House of Commons Hansard #19 of the 37th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was opposition.
SupplyGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)
It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre, Income Tax Act.
Michel Guimond Bloc Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-De- Beaupré—Île-D'Orléans, QC
Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in this debate on the motion put forward by the hon. member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Valley. I take this opportunity to congratulate him on the 30th anniversary of his being elected to this place; he was first elected in 1972. I should be pointed out however that these were not years of continuous service in the House. I think that following the 1972 election, he served in the British Columbia legislature, as Speaker and also as the Minister of the Environment.
I want to commend him and his party on this motion before the House today. The premise of the motion has more to do with how the concept of democracy might be defined.
I listened earlier to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons deliver a speech full of pathos. This is a rare occurrence. As we know, the government House leader is basically a good and honest man; no one will question that. I think that, in his capacity as parliamentary leader, he ought to seek consensus and ensure that the work of the House can be done. In his speech, the hon. leader called our attention to the concept of democracy. He referred to democracy repeatedly.
A French poet and parliamentarian, Lamartine, said about democracy that universal suffrage is democracy itself. People who are listening to us and who do not follow our debates regularly do not know how things are done in parliamentary committee.
The Quebec National Assembly also has parliamentary committees similar to those that we have here. Committees study bills or other issues that they want to put on their agenda. They have the power to hear witnesses and to adopt amendments to bills that are referred to them by the House. A committee is more or less a miniature version of the House of Commons. We have 20 or 22 committees. Those who are listening to us are not always able to see the work that is done in committee.
I will confess that when the members of the Bloc Quebecois were first elected in 1993 and formed the official opposition, we asked ourselves whether we should, as a sovereignist party, take part in these parliamentary committees. They are controlled by the government in terms of the number of members.
The Bloc Quebecois has no problem with the fact that the government majority has a majority of seats on committees. This is why people elect a government; it is perfectly normal. This is why the members opposite are sitting on the government side and this is why the Prime Minister has the privilege of appointing ministers; it is one of his prerogatives. The fact that the election is won by a particular party is not questioned. However, on the issue of appointing a chair or vice-chair, we must look at the way it is done.
For the benefit of those listening, I will explain how it works. I was on the Standing Committee on Transport for eight years. Now I sit on the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, which counts among its responsibilities the approval of the striking of committees and the composition of all committees. This is part of our prerogatives, as set out in the Standing Orders. As the Leader of the Government in the House has said, the way it operates is that the chairs and vice chairs are designated by a motion duly voted upon by a show of hands, and whether the votes are recorded or not is a mere technicality.
This process leaves many citizens disenchanted with politics and mistrustful of politicians, because on numerous occasions the government does not behave like a government in a democracy but rather like an oligarchy, a monarchy with all the power in the hands of a prime minister. Then there are all those henchmen, all those apparatchiks gravitating around the Prime Minister, the office of the Prime Minister, what the media refers to as the PMO. When the PMO speaks, the columns of the temple quake.
The Prime Minister's henchmen literally blackmail the members and also terrorize, to some extent, ministers. On occasion, a minister might have a differing opinion. However, once he receives a visit or a phone call from someone in the PMO, he had better hang on to his hat, and hang on tight, because he has incurred the wrath of the PMO. This power is centralized in the hands of a few people. They have all the power. A small circle of people have all of the power, including the power to appoint the chairs of the standing committees.
Here is how it works. It begins when a committee is struck. Take for example, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. There are eight Liberal members and seven opposition members; three from the official opposition; two from our party, the Bloc Quebecois; and one from the NDP and one from the PC party.
The chair is appointed by the Prime Minister's Office and this is confirmed by a motion. A Liberal member moves that the member for Scarborough, to give an example, serve as chair of the committee. This motion is seconded by a member of the Liberal majority. At that moment, all of the Liberal majority members, like trained seals spinning a ball on their nose, comply fully with the directive that has been given.
The motion is moved by a Liberal member and seconded by another Liberal member. The vote is held and the eight members from the government majority vote for that person. The seven opposition members might believe that another member from the Liberal majority would make a better chair. If the vote were not held by a show of hands as prescribed by the henchmen in the PMO, members from the Liberal majority might even announce their own candidacy or propose another one of their colleagues besides the one chosen by the PMO.
So, the vote is held. The eight Liberal members vote one way, the seven opposition members vote another way and it is a done deal. This takes place 20 or 22 times, as many times as there are committees.
That is how things are done right now. I know that you cannot say it, Madam Speaker, but I see that you are nodding in agreement. You seem to agree with what I am saying. I know that deep down you agree with me. I understand that, as acting speaker, you have to remain neutral and that, although you agree with me, you cannot say so.
We now have before the House an opposition motion brought forward by the Canadian Alliance. That is the issue now before us. The motion says in the third paragraph that “the election shall be conducted by secret ballot.”
That would be quite different from what we have now, where a motion is moved by a Liberal member, seconded by another Liberal member, then the vote is held by a show of hands where eight members vote one way and seven vote the other way. Now, if the election were to be held by secret ballot, it would make a difference.
It says later in the motion that the clerk provides ballot papers to the members present. So there is a framework. Within committees, the clerk has the same role as the Clerk of the House, Mr. Corbett. I consider the committee clerk as the guardian, the holder of the rules of operation of committees. He acts as the consultant or the counsellor, our reference on the Standing Orders.
So the clerk distributes ballot papers. I presume that security measures have been taken. The clerk will have put his initials on the back of the ballot paper. If 15 members are to vote within the committee, the 15 ballot papers would probably not be numbered, but they would have the same format, and so on. The role of the clerk is thus to ensure the integrity of the election process. The best evidence of this is that, before appointing a chair, who is now appointed through what I would call a sham election, it is the committee clerk who presides over the election. No one is questioning their work.
I want to take this opportunity to congratulate all the clerks of our standing committees. Personally, as a parliamentarian, and I am sure that my colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois and members on both sides of the House agree with me on this, I think that we do not have enough opportunities to congratulate and thank them for the quality work they do and the advice they give us in committee. Again, nobody is questioning their integrity.
So members will receive a ballot. Paragraph (b) says, and I quote:
committee members wishing to indicate their choice for Chairman... of the committee shall print the first and last name of a candidate on the ballot paper;
Paragraph (c) says:
committee members shall deposit their completed ballot papers in a box provided for that purpose;
Finally, paragraph (e) says that if no candidate has received a majority of votes in the first ballot, the candidate with the least number of votes will be eliminated and a second ballot will be taken.
Does the procedure proposed by the member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast to elect chairs of standing committees not remind you of a similar procedure? I am referring to the procedure used by those who voted for us. This is the procedure that they used when they decided to choose us as their democratically elected representatives.
Do members agree with me that, in each of our ridings, the election is held by secret ballot? Do they agree that voters receive a ballot and vote by making a mark beside the name of the candidate of their choice? Prior to the introduction of printed ballots, voters wrote the first and last name of the candidate of their choice. Do members agree that voters deposit their ballot in a box provided for that purpose?
Do members agree that sworn election officers, returning officers, work under the chief electoral officer, who is responsible for managing democracy? Do members realize how striking and disquieting the analogy is compared to our own election?
I do not know what was with the government House leader when he got all emotional and told the House “I have always returned phone calls from members, even during the weekend or when I was on holiday”. We do not doubt that, but that is not the issue.
The issue is that members on this side of the House and many on the other side, from the Liberal majority, have decided to support this motion in order to send the following message: “We are sick of the current system which is controlled by the Prime Minister and his office; we want to get rid of it. We are tired of being a laughing stock, of being considered inanimate objects, trained dogs or seals. We want some respect. We want to have a say in who will be chairing our standing committee”.
A group of members decided to take a stand. They can hold all the special caucus meetings they want, like the one the Prime Minister called this morning at 9.00 a.m., which was supposed to finish at 10.00 a.m., but which finished later. I am happy to see that Liberal members decided to say, “I have been here for x years—it has nothing to do with being here for 2, 15, or 20 years—and I am sorry.” As one of my teachers used to say, “Henceforth, it will not be the same as from now on.” From now on, things will not proceed as they have for far too long.
A parliament has to evolve. It has to reflect the people it represents. It has to reflect society, which evolves. For years, the Speaker of this House was appointed by the Prime Minister. During the first years of the Mulroney government, it was decided that the person who would chair the work of the House would be elected, rather than appointed by the Prime Minister. I think that it is in the government's interest to seriously consider changing the way that committee chairs are appointed or elected.
Two days ago, on CPAC, the parliamentary channel, and yesterday at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, I stated that I wanted to emphasize the courage shown by the hon. member for Mississauga Centre. She is a woman of principle, a woman who stands up for what she believes in, a woman of her word, and a woman who will not cave in to threat, intimidation or harassment. I commend her. I am not suggesting that she supports sovereignty as I do, but I know very well that the hon. member respects me as a person.
This is why I must tell this House that she has taken a position based on her ideas. I even commented to her “I wonder if you will continue with the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs”. She told me, and she also said this publicly, that, if she were sidelined and gagged, she would resign. That is what we call showing courage and having principles.
I wanted to emphasize that. I am convinced that many other members feel the same way as the hon. member for Mississauga Centre.
Reed Elley Canadian Alliance Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC
Madam Speaker, I rise with a heaviness and sadness in my heart. Once again the government members of the House, with the exception of one very brave soul, have added to the democratic deficit of the country. They talk about democracy but then they only use its tools to destroy the last vestiges of it within our midst. I wonder how those government members can truly go home tonight and look their spouse in the eye and say, “I'm really proud of what I have done in the House of Commons today”.
Today we had an opportunity to put words into actions. A lot of words are spoken in the Chamber and on the Hill but I do not think Canadians are particularly interested in words. They want to see actions.
This week the procedures and House affairs committee voted to have secret ballots in order to select the chair of each standing committee. I do not know this for sure, but it certainly seems like it, that because the Prime Minister opposes the idea he has strong-armed his caucus once again to take the action that it took today in the House.
I believe there was a time when the people of Canada felt that when they voted and sent their duly elected member of Parliament to Ottawa they were participating in a democratic process. In turn, the members of Parliament would act on their behalf and represent their needs in this hallowed Chamber.
As we all know, the term democracy takes its roots from the ancient Greeks in which it was the rule of the majority, a government by the people. Note that this definition states “majority” and the plural form of people, not the singular autocratic rule that we currently find vested in the Prime Minister's Office here in this place. Because of that, Canadian federal politics, I would venture to say and suggest, is not currently representative of democracy in action.
I do not fully blame the current Prime Minister for the problem. Unfortunately what we are witnessed to is the culmination of years of erosion to our Canadian democratic system. Yet all the while it certainly was the training ground for our current Prime Minister who was tutored under this very same crumbling system.
I have served as a member of Parliament for almost six years. Although this is short in terms of a lifetime, it is long enough I believe to have some understanding of the problems inherent in our system of government. I do not presume to have all the answers but it is important to be able to identify the problems.
Why do I think the current state of our democracy is of great concern for us as Canadians? It is clear that this nation, vast in geography and different in regions, is a very difficult country to govern. The regional differences which have developed over a period of time, from Quebec separatism to western alienation, have been reflected in the outcome of elections since 1993. These problems, which have spawned the development of new political movements and parties, continue to be perpetuated through inequalities in our electoral system. At a surface level, these are seen in Senate representation, first past the post election results, power concentrated in the Prime Minister's Office and the lack of any real power for members of Parliament regardless of which side of the House of Commons they sit on.
If these problems continue over a period of time, I quite frankly fear for our democracy and the continuation of the nation we call Canada. Canada is not a country that came into being as the result of the armed rebellion of its citizens, such as what occurred of course with our neighbour to the south. However I am increasingly hearing from ordinary Canadians who are very discouraged, sometimes outraged and often fed up with the way that our federal government treats them. Mostly they tell me that they simply feel that they are not being heard.
I want to first address the issue of the lack of regional representation in our parliamentary democracy. If different regions of the country are to feel that they are part of the Confederation, their voices must be heard. Our system is a mix of representation by population and constitutional agreements.
The fact that this system has not been changed significantly since the entry of provinces into Confederation starting in 1867 shows how desperately we need to modernize our democracy. It simply is not fair by any stretch of the imagination that the province of Prince Edward Island, for instance, with approximately 135,000 people, has 4 members of Parliament, while the province of British Columbia, with 3.9 million people, has 34. Using the P.E.I. ratio, B.C. should have 115 MPs. There is no question that the province in which I live is underrepresented in the House of Commons. Nor should one province, as in the case of Quebec at the time of Confederation, be guaranteed a certain number of seats even if its population decreases.
Many Canadians decry, for instance, the ineffectiveness of our Senate. It could, with considerable reforms, become the second level of the federal government, giving the regions a greater say in the running of our country. From a western point of view, it would go a long way to fixing the imbalance which we all feel. It would help the west to truly and finally get what we are looking for, echoing the cry of the years that the west wants in. If it does not happen soon, there will be further discouragement and discontent and a search for quite different solutions to the problem.
I want to say categorically that I am proud to be a Canadian. I do not want us to divide into regions that have no alternative at some point in our history but to simply go their own way. There is no question that the democratic deficit in our country today will push us into the hands of the Americans faster than anything as these regions would look for strong partners to give them help with their economies, defence and a whole host of things.
However, and I say this with as much force as I can, this is exactly what I fear will happen if we do not take seriously the need to reform our governmental institutions and bring us back together as a country again.
As I have said before, let us remember that after 135 years of being a democracy, we have had very little substantive reform of our governing systems. The committee system in the House of Commons is a case in point. It is based on the premise that the majority party should always enjoy the last word on everything. Since opposition parties have no choice in the matter, we end up electing chairpersons only from the governing party who determine the agenda for each meeting. An example of this: in the last parliament, when I was vice-chair of the health committee, we could never get the government members to agree to allow us to study the problems of our deteriorating health care system. It was my choice as a new member of Parliament to sit on that committee. I felt that there were some truly difficult issues that we were facing in our health care system, that there were systemic problems that needed to be addressed and that we had been elected to come to this place to talk about the huge issues facing us as a country. I was extremely disappointed when we could never discuss this very basic issue on that committee. Instead, the minister of health of the day would give us make work projects to keep us busy so that we could not talk about the real issues. I wonder who it was?
Very seldom do members of the opposition parties have any real input into the final decisions of committees. We are usually forced to submit minority reports on issues because we feel that our voices are truly not heard. How wonderful it would be if the governing Liberals would share that kind of power with us. It would cut down on the endless wrangling that goes on at committees and the petty politics that are played on all sides, of which we saw evidence in the House today, and maybe, and I think Canadians are looking to us for this, we could come up with a synthesis of the best ideas representative of all the people across the nation.
The role of the private member to initiate legislation has been greatly diminished in the past number of years. Very seldom do good ideas from ordinary backbenchers ever receive approval from the House of Commons. The hon. minister across the way is laughing as if she has not been present in the House and on the Hill to know that happens all the time, and it is part of the frustration of her own backbenchers.
Why does that happen? Again, it is because the government majority simply and usually shoots it down. If the government does not want it, if it is not part of its plan for the country, it simply will not fly. That means that at any given time it is quite possible for a very good idea, which should become law and is perhaps even backed by the majority of the general population, will never see the light of day simply because the government does not want it to happen. Something is wrong here if this is a representative democracy.
We now have a committee agreement, at least I think we do, mainly because of the pressure from our party to have all private members' bills and motions votable. I hope cabinet will see fit to follow through with the wishes of that particular committee report. Previously, MPs might have been successful in getting this issue raised in the House but it would never have been voted on. We are making some progress but it is painfully slow.
What needs to happen now, in my opinion, if we are going to empower voters between elections and even at election time to somehow get back into being interested about our governing systems is this. We can see from the last two or three elections that the interest of Canadians in our governing system is simply diminishing.
Almost 40% of Canadians opted out of the democratic process in the last election and stopped voting. That is not good enough. It points to the problems that we have in this House and in this country about a growing democratic deficit. I fear for the future of our democracy.
If Canadians were to continue to opt out of our political process the government of the day would fill the vacuum by taking onto itself more power. I do not care which party is in power, if we continue the way we are going that is what will happen. It is a fine line we walk and we can easily step over into an out-and-out dictatorship in this country. However, all of us must be determined to get more involved and to take back the political power which is rightfully ours. I hope that it will take place before it is too late.
We had the opportunity to do exactly that in a small incremental way today. Those of us who wanted to use the democratic means at our disposal to further the cause of democracy among us, are once again frustrated about this process. We fear that the good intentions of the committee on procedure and House affairs, in passing the motion about electing chairs of committees by secret ballot, will never, ever see the light of day.
The government will continue to roll over the rights and the freedoms of members of Parliament and individual Canadians, an action that will continue to foster despair and hopelessness, and division in this country, the country that I love and respect. At the end of the day the question that plagues me is this: Is it truly possible for us to take back our democracy before it is too late?
Peter MacKay Progressive Conservative Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS
Mr. Speaker, I listened to the hon. member's remarks and he has given voice and credence to many of the concerns that have been expressed today. Many of the concerns that Canadians feel right now are about the dysfunctional atmosphere that seems to have evolved in Parliament. Today was perhaps a dark day for this place.
It was certainly a dark day for members of the government, some of whom embraced this idea of throwing back the blinds and allowing individual members of Parliament to be greater participants in the process, particularly the committee process. The committee process is where much of the non-partisan heavy slugging and sledding of this place is done on important pieces of legislation, on issues that involve participation by Canadians who can come forward as witnesses. We are seeing that now with the finance committee that is travelling.
An independently elected chair, at least independent in the sense that the government or the Prime Minister's Office would not hand pick that person, would demystify and give greater credibility to the process. What we are talking about is not the election of opposition members to fill those important positions of chair, but government members.
Rather than have the PMO choose that person, we are saying to let the majority Liberals, coupled with the opposition, have a hand in who that person should be at the committee level. It would make those committees function better. It would provide for a greater deal of credibility of the chair. It would do away with the perception and the reality that the person is serving at the pleasure of the Prime Minister, as we know the ethics counsellor is, for example.
The hon. member has touched upon a number of important points. We hear the commentary coming from the government side and from the former finance minister. He speaks of the democratic deficit of which we can all agree. There is a growing democratic deficit. I would suggest there is a growing credibility deficit on the part of the former finance minister and on the part of members who say publicly that they want to see greater participation, greater relevance, and greater democracy working in this place. They have a made in Parliament opportunity to stand up and support that by voting for the adoption of the report, for the opposition motion which mirrors the intent of the report of the standing committee.
Is it not high time that Canadians were given a demonstration rather than the rhetoric and non-credible remarks that we have heard today from the government side? Is it not time that Canadians were given an opportunity to see this place work in a positive fashion? Would the hon. member not agree with that?
Reed Elley Canadian Alliance Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member from the Progressive Conservative Party for his remarks and question.
It is a dangerous thing for those of us who are in leadership to be presenting ourselves as reform minded members of Parliament in public and raise the expectation level of Canadians that there are some of us who want to modernize and reform this institution if we are not willing at the end of the day to walk the talk.
Canadians are not ignorant. They are intelligent people who can see past phoniness. Indeed, if there are people among us who are aspiring to the highest positions of leadership in our nation, people who are hoping to some day become the Prime Minister of the nation, and if somehow they are raising expectations in public about reform of this place and are not prepared to deliver, then at the end of the day this will continue to create despair and lack of hope in our nation. It is simply not right. As members of Parliament we have an obligation to be prepared to put our words into action.
Carolyn Parrish Liberal Mississauga Centre, ON
Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment on what I heard from both of the last two speakers.
First, there are members on this side of the House that are willing to vote for the motion on Monday, but I caution you that the rhetoric that I am hearing this afternoon--
SupplyGovernment Orders
The Deputy Speaker
Order, please. With the greatest of respect to any member on either side of the House, I would encourage you strongly to make all your interventions through the Chair and not directly across the floor.
Carolyn Parrish Liberal Mississauga Centre, ON
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry. I do not speak in the House very often so I have to be brought to task once in a while.
Listening to the debate makes me nervous because I hear people referring to the former finance minister and his concepts. I hear them sinking down into this partisanship that seems to be something we are trying to work our way through. The people on the government side who choose to vote for the motion are giving up a lot more than the opposition. There is no question. It is harder for them and when everything is reinterpreted as a potential leadership race it hardens attitudes on this side.
I would caution people on the opposite side to keep the discussion on the positive merits of selecting chairs based on merit and service on a committee rather than degenerate into one of putting up or shutting up, or is it a leadership race or whatever. Heaven forbid that the opposition would lose my vote on this on Monday but I do not enjoy listening to this.
I would encourage everyone to demonstrate that this will be a wonderful experiment. It will be non-partisan because the opposition is not going to continue taking shots at this side of the House.
Reed Elley Canadian Alliance Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC
Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the hon. member that I agree completely with you and if you felt that our remarks were--
SupplyGovernment Orders
The Deputy Speaker
Order, please. Again, in this instance it might be somewhat casual, maybe even friendly, but believe me sometimes our debates get a little bit more animated and so it is always good to maintain the usual long standing practice of making all our interventions through the Chair.
Reed Elley Canadian Alliance Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC
Mr. Speaker, there was no intent on my part to, in any way, cast aspersions on any particular candidate for the prime ministership of this country, whether it be from my party or any other political party.
We are at a time in our history when almost all of our political parties are going through changes in leadership. I would hold my own leader to the same standards as I would hold the members opposite in terms of their leadership candidates. The Progressive Conservative Party and New Democratic Party are going through the same kind of process.
It affords us a wonderful opportunity for members of all parties, who truly want to see House reform, to take advantage of the moment in our history to come together to see that it takes place. We may not have that kind of opportunity again for a number of years.
I want to work fully with my hon. colleague who has just spoken and continue to work together to see that these things happen. They must happen for the sake of the country over and above any kind of political party or aspirations that we have in that regard.
Gerry Ritz Canadian Alliance Battlefords—Lloydminster, SK
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe that if you were to seek it you would find consent for the following motion. I move:
That at the conclusion of the present debate on the opposition motion, all questions necessary to dispose of this motion be deemed put, a recorded division deemed requested and deferred until Tuesday, November 5, 2002, at 3 p.m.
SupplyGovernment Orders
The Deputy Speaker
Does the hon. member for Battlefords—Lloydminster have unanimous consent of the House to propose the motion?
SupplyGovernment Orders
The Deputy Speaker
The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Bev Desjarlais NDP Churchill, MB
Mr. Speaker, I want to start off by thanking my colleague from Mississauga for reminding us to continue this debate in a non-partisan manner. We often, in the spirit of things and with the best of intentions, get carried away. I thank her for reminding us that what we want to see here is real change to the parliamentary system, and hopefully that will happen.
I want to make a few things clear for the public who may be listening because I think there is a misrepresentation or maybe a misunderstanding as to how committees works. Also there is possibly a misunderstanding being portrayed that the opposition wants to somehow take away controls and power from the government unnecessarily, power that the Liberal Party was been given because it was elected to lead the country. Nobody is arguing that point.
One of my colleagues from the governing side commented today that we were partisan. My colleague went on to say that the people had elected the government, they knew who the Prime Minister was and they knew they would do partisan things. Yes, that is so. Each and every one of us gets elected with the party that we represent, but those electors elect us on specific issues as well, knowing that we will come here and represent them. There are some party policies and things that come into play, but the voters not only elect us as that party but also elect us to represent what they want to see.
I believe that everybody in Canada wants to see democracy in action. They want to see good programs and policies for the people of Canada. They do not want to see a situation where every member of Parliament, on every issue, whether it is the colour we wear, the way we tie our shoes, whether we will here today and there tomorrow, is controlled by the party or, on the government side, by the Prime Minister. It is very disappointing to think that the member who made those comments would suggest that there has to be control over everything a member does.
We do not have mind melds when we join our parties. We do not agree on everything. We have some differences. We try to balance party policy with actions that we take on certain issues. There are issues on which I agree with the Liberals. There are issues on which I agree in some cases with Conservative members, or the Bloc members or even, shocking as it may be--
Bev Desjarlais NDP Churchill, MB
Okay, I cannot go that far.
The point I want to make is that there are a number of things we all agree on and we vote in the House unanimously on those issues, but we do not have a mind meld on every issue.
When we are at committee we want to bring the perspective of the people of Canada and the people who appear as witnesses. We want to hear what they have to say and put that in the context of the legislation with which we are dealing. Hopefully among all of us, as representatives of the people of Canada, we will come up with good legislation.
The government does not lose control or power by not having the chair. Even if the government does not have the chair of the committee, it does not lose the power over that legislation. There are eight Liberal members on the committee, three from the official opposition, two from the Bloc, one from the New Democrats and one from the Progressive Conservative Party. The Liberals still have the majority on the committee. They still have control over what is will be agreed on in the final legislation. On top of that, that comes back to the House and the whole governing party gets to vote. It is beyond me why the government would make such a big deal over the issue of electing the chairs.
The other thing suggested by the government House leader was this. What if all the committee members do not want a secret ballot? I get the impression that most people around here want a secret ballot, but the key is what if they do not want a secret ballot. That is fine.
It was suggested that it needs to be public. After hearing that this afternoon, it suddenly hit me that we usually vote on those committee chairs at an in camera meeting and that part is not made public anyway. It is only among us. It is among friends. What is the problem? We do not run out and say that this one did this or this one did that. If we do, usually it is because people have shared what they have done anyway and it is not a big deal.
The issue of electing the chairs should not be a big deal unless, as many of us have said today, the Prime Minister loses that plum that he uses to control members on the other side. That is not democracy. That is not what is best for the committees, it is not what is best for Parliament and it is not what is best for Canadians. I hope that we can go beyond this.
I am actually quite surprised today that we were into so much discussion and manoeuvring and with such slickness. I am really surprised to see all this happening over electing the chairs of committees. It is almost scary. It is Halloween, but that is not why it is scary. It makes me wonder why on earth the Liberal members are making such a big deal about this. I do not know why the government, as a whole, would be afraid of this.
We are choosing from two Liberals. No one is suggesting that the chair should not be a Liberal, although it would be great if that person was not necessarily a Liberal. The eight Liberals on that committee are not appointed by the opposition. They are chosen by the Liberals. Then out of those eight, they choose who will be the chair. All we are asking for is the opportunity to vote between two Liberals. They all will be on the committee anyway. It is strange.
I also heard the suggestion that it is somehow undemocratic to force people to have a secret ballot. I have to ask my colleague across the way who said that today to please take it back. It did not do the member any favours. That is the type of argument I would expect from a dictator in another country. To hear it from a democratically elected member of Parliament is unacceptable. That is really looking for an issue.
In debate today on another issue I mentioned another of the arguments the government had used as to why we could not have elected chairs, and that was that somehow the government would lose the opportunity to be democratic and fair to the genders in the country. After all, for nine years under this Prime Minister, the government has had the opportunity, if it thought gender parity was an issue on the committees, to deal with that. What was the committee structure before prorogation? There were 21 committees, with 17 men chairing.
I am not getting into the issue of whether it is good or bad or whether we should have gender parity. I am talking about the government's argument that we cannot have elected chairs because we will not have gender parity, somehow suggesting that it has been the saviour in gender parity, probably of women in Canada, when there has not been gender parity. It was another instance of where it was really digging deep to find some reason why we could not have elected chairs.
The other issue was regional representation. Again there are 12 from Ontario and the others are picked here and there along the way. It is not a good argument.
If that is the best the Liberals could do, they did not do it very well. The Canadian public will see that it has not been done very well and it will wonder why this is such a big deal. Maybe the Prime Minister needs that little plum of the extra money a committee chair makes. With that he can promise so-and-so to that committee chair if the chair does what he says and helps him keep people in line. That could be the only reason because I cannot see another one. It will not affect the government's ability to govern.
I hope that the government will see the light and that it will not be just the backbenchers who support this. I hope all government members recognize that this is not a big issue in the whole scheme of things. Let us do what is right for democracy and for parliament. Let us vote in favour of this because it is the right thing to do. We will still have our eight government members appointed to the committee. One of the eight, and I am not sure how it will be done, will be the chair. The government will not lose out on anything and it will still have a majority on the committee.
There is another thing I want to bring forward. I want to let people know about my very first experience with a committee when I came to Parliament in 1997. It was the transportation committee. Discussions were going back and forth at the committee meeting and one Liberal member who was not necessarily agreeing with the Liberal side of things. That was pretty apparent, even for me who was new to the job. One day we were to vote on an issue. When I walked into the meeting, seven of the eight Liberal members were new. Imagine my surprise. That change lasted only long enough for the vote. Then they scurried out of there and the original ones came back in again.
I have been able to figure out different ways of doing things and manoeuvring to get some important issues on the table. It is important for people to know that the opposition, with this motion, is not suggesting that we want to overthrow the right of the government. That will not happen. We support a democratic approach and we want to see things improved in Parliament.
Greg Thompson Progressive Conservative New Brunswick Southwest, NB
Mr. Speaker, I listen with a lot of interest to the member for Churchill and agree totally. If I might be so bold as to suggest the answer to the question she threw out as to why the reluctance to agree to a secret ballot. I take the member from Mississauga seriously. She has been very brave in her own party on this issue. However it boils down to control by the Prime Minister. It is as simple as that. He is a control freak. I am not using that word disrespectfully. It is a word that is commonly used. However total control is what most prime ministers seek in Parliament, even the prime minister that I represented when I was on the government side.
What I see happening, and I may be off base on this and offend the members opposite, is that the Prime Minister resembles Richard Nixon in his dying days in office when his finger was on the red button willing to push it if he had to get some attention. The red button this Prime Minister has his finger on is his constitutional right to call an election. I am sure if he has used that threat over his own members on this very issue. Most of them would not want to talk about that. However this fact remains, and I am saying this as a Progressive Conservative.
The Prime Minister could call an election today and say “four more years”. With the leadership debates taking place, with the leadership runs in at least a couple of parties over here, and maybe more, and with a split vote in opposition across the country, knowing full well that he got elected with 40% of the vote the last time, he probably would form a government. His arch rival, the former finance minister, would be on the outside, which would therefore force every one of those people to support him on this when it came to a vote on the floor of the House.
I expect the government will win this and the secret ballot will be off the agenda. The Prime Minister in this case will get his way. He will bully his way through it with the idea that his finger is on the button. The button is a snap election call.
Bev Desjarlais NDP Churchill, MB
Mr. Speaker, I have to say that even I did not expect that the Prime Minister would resort to that on this issue. I am not going to try to question whether or not he would. That would really be the far side of things.
Bev Desjarlais NDP Churchill, MB
I have to admit it is cynical. Even I have not got to that point. Even after seeing the seven move in and out at the committee meeting, I still have not reached that point. I certainly have not had any indication of that.
As I said, what I would like to see is for this to be supported unanimously in the House, simply because it is beyond me that this should be such a huge issue. I do not see it as an infringement on the government's right to govern. Ultimately it would be best for Parliament. I hope that is the direction we take.
Dick Proctor NDP Palliser, SK
Mr. Speaker, in congratulating my colleague from Churchill, I wanted to advance an idea. Wrapped up in all of this debate about the election of the committee chairs is at the heart of it the democratic deficit which a lot of members have talked about this afternoon.
Frankly we make it far too easy for the media to cover politics in a very partisan fashion. There is the high angle shot which highlights, maybe even exaggerates, the neutral zone between the government side and the opposition side. Somehow the average Canadian thinks that is what goes on here: partisan shots across the bow during question period; who has the great retort and who is going to make the national news.
I would like my colleague's comment on this. I believe that if we had committees that were more open, more accountable and which did more different things, the media would be forced to cover those committees in a way that they are not being covered now. It just might help to give democracy a better name. Then more Canadians would say that it was more than just a bunch of people hurling insults back and forth at one another, acting like kids in kindergarten.
Would my colleague agree that a little more autonomy at committees would make it a whole lot more interesting for parliamentarians and for Canadians in general?
Bev Desjarlais NDP Churchill, MB
Mr. Speaker, there is no question about it. For whatever reason that it happens, there is no question that that portrayal is out there, the stuff that gets out of hand. Today we got a tremendous amount of media attention because we have been bantering with each other.
I know there is good work that happens at committee. A great rapport has built up among many of us within the House from all parties, governing and opposition aside. For that matter, I will throw in that even the odd time I agree with the Alliance at committee.
It would ultimately improve the whole process. The majority of members of Parliament genuinely care. They genuinely put their best foot forward and try to do what is best for the country. What happens is that the systems and processes we have in place work against people trying to do that job. They really do work against us.
We need to broaden the scope of what the committees can do. They need to be given that autonomy. Again it is not something that will ultimately infringe on the government's ability to govern. It will not do that. I would certainly agree that if the committees are given more autonomy, if more of that information gets out there, if the public sees them working together, it ultimately will be beneficial.
