question period. On a point of order, the hon. member for Peterborough.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask for unanimous consent to revert to presenting reports from committees for the purpose of presenting the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the selection of votable items in accordance with Standing Order 92.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Does the hon. member for Peterborough have unanimous consent to present his motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.