Debates of Oct. 31st, 2002

Committees of the House

[John Harvard, Liberal, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, MB]

Madam Speaker, I think we can have a civil debate about this. After all, this is about democracy. I think we have listened to the opposition members and their concerns. We are not taking anything away from them in that regard.

It is important in this adversarial system, and what we have is an adversarial system, if we on this side feel that the opposition has put forward something that perhaps is not factual, we have a right and a responsibility to respond.

We are not talking about the old system anymore. We are now talking about a new system of electing chairs. The question before the House really is how do we elect chairs? One way is by secret ballot and another way is openly. I support the open system.

I also want the various caucuses to choose their nominees for caucus chairs. I do not want the Prime Minister's Office to make that decision. I do not want the whip to make that choice. I do not want the House leader to make that choice. I want our caucus to make its nominations.

I would imagine when it comes to the Alliance that the caucus members would like to make their choices as opposed to their leader doing it. I am sure the same thing applies to the Bloc, to the Conservative Party and to the New Democratic Party.

Let us not get things mixed up. We are not talking about the old system any more. We are talking about a new system.

Let me again get to the question of referring this matter back to committee for only 15 sitting days. Is that a long time? We have had the old system since 1867. I suppose we could wait another 15 working days so that perhaps we could make some effort to make it right.

I submit that there are concerns and questions that will arise from this new system which we are going to embrace. We are going to embrace it but does the House not think that we should take some time, in this case 15 sitting days, to answer some of the questions and respond to some of the concerns that come out of electing committee chairs?

For example, I will tell the House, I will tell my constituents, I will tell all Canadians that I want within our own Liberal caucus some kind of very responsible nomination system. When we went to a standing committee meeting to elect a chair there would be one Liberal nominee. There would be one, not two, not three, not four. All Liberals within our own caucus would have some say in who would be a chair of a particular standing committee. I cannot think of a more democratic way.

There is another reason I want some time to think about this. I do not know whether the opposition caucuses do, but we do not have any system inside our caucus to consider representation from the regions.

I am from the west. I am a proud westerner. There are quite a few standing committee chairs. Under this new system I want the west to have some opportunity to have some of those committee chairs. To use the old jargon, all I want is our share. I would bet that my colleagues from Atlantic Canada want their share. Ontario does not have to worry as much. Ontario has a huge number of members. God bless them and I thank them for being here.

This is Canada after all. We are a diverse country. We are a country of many regions. We are a country of many different parts. Surely if we are going to make any effort to draw up the committees in a fair and just way, we have to take regional representation into account, gender into account and perhaps some other things into account as well.

[Dave Chatters, Canadian Alliance, Athabasca, AB]

The best person.

[John Harvard, Liberal, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, MB]

The best person, all right. I just heard a member from across the way talk about the best person. Of course that would be one of the criteria. Competence is very important.

The country has had federal governments since 1867. Since 1867 prime ministers have been making up their cabinets. One of the prime criteria for prime ministers is to take into account regional representation.

God forbid, if the day ever came that the opposition formed the government, I would bet that Saskatchewan Alliance MPs or Alberta MPs would want to be represented in cabinet. Does anyone think they would not want their provinces represented in cabinet? I do not think they would say, “Oh, no. We will just rely on competence. If it turns out that all of the competent members come from Quebec, that is fine. We do not care if we have a cabinet voice from Saskatchewan. We do not care if we have a voice from British Columbia”.

Who are they trying to kid? Whose leg are they trying to pull? That is an absolutely cruel joke. It is a fact of life that in our political life regional representation is extremely important. I happen to think that if we are going to have the election of chairs, we have to take that into account.

It is not surprising that I come from a region that is not as densely populated as the province of Ontario or the province of Quebec. All I want is my share.

What I want is a little more time to study this matter. If we have waited 135 years, I suspect we could wait another 15 sitting days so that we have a couple of opportunities to get this right. Once we make this change, it will be made for a long time. Sure we can fine-tune it down the road. In fact, I would not mind this kind of approach being tested for perhaps a year or two. I want to make sure in the early days of this that we do our homework, that we address the questions and concerns that have to be addressed.

I support the amendment to the motion. Let us take a little more time and get this right.

[Brian Fitzpatrick, Canadian Alliance, Prince Albert, SK]

Madam Speaker, I value my individual freedom. However, if I must surrender it in this society for the public good, I would much prefer being governed by the majority point of view than the tyranny of the minority. I want to make that clear.

Voting on bills is something totally different from the appointment of people to positions that require the trust of everyone in the House. We went through a procedure here where we voted for the Speaker of the House. Members did not worry about the gender of the person, what ethnic background the person had or what region of the country he or she was from. We voted collectively for what we thought was the best person for the job. Today I think we have a Speaker of the House who has the trust and the confidence of just about every member in the House. It is a real tribute to the secret ballot and the results of the secret ballot. I am absolutely amazed that a member of the House would look at secret ballots as some sort of dangerous concept.

Would the member propose that we go back to having the Prime Minister appoint the Speaker of the House as a reform of Parliament?

[John Harvard, Liberal, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, MB]

Madam Speaker, the answer is no. I want the election of the Speaker. I supported that change, but if I had my way I would have one nominee for Speaker from my party because who has chosen the Speaker since we have elected Speakers in the last 10 to 15 years? It has been the opposition.

I have been around here for 14 years. There was more than one candidate for Speaker from the Liberal side in one election. I was in support of one of the minority candidates and he won. Why did he win? For reasons beyond my comprehension, the opposition decided to coalesce and they supported my minority candidate from the Liberal side. Naturally the other side would favour a secret ballot so that they could perhaps do a little bit of coalescing or whatever so that they could get their choice.

We have an adversarial political system and it works quite well. In the last election, Canadians decided they would vote for a majority Liberal government. That means there is a majority of Liberal members on this side. What they said was for us to follow our agenda and leave the opposition to the opposition. I support that system. I support that system also when it comes to the election of chairs.

[Odina Desrochers, Bloc, Lotbinière—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am not at all surprised to hear the comments of the hon. member opposite. I do not know if it is a privilege to have had him as Chair but, on numerous occasions, he made heavy handed and rigid decisions. We could really see that this Chair was following orders coming directly from the Prime Minister's Office.

Today, his behaviour shows that he has once again been sent by the PMO to try to salvage what I now call the “downfall of the dictator” who has been in office since his re-election, in 2000.

The hon. member himself may be negotiating some chairmanship by continuing to follow the orders of the Prime Minister's Office to sabotage the committee's proceedings.

Is this what the hon. member calls democracy, is this is what he calls freedom of expression, and is this what he calls being a true parliamentarian in the House of Commons?

[John Harvard, Liberal, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, MB]

Madam Speaker, yes, I served as a committee chair for a number of years. I could put my hand on the Bible or any other document and assure the House that I never took an edict from the Prime Minister's Office. I suspect that the PMO thought that we were small fish in a very large pond and really did not care a heck of a lot about how I ruled at the committee meeting. I can assure the member that I never heard, saw or felt one edict from the Prime Minister's Office.

I remind the hon. member from Quebec, we are not talking about the old system any more. We are talking about a new system. I am saying to the Prime Minister and others, the old system is passé. We are now going to have an election of chairs and we as a caucus will decide who represents us as chairs on standing committees. Let us not worry about prime ministerial edicts any more, even though they did not exist in the past. We are certainly not going to worry about them in the future because the old system will not apply.

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

Madam Speaker, through you to the speaker who just spoke, I want to say that first, a committee makes recommendations to the House so it is fitting and proper to have a debate and the final decision is that of the House. However I cannot support the idea of a secret ballot.

I have been here for nine years and I have never shirked a vote and I have never hidden from a vote. I think the precedent that would be set by having committee members have a secret ballot would be a deplorable one. We as MPs are expected by our constituents to stand up and be counted. I agree that the election for Speaker should be by open ballot. That procedure was brought in before I came to this House. However I cannot support, from my heart of hearts anytime, standing in this place and not being counted no matter what the party discipline or no matter what the consequences from the whip. I voted against the government about six times. It is precisely as it should be. The people should see when we vote against the government or when we vote on principle. We cannot see people voting on principle when it is a secret ballot.

I would like the member's observations on that. Does he not think that there will be a loss in public confidence if MPs were seen on committee to have to resort to the secret ballot for the simple election of a chairman?

[John Harvard, Liberal, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, MB]

Madam Speaker, I agree with my colleague. I agree that we should have open votes when it comes to the Speaker. I think if we have secret ballots, as suggested by this motion, there will be an erosion of confidence.

In our recent caucus elections for chair, one particular candidate was told by a majority of people that they would vote for him. He expected to win. What happened? He lost. Somebody was telling some little white lies. They were saying one thing to his face and another thing when it came to the ballot box. I suspect that the same thing would happen when it came to the election of chairs. They would say to the public that yes, they voted for good old Joe from their region and that they support him, then they would vote for somebody else in the secret ballot.

We are public representatives and we should be voting publicly and openly. We should not have secret ballots.

[Deborah Grey, Canadian Alliance, Edmonton North, AB]

Madam Speaker, that is the most bizarre defence of something so simple I have ever heard. He has contradicted himself about 12 times on this. He is raising all these questions and is virtually answering them himself.

He talks about standing in here and publicly announcing how he is voting. He said that if he voted in a secret ballot, his constituents would not know how he voted. He just said that he voted for the candidate for Speaker and that guy won. He has just told the public exactly how he voted for the Speaker. That is great, his guy won. Is there anything shameful for him to say he voted for X for Speaker and he won? No, he could do exactly the same thing for the committee chair.

He also talked earlier about secret ballots and how to get elected on that day. That is just fine. In the good old days people were worried about reprisals from the state or the powers that be. That is exactly the answer as to why we should have secret ballot election, because they fear reprisal.

He just talked about the election of the caucus chair, saying that people would say they would support someone, probably like what people said to him during the election because they were trying to be polite to him, then they would have a secret ballot and do whatever they wanted. Then he said exactly the answer to this, that they feared reprisals from the state or “the powers that be”, which is lingo for the Prime Minister's Office.

He says that he will go ahead with this, when these people are feeling whipped and intimidated. It may not be the Prime Minister doing this because he will not waste his time on that. However he has put in place someone to do it. How does the member answer that?

[John Harvard, Liberal, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, MB]

Madam Speaker, let me say that the member for Edmonton North does not look at the full picture. If we are to have election of chairs, which I support by the way, then I want my caucus to pick one nominee. We can do that by secret ballot just in case some caucus chair or somebody else wants to intimidate me. However when I walk into a public place, like a committee meeting, I will vote openly and I will vote for my Liberal nominee just as I would expect the Alliance member to vote for her Alliance nominee.

[Jim Gouk, Canadian Alliance, Kootenay—Boundary—Okanagan, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to end this session of the debate with a touch of honesty, which has been surprisingly missing. We are not talking about the election of chairs and how we elect them. We are talking about whether we elect chairs, which therefore is done by secret ballot, or whether the chair will be appointed by the PMO. That is what we are debating.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

It is probably not the Chair's place, but I would caution the hon. member to imputing motives to members in the House. I will permit the answer to a comment or a question.

[John Harvard, Liberal, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, MB]

Madam Speaker, we are not talking about a system that gives the prerogative to the Prime Minister to select chairs. That system is passé. We are moving to a system of electing chairs by caucus members. Therefore the question is this. How do we arrive at our caucus expression? That is the question before the House.

[Pierre Brien, Bloc, Témiscamingue, QC]

Madam Speaker, there is a lot of interest in the issue being debated. I am not surprised to see how government members are trying to defend a system that has served them well until now by controlling just about all the proceedings of this House.

The Prime Minister's Office not only appoints ministers, but also controls Liberal members during the proceedings of this House and even of the committees. This means that the exercise taken part in by voters, which consists in choosing democratic representatives, loses some of its meaning, since the powers are concentrated in the hands of a single individual, namely the Prime Minister, since he has the authority to choose, alone, just about all the holders of senior positions.

What we have seen in practice—I have been here since 1993—and the way things have worked until now, is that committee Chairs report directly to, or are chosen directly by, the Prime Minister. This cannot be obscured by the arguments we are hearing today. I will return to this point in greater detail later on. Everyone who wishes to maintain the present system, however, makes no bones about saying “Yes, but there are criteria that have to be taken into consideration, such as regional representation; committee Chairs have to come from different regions, and so on.” This is a confirmation that indeed someone, somewhere, is carrying out the exercise of examining people against these criteria when it comes time to chose committee Chairs, whereas the Standing Orders stipulate that committee Chairs are to be elected by committee members. But here they are telling us, quite openly and unashamedly, “No, there have to be criteria to ensure a balance between the various regions of the country as far as representation is concerned”.

This is an out and out admission of what is being done, which is that someone, in this case someone in the PMO—although he can delegate this to the party whip, the leader in the House, or someone else—is the one to choose the person who will hold that position. Then the MPs are told “Be obedient, vote this way, or else”.

That is why the idea has come up that we now have before us, about selecting those who will chair the committees of this House, of which there are several by allowing parliamentarians who are on the committee to themselves choose the person who will head the committee, and to do so by secret ballot. This is specifically in order to decrease the possibility of reprisals.

I hear the Liberals' argument, the same one they used when this was debated in the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. “Yes, but the public has a right to know”. There is nothing stopping a member from announcing publicly whom he has supported, but this can also preserve the ability of individuals to make choices without having to face the negative consequences inherent in so doing.

I do not think that the voters in my riding have expectations when it comes to the candidate that I would support as Chair of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. I do not think that people would necessarily ask me this question if I told them that members selected the Chair by secret ballot. Obviously, the criterion that should influence our decision is competence. We will select the most competent person.

The opposition parties acted in such good faith on this issue that they even accepted an amendment proposed by the member of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs for Mississauga Centre, stipulating that committees would continue to be chaired by members of the government party. At the very least, we would have liked to discuss the fact that, with two exceptions, committees are always chaired by Liberal members. We could have argued that point. I am not saying that things are perfect elsewhere but, in other places, this is not how they operate. At the National Assembly almost half of the committees are chaired by opposition MNAs. This does not prevent the committees from doing their work.

While we are on this, there seems to be total confusion regarding the role of committee chairs. Liberal members who are not ministers or Parliamentary secretaries think that if they chair a committee, they will be a part of the government or the executive. This is not their role. It is ministers who are included in the executive branch. The role of House committees is to study matters, to delve into them, to study bills after second reading and to report to the House. Committees area accountable to the House, and not only to the cabinet.

Committees are there for us. We work for all of our colleagues. People cannot sit on every committee. That is why there is a limited number of representatives on each committee. They must do their work and be as neutral as possible.

If we want there to be a balance of powers, the committees must be able to say to the government, “No, this is the wrong direction and there should be amendments to this particular bill”.

When the individuals who chair these committees are appointed by the Prime Minister, it seems obvious to me that a large part of this exercise becomes meaningless, because the outcome is known in advance. The argument used by government members is that “Voters gave us a mandate to govern”.

That is absolutely true, but it does not mean that they gave them a mandate to do whatever they want. This is why opposition parties exist. This is why, following a general election, the government is part of an institution that includes members who represent various political views and who were elected by voters. We are elected as democratically as government members are.

The public expects us to play a role, to have a say. It also expects those hon. members who are not ministers to have a say in the parliamentary debates, to have real power and influence.

No one from the other side can convince me that they truly believe that hon. members, particularly government members, have enough power in this House regarding all the tasks that they must fulfill.

There is a huge gap between what the public expects in terms of the role of an elected member of Parliament, and the actual role or influence that we have here.

The democratic deficit is such that one of the candidates to the position of Prime Minister is going around saying that one of his priorities is to correct the democratic deficit. So, he agrees that there is indeed a democratic deficit. However, will it be only Liberal members who will make the changes that are required, and will these changes only be made when they are prepared to consider them?

There is a proposal before us. It is not an earth shattering reform; it is about electing committee chairs through a secret ballot. The Liberals are in a frenzy; they are holding special caucuses; they are divided on the issue. There is some arm twisting going on to ensure that this report will not be adopted. We also have before us a stalling tactic, that is a proposal to postpone by 15 days the adoption of this report and to ask the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to review the matter.

I have been here a number of years and we have had these debates in the past. It is not the first time that this issue has been raised, and I am not sure that Liberal members really want to examine it. On the contrary, I think they want to sway the few Liberal members who would like to support opposition members in their efforts to change the current way of doing things.

As a matter of clarification, let us be clear, the amendment before us, the Liberal amendment, has a very obvious strategic objective. It is asking that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs consider the matter for another 15 sitting days before reporting to the House.

As it happens, by then, the deadline for setting up committees will have passed. By some strange coincidence, by the time the matter is brought again before the House, all committee chairs will have been elected.

It is pretty obvious, as difficult to miss as an elephant, that the government's strategy is to avoid the issue, put the committees in place and select the chairs. We will reconsider the issue in 15 days, but it will no longer matter. It is an issue right now because the committees have to be struck.

I might add that opposition members have been extremely cooperative with the government side. I repeat, we acted in good faith. We have agreed to let three committees start working. Committees are already sitting because it was recognized that urgent matters needed to be considered.

I am thinking in particular of the Standing Committee on Finance, which is conducting pre-budget consultations, although it is open for debate what influence, if any, the participants may have. The fact remains that we agreed to let that committee sit.

The Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs is also sitting. There is no need for lengthy explanations as to why; in the current context of international instability, we want the members of the committee to be able to consider, as they are doing this morning, issues as important as that of Iraq.

Also, the Special Committee on the Non-Medical Use of Drugs, established by the House of Commons, is currently sitting.

We have shown good faith. We have allowed a number of committees to start their work. The funny thing is that, in the media, I have read and heard the government House leader complain that the opposition was preventing committees from sitting and doing their work.

For the benefit of those listening to us, we have no legislative agenda before us, or none to speak of. Even if all the committees were struck right now, there is virtually nothing before the House, to such an extent that, for the first time, last Monday—and I have been a member of this House since 1993—if we had not had a take note debate, there would have been nothing in government orders for discussion in this Parliament. That is a pretty big deal. There are major problems over there. I realize they are in a leadership crisis and there is a leadership race going on, but they are having trouble functioning with any effectiveness.

In the background of it all, of course, those issues are part of the current debate, but the institution must take precedence over any partisan or non-partisan issues or any questions regarding the personal interests of the next leader or the future of individual members.

What is being proposed is a change, which will mean that, regardless of which party is in power, members of the House will be free to elect committee chairs on an independent basis without any fear of reprisal.

What, practically speaking, will this change, as far as the general public is concerned? Someone might say “Yes, I am listening to you, and it is all very interesting, but what is that really going to change for the rest of us?” That is a very legitimate question.

The public wants to see Parliament doing more debating of the priorities that concern them, they want to see Parliament having to deal with real and effective pressure. It is true that we have some powerful tools, such as oral question period and the committees, where we manage to get a certain number of things accomplished, but never as much as we could if the committees were far more independent, if they could do their real job, and if they were able to set their own agenda.

I do not mean to suggest that some of them do not do so, but there are not enough of them, and those who do are not given enough freedom. It is not right that members are pressured in this way. There will always be ways to influence people and ways to make them act in one way or another.

However ,when members who chair committees become accountable to their colleagues around the table, they will endeavour to work as effectively as possible for all of their colleagues, rather than simply working to satisfy the Prime Minister or the minister who got them the chairmanship of their committee.

This takes nothing away from the government's ability to make the choices it wants, subsequently. However, there will be credible public voices in Parliament that will have a say, committee reports will be more critical of government decisions and government members will be able to be heard more freely. All of this will give elected members more clout. At the end of the day, the government and the House will decide, but at least we will have a more credible and effective forum than we have right now.

Committee work may not be the part of our work that is the most closely followed, or the most glamorous, but it is nonetheless one of the areas where we spend the most time and energy.

Personally, I would like for this work to have more of an impact, out of respect for all those who spend so many hours defending their constituents and promoting the issues and concerns that affect them. Stronger, more accountable and more independent committees will improve the whole institution.

What we are proposing is a small step in this direction. As I already mentioned, we are not talking about a revolution, but a beginning. This will help improve the effectiveness of committees.

Other measures also need to be taken, but we cannot wait for large-scale general reforms that will never occur. A member of the Canadian Alliance made this proposal in committee. The proposal was studied and the report was passed by a majority of the members of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the courage shown by the hon. member for Mississauga Centre, who voted against her Liberal colleagues. She did so primarily as a matter of principle. She made it very clear that she did not do it to please the opposition. Her attachment to her political party is very strong and I do not question it. This is a woman who has fought for her principles, for things in which she believes. She did it first and foremost for these reasons. I am convinced that she is the object of all kinds of pressures, which does not make it easy for her. This is why I think she was very courageous to do what she did.

I wanted to mention this, because if more people were to follow her example, we would all benefit. Sure, we have our political disputes and we have diverging views on many issues. But, beyond this, I think that the hon. member deserves to be commended for her courage.

When we dispose of the matter, when we vote, regardless of whether that vote takes place today or in the coming days, when we deal with the amendment brought forward by the government, which is trying to prevent debate, I hope that this amendment will be rejected and that we will deal with the substantive issue of whether or not committee chairs should be elected through a secret ballot.

We will see if others show the same courage. It is easy to claim left and right to want to reform institutions and make parliamentary business work better. However, we have a tangible example here. We will see where Liberal members really stand in this debate. I hope that others will take this opportunity to support one of their own. I am sure that many Liberal members think the same thing. I hope they will voice their support. The more of them that speak up, the less they will have to fear reprisals.

Then again, many things about a number of other aspects of our system would need to be reviewed to ensure that intimidation is not the only way to ensure efficiency. Allow me to repeat the line that irked me the most among those used by Liberal members in committee. This proposal did not come out of thin air. Here is what I heard: “We are in government. We can do whatever we want”. This basically sums up what I heard.

How arrogant to think they can do anything they want. Our political system provides for some balance to try to divide power to some extent to ensure that all the power is not in the hands of a single individual. This is why we do not have a dictatorship. We have a democratic system so that we can see the forces at play. There is a role for the opposition to play, and one for government members who do not want to be heard only within their caucus.

I can see that they would make the necessary efforts within their caucus to influence positions taken by their party, but they also have a role to play and a responsibility to take within this institution. They must be able to do this freely. A potential appointment as committee chair, parliamentary secretary or whatever, under the current reward system, must not be the sole motivation. Substantive issues must be what people are concerned about in making a decision.

I sincerely hope that they will seize this opportunity now before us to take real action when it comes to change. I know that on this side of the House, with perhaps the exception of a few benches near the Speaker that are occupied by government members, members will vote against the amendment moved by the government to refer the report back to committee. In practical terms, referring the report back to committee amounts to not resolving the problem now, but putting it off until later, and if possible, forever.

Those who have followed this debate closely in recent days have seen how much energy the Prime Minister, the House leader and the whip have devoted to ensuring that this measure does not go through. This shows how much they want to hold on to control of everything that goes on here.

Again, we are not talking about establishing a mechanism that would disrupt the functioning of the government. We are talking about giving members more freedom, more autonomy. I have trouble understanding how anyone could oppose this. Those who would rather vote by show of hands are free to state publicly how they voted. However, we should allow those who prefer to cast their ballot in secret the opportunity to do so.

I will conclude by saying that there is a fine example of this in the House, with the election of the Speaker of the House. Like the chairs of the committees, which are an extension of the proceedings of the House, the Speaker of the House needs greater flexibility in order to be able to represent all the members properly. The position of Speaker of the House of Commons is an elective position, and the Speaker is elected by the members. This has positive results, in that we have greater confidence in the integrity of the position and the person occupying it since we are involved in the process. It is not true that he is elected by the opposition; we do not all vote the same way. In the most recent elections, some of our members voted for one candidate, while others voted for another. It was democratically decided however, with Liberal members voting for one or the other. We have confidence in the position because it is an elective one.

In closing, I hope that more members will show the same courage as the hon. member for Mississauga Centre and add their voices to those of opposition members to ensure that a step is taken toward making Parliament, and democracy within this institution, work better.

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

Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree that election of committee chairs is probably a positive thing. I do believe it has to be done openly, but what concerns me is this prospect of electing chairmen by secret ballot.

To me it is an ethical issue. I think that Canadians expect of their members of Parliament to always be seen to make their decisions on behalf of the people who elected them in an open fashion. I have long deplored the practice in the House whereby MPs who feel they cannot support their party hide behind the curtains or abstain or do not enter the chamber to vote.

I am happy to say that there has been a very positive evolution on this side over the years that I have been here. Fewer and fewer MPs do that on this side, and more and more when they feel, by their conscience, that they cannot support the government's or the party's position they will stand up and be seen to be voting against the government. I apply that to the House in general.

I believe, passionately indeed, that the people who elect us are entitled to see us publicly take our positions, whether they are for the government or whether they are against the government. I submit that if we have a secret ballot at committee that is an invitation for Canadians to lose confidence in the members of that committee because it will be interpreted that they are afraid to stand up for their principles when they vote at committee. That would apply not only to government MPs but also to opposition MPs.

It is fundamental. I think what we are dealing with here is an issue that could erode Parliament in a very significant and dramatic way. I add that I am opposed to the secret ballot for the election of the Speaker as well, but that was something that was introduced before I came to the House. I think it should be changed. While I think that we can reform the system, in the end I think it is our absolute fundamental duty in everything we do as members of Parliament to do it openly and to be seen by Canadians to be taking our positions one way or another.

I ask the member opposite, when he finds himself in a position of not agreeing with his party during a vote in the House of Commons, does he hide behind the curtain or does he come into the chamber, take his place and be seen to vote against his party? Similarly, does he need a secret ballot at the committee level in order to feel free to express his opinion, which may actually be against his party? Does he need a secret ballot to express himself at committee? Does he need to hide behind the curtains in order to express himself if he does not agree with his party in this House?

[Pierre Brien, Bloc, Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will begin by answering the last question. It is clear to me that, if members can vote by secret ballot, they will have more latitude to make the choices they feel are best.

The hon. member is very well aware that, in practice, the way things work is that members have to support the candidate hand-picked by the PMO. Consequently, it is not true that the choice is a free one when voting is held in committee. He knows that very well. I cannot believe he does not. It is possible in theory at this time for a member to vote freely for a chair, but in practice that is not the way it happens. We know very well that everyone can be identified and so they will have to live with the pressure that goes along with that, afterward.

I want to be clear, so I will take a typical committee as an example. It normally has sixteen members: nine from government, three from the official opposition, two from the Bloc Quebecois, one from the NDP and one from the Conservatives. So nine of the sixteen are Liberals. One of these is for the chair, which leaves eight Liberal members, and seven all together for the opposition. We are not talking about destabilizing the government in the formation of committees. If the Liberals remain united on the policies their party defends in committee proceedings,they are still in the majority. These proportions reflect the results at the polls.

There is no major change except that the person who will head the committee will do so with increased dependence on the committee members, not on someone from outside the committee who has chosen him. This will have an impact on the agenda, on the way the work is carried out, on the way the committees can express their opinions on government policies.

It is obvious to me that this is a positive step. It is the hon. member's prerogative to wish that we continue to vote by a show of hands, even to elect the Speaker of the House, or that we vote by rising one after the other. At least, the hon. member is consistent. Most of his colleagues are saying, “No, it is somewhat different for the position of Speaker of the House”. The hon. member is showing a degree of consistency. He does not want the Speaker of the House to be elected through a secret ballot.

The hon. member fears that a secret ballot—that is what he claims, but I cannot believe that he thinks that—will result in a loss of voters' confidence. I do not agree. Confidence is already eroding, and this goes for all parties, because voters feel that we do not have enough impact and influence on the government, that we must all follow party lines, with the result that we cannot represent their interests. The proposal before us would ensure greater independence for everyone, including opposition members, when the time would come to choose committee chairs.

It is not true that the seven members from four different parties are always going to choose the same person. Pending further study of the matter, we agreed to still have Liberals for chair, but it would not be the end of the world if more committees were chaired by opposition MPs. This does not prevent government members, being the majority, from still maintaining a certain consistency with their election commitments, if they feel a committee is headed in a direction that is not desirable for the public and not in keeping with their commitments. There will always be that freedom, but there would be someone in charge with greater independence.

The Standing Committee on Public Accounts does not have a Liberal as chair. I have not heard from them that it works any less well than the others, despite not having someone from the governing party in power. Are some of the hon. members questioning that approach as well, saying that it should not be done that way? We feel there should be more committees and that overall they should be less partisan. That should be the next step: make them more independent and less partisan.

The first step, as proposed today, is to ensure that the person who chairs a committee is chosen by the membership and that the selection is by secret ballot.

What is there here that does not make sense? What is there in it that is so harmful? Everything will continue to operate, but many of the MPs on the committees will be able to take part. The ones who spend the most time in committee are not the ministers. The ones who are so fiercely opposed to the measure proposed today are not the ones who are generally in attendance.

I am sure that, if the vote involved only members who are on a committee, the outcome would be different than if the ministers or the Prime Minister voted, because the latter is going to twist a lot of arms to keep the change from happening. To those who really work on committees, this is a step in the right direction if the way the institution works is to be improved.

Once that has been done, we will start working on the next step.

[Karen Kraft Sloan, Liberal, York North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising in debate today to support the idea of a secret ballot for the election of chairs and vice-chairs in our committees. I think that if we were able to go forward with this initiative it would be an important milestone in furthering the democratization of Parliament.

I have listened to the debate, and earlier I heard a member say something about the work of committees. I suggest to those people watching that committees are only a small part of what we do in the House. People who do watch us here in the House may be puzzled as to what it is that members of Parliament actually do, particularly backbenchers and members of the opposition. I have to say that contrary to what was said earlier, committees are not a small part of what we do. They are a very significant part of what we do.

As a backbencher one has limited options at times, but some of the good work we can do is fully represented in our committee work. For a backbencher there are opportunities around private members' business to bring motions and private members' legislation forward, and certainly we have the opportunity to debate, speak and ask questions in the House. We also have the right to stand in the House and vote as our conscience dictates, but probably some of the most important work we do for Canadians is the work that is done in committee.

I am the vice-chair of the parliamentary Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. Over a number of years I have had the pleasure of working with Liberal colleagues as well as members of the opposition. Together we have worked in a very positive way to bring forward studies and other things that have meaning and relevance to the lives of Canadians. However, I am deeply concerned that we would not be able to have a positive outcome of this initiative around a secret ballot for the voting procedures for chairs and vice-chairs.

I have listened to some arguments about the notion of whether a secret ballot should not be part of the democratic process, that people send us to Ottawa so that they know exactly where we stand on certain issues. Quite clearly, I am making my position very clear in the House today as to where I stand on the issue of secret ballots. We also have the opportunity to follow the committee Hansard and see where individuals stand on particular issues.

It is really important to note that when we look at the application of the open vote process and what that really means, there is a great deal of pressure put on certain members, particularly government members, to vote in a certain way. As a member who has taken stands differing from the government's on a variety of occasions, both in the House and in committee, I have to say that it is a very lonely position at times, when one is doing clause by clause work on legislation, when every day that the committee meets one has to speak against and vote against the government's position. Sometimes there may be one Liberal colleague who supports one's point of view, and sometimes there may be two, but oftentimes one is in a very lonely position, because although other members certainly have the right to make decisions as to how they vote a lot of pressure is put on members to vote according to what the government has in mind on a particular item.

So when we take a look at the real application of what happens with the open ballot versus the secret ballot, it does not encourage a healthy democratic process. There are individuals around the globe who have fought fiercely to have the right for a secret ballot so that they can protect themselves and vote their wishes. Indeed, it has been mentioned that we vote for our Speaker through secret ballot. I might add that we vote for caucus chairs by secret ballot as well. I think there are very good reasons why it is necessary that secret ballots must be used in certain situations, particularly in this situation.

I would be happy if parliamentary standing committees could openly choose chairs and vice-chairs but that is not the current state. We must take a look at the secret ballot as a transition stage, a first step to encouraging a healthier democratic process within Parliament.

I also have something I wanted to raise in the House. The last time the chair and the vice-chair of the parliamentary Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development was chosen was by secret ballot. Indeed there was unanimous consent by the parliamentary standing committee because the committee itself recognized that this was an important initiative. It was an important way to practice parliamentary democracy. As a result, our chair, the hon. member for Davenport, was chosen through secret ballot and I, the vice-chair on the government side, was chosen by secret ballot and the opposition vice-chair was chosen by secret ballot. What happened? Did the committee work stop? Did we fall into chaos? No, we resumed our work.

It is important for people who are watching to know, because they may not have the opportunity to see how parliamentarians work in committee on a regular basis, that it enhanced our ability and our working relationship in committee. We may get up in the House and from time to time disagree on issues, perhaps in a partisan way. People watching question period can see how partisan members can be in question period and how they can attack each other on the issues.

However I must say that work that is done in committee, particularly the environment committee, when we are working with the opposition, is done in a non partisan way. It is a healthy relationship except of course when one is a government member disagreeing with the government's position, which of course is another issue.

I would like to add that when I first rose in this place to give my maiden speech I talked about Parliament as an evolving place, that it is dynamic. It is a living institution. The other point that I made was that as members of Parliament we merely pass through this place. When we look at the history of parliament compared to our tenure, and whether our tenure is only for a short two-year or four-year term or whether it is a 40 year commitment to public life, it is so insignificant. We merely pass through this place.

When we pass through this place it is incumbent on us to understand that times change and that the institution of Parliament must change as well. We, representing our constituents and the people of Canada, have a responsibility to participate and to encourage that change. It is not just the opposition and some of us on the government side that feel there is a time for change, but certainly the public also feels it.

On this particular issue the public has recognized that there is a time for change and there is a time to further enhance the democratization of Parliament. One of the best ways we can do this, one of first steps we can take on this evolving road to further enhancing the democratic state of Parliament is the election of chairs and vice-chairs by secret ballot. I encourage all members to support this initiative.

[Paul Forseth, Canadian Alliance, New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is great to hear a Liberal member rise and talk about improving the democracy of committees because it is so unusual. Parliament is not the government. Parliament is where the government comes to get permission to tax and spend the people's money and have its legislation passed. However there is this long tradition of the independence of Parliament itself and I was pleased to hear the member talk about that.

Perhaps she could tell the House the precedent that was set at environment committee where indeed the chair of that committee that she sits on was elected by secret ballot and the skies did not part and we did not have an earthquake. We were demonstrating that committees can be independent and we can elect our officers by secret ballot. It did happen in our committee. Maybe she could talk about that experience.

[Karen Kraft Sloan, Liberal, York North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite for those comments. Indeed the member opposite has been a member of the parliamentary Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development. He was also the vice-chair on a subcommittee of the parliamentary standing committee which organized an important forum that took place on Parliament Hill back in 1996, where we looked at the issue of jobs, the environment and sustainable development. I must thank the member for his contributions in the past. He has shown a significant interest in the environment, which I must applaud.

The member opposite has asked me to explain to the House what happened. It was simple. We sat in committee and the question was put: Can we have a secret ballot for chairs and vice-chairs? Everybody said, “Sure, why not?” Then there was a secret ballot. A chair was nominated, vice-chairs were nominated, and members of the committee voted in a secret ballot.

I will not talk about my credentials or my position on the committee. However, I would like to talk about the chair of the environment and sustainable development committee. The hon. member for Davenport was a former minister of the environment. He is a long standing member of the House. He is a longstanding member of the environment and sustainable development committee. There is probably no other member of the House that knows more about the environment, environmental issues, environmental policy and planning in terms of how Environment Canada operates and all of the other departments of government with regard to environmental issues. He was the one that was selected by the members of that committee. Therefore, I would suggest that there are times that members of Parliament, if given the opportunity, can exercise wisdom in their vote.

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Laurentides, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague, with whom I had the pleasure, incidentally, of sitting on the environment committee for some time. She is right when she says that this committee worked very democratically.

I would simply like her opinion. Does she not believe that when a chair is elected by secret ballot by the members, this chair has more respect, more power and more credibility with members of the committee?

[Karen Kraft Sloan, Liberal, York North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member opposite as well. She and I have had many an opportunity to have good discussions over dinner as we travelled the country doing the CEPA review. I appreciate her significant contribution to the environment committee as well. It is interesting to note that when members have an opportunity to sit on the environment committee they learn an awful lot. They retain their interest in the environment as well. Members should have a mandatory time period where they serve time on the environment committee.

It is true that we work very hard and very well together. There are a variety of reasons as to why people make a decision. Sometimes it may not be for the best reasons. However, in the majority of instances parliamentarians will make good decisions. Indeed they have made good decisions in this particular instance with the election of our chair from the previous round.

I would suggest that because parliamentary standing committees work two, three or four times a week on issues that Canadians care about we must have good working relationships. It is easy to get into an antagonistic or a partisan fight in committee. It is easy to throw those words out. It is more difficult for us to bite our tongues and it is more difficult sometimes to listen. We learn an awful lot when we listen.

I must tell the House that as vice-chair I felt better because I was elected by a secret ballot. I knew that people on the committee were willing to put their trust in me as the vice-chair. I cannot speak for the chair himself, but I am sure that he feels the same way. I have other colleagues who are chairs of committees who would prefer a secret ballot. I cannot give names because I cannot speak for them. In many respects a chair would feel better about a secret ballot situation, and the committee would work together more effectively as well.

[Bev Desjarlais, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to join in this important discussion today. It is apparent from the number of members who have been here throughout the day, and the emotion and passion that people have been speaking with, that members hold this issue close to their heart. There has been a real effort among parliamentarians from all parties to ensure that we reform our parliamentary system. It has been recognized that the parliamentary system has become less democratic.

I am pleased to be part of the debate and that there has been so much effort placed by all the different parties to be here today. I want to express my thanks to all the members of the procedure and House affairs committee. I do not think there is any question that they took this on and it was not going to be an easy discussion. It was not going to be an easy topic to deal with. However they did it and stayed committed to that, and I mean all the members of the committee. I commend them all, each and every one.

I want to reflect upon a number of different comments that have been made this morning. From the New Democratic Party's perspective we heard from my colleague from Acadie—Bathurst who was appalled at the meandering that was taking place to stop the democratic process. He was very active on the procedure and House affairs committee.

However I want to comment on some of the other things that were mentioned this morning. The member for Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia made a number of comments. I listened to them in depth. It was interesting to note that he started off by saying that he was tired of listening to the flustering and blustering that everyone was going on about in the House. I want to make special note of that. I do not think there is flustering and blustering going on. It is honest concern for the democratic process.

It was interesting to note that his comments followed in line with the member for Ottawa West—Nepean, the government's chief whip. She made the comments that electing chairs was bad because it could undermine the government's confidence in the chairs and right to govern; it would turn the elections into popularity contests; and it would make it harder for the government to ensure gender and regional balance among the committee heads.

My colleague from Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia went on and on about the need for gender parity and regional representation, and how it was important that we not lose that if committee chairs were elected. Has anyone done the numbers? Certainly the member for Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia has not done the numbers. Let us count the number of chairs that are gender balanced so that we have fairness. Unless there are 34 committees we do not have gender balance because 17 of those chairs are men,17 out of 22 committees.

Let us talk about the regional balance between the vice-chairs and chairs. Twelve are from Ontario. If that is the government's idea of balance it is no wonder we are in trouble. We must do something about the way the chairs are elected and what is happening in this Parliament.

In all the flustering and blustering that the member for Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia mentioned, what he needed to do was to get down to the basic facts. Numerous parliamentarians have been seeing time and time again that with the government there is no democracy. The Liberals always stand up and applaud when we say the Prime Minister has been in government for nine years. They applaud the fact that the Prime Minister has been there for nine years and we cannot even have gender parity in committees. They applaud the fact that democracy within Parliament has digressed further and further each and every year that the Prime Minister has been here. We have come to a point now, and again to reflect what the member for Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia said, that the reason we ended up having secret ballots was because people feared if they voted a certain way they would be attacked in some way, shape or form.

Those were not his exact words. However, that is why we are in the situation today where members are calling for secret ballots. People fear there will be repercussions against them in some manner, whether that be in the process of their not being able to be part of a committee that they care passionately about, like the member for Davenport, or in some other way. There is a problem here.

To those of us in the House who can stand and vote the way we want and take whatever comes at us without a secret ballot, that is great. Ideally that is the best approach. However, we have reached the point in the Parliament of Canada where members are saying, “We do not feel we can do that any more. We do not feel we are getting the best people to represent the people of Canada, to get the issues out there. We do not feel that it is working”. It is not just the opposition members who are saying that; it is members on the government side, and they are being hammered down.

I say to my colleague from Manitoba, the member for Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, if he truly believes that the government and the Prime Minister have acted fairly to all Canadians and to members in this House, then go ahead and keep talking like that, but quite frankly, people will see it for what it is. It is someone trying to find his place so that everything will be just hunky-dory for that person. With all due respect to my male colleagues, if one were a male from Ontario, one would be sitting pretty, but apart from that, there is a problem.

Yesterday in the House we honoured a public servant who had committed 50 years of his life to the public service. Numerous times throughout the day I heard comments, including from the individual himself, that he was here to make sure things worked for members of Parliament, to make sure it was fair for members of Parliament. I think all members in the House, because I have yet to hear anyone say differently, truly respects that individual because they know he was fair to each and every member of Parliament. They know that what he was doing was to make things better for parliamentarians, knowing that they were working to make things better for Canadians. We honoured that man and we greatly respected him because he did what he set out to do. He did what he intended to do. He made it happen.

Just talking for the sake of talking about democracy and fairness is not worth anything. People can talk and talk, as the Prime Minister has done, but if they do not truly put in place democratic processes or take those actions themselves, after a while people will not believe them. That is where we are. Nobody believes that the Prime Minister is acting democratically.

Quite frankly, there are a good number of us who do not for one second believe that the Prime Minister in waiting who everyone thinks is out there is any different. People have to practise what they preach. They have to put those actions into practice. They have to vote accordingly. If they do not do that, then they just do not care and they do not deserve the respect of the Canadian public or parliamentarians, the respect that was given to a 50-year public servant, respect which the Prime Minister will never have, no matter how long he sticks around because of whatever reason, no matter how much of a legacy he wants to present to Canadians prior to his leaving.

There will be no respect because under his direction we have seen less and less democracy in Parliament. We have seen less and less fairness in our country. We have seen regional splits. We have seen a disunifying of the whole nation under his watch because he has played one region against the other. He has played one member of his own caucus against the other. He has not acted in the best interests of Canadians. We deserve better. We deserve better in this Parliament and Canadians deserve better.

I am happy to see here today that the opposition parties have united in saying that something has to change. If we are to give the best representation we can to Canadians, something has to change.

To those who will try again today to suggest that we cannot have elected chairs because the Prime Minister could not ensure that we had gender balance or regional fairness, take a look at the facts. Do not try for one second to pretend that there has been fairness or democracy, because it does not exist. If it did, we would not be in this situation today.

I look forward to the debate throughout the rest of the day. I want to comment on the suggestion about the secret ballot for the election of the Speaker. When I first came here I thought it was kind of crazy that we had to do that. We all knew that the Liberals had the greatest number so we knew who would be the Speaker. I was actually quite surprised in my first term in 1997 that it actually did not work out the way I thought it would. I thought it was great because there really was a chance for people to do what they thought.

The next time around I did not wonder why we had a secret ballot. As much as we might respect each and every person in the House, for whatever reason there is always a twinge in the back of our minds that if whoever is in the chair, whether at committee or in the Speaker's chair, knows we did not vote for that person, we will not be treated fairly.

I say to my colleagues and you, Mr. Speaker, that I hope we can act responsibly here in the House. I hope the government, especially the Prime Minister, takes special note of what is happening here today. We are looking toward fairness and democracy in this Parliament because ultimately, it is Canadians who will benefit the most.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend my colleague for her excellent comments. She brought some figures to our attention with which I was not familiar in terms of the importance of balancing the different committees.

She informed us that 12 of the 17 committees were chaired by members from Ontario, nor was I aware that there were so many men chairing these committees.

I would also like it if she could reveal an important figure, and I hope she knows it. I would like to know how many Liberal members chair these committees. As far as I can tell, this seems to be at the heart of this debate. What the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs is proposing is a vote by secret ballot for committee chairs and vice-chairs.

I think it is worth noting that right now, not only is there an imbalance in terms of the number of women and in terms of regional representation, but there is also a problem in terms of political stripes, in the sense that I believe that in the vast majority of committees, the chairs and vice-chairs are Liberals.

[Bev Desjarlais, NDP, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, yes, we all know that all but two committees are chaired by Liberals. Among the vice-chairs there has to be at least one Liberal member and one official opposition member.

The member also gave me the opportunity to comment on something which I failed to comment on. I appreciate the opportunity to do so now.

One of the things that came up was that the government would not have control. Earlier on it was mentioned that it is right that committee reports come back here to be voted on. That would give every member of Parliament the opportunity to vote accordingly, and in the case of the Liberals to do what the government wants them to do. The committee sends the report back to the House for a vote and if it does not get accepted, the government does not have to do anything.

Why on earth does the government have to control the process at every single step along the way? It ultimately has control in the House if it has a majority. Why on earth can it not allow committees to operate and give the best projection of the views of people in Canada and committee members? Why can it not allow chairs to be elected? Why does the government have to control every single step of the process?

The government does this because the Prime Minister is a bit nervous. He does not want anybody to get out of line. He has to have all his ducks in a row at every step along the way with not one of them getting out of line. Heaven forbid he should not have absolute control over the entire caucus.