Debates of Nov. 21st, 2002

Parliamentary Reform

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, the member has done a very good job in raising this in the House and he has to keep his campaign going.

On behalf of my constituents, televising committees and other processes for constituencies like mine, which is the farthest from this honourable House, is very helpful because there is a disconnect the farther we are away. Constituents cannot walk into the offices on a daily basis and feel connected to what is going on. Anything they can see through the televised system is a big help. It gives them a sense that this is their Parliament and their House. They can see what their members do and how they might have input.

One problem for my constituents and constituents of many of my colleagues across the way is the three hour time difference. This makes it even worse. They have even less access in normal time spans to some of the procedures.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am taking part in this debate today because I notice that members of this House who may not necessarily be part of government have a responsibility to strive toward greater balance between the legislative branch and the executive branch.

It is within that context that I would like to address my remarks. This issue of leverage or equilibrium between these two branches, and the judicial branch as well, is fundamental to our system of government. Our parliamentary government affords us an opportunity, here in this House, where the executive and legislative branches work alongside on a daily basis and each tries to get the upper hand.

A problem sometimes arises when there is an imbalance of power. It is fundamental to strive towards a balance. It is also realistic to say that it is only natural that there be some movement. There is movement in our lives, in society, as everyone knows; things are not static. So things change. An incident may bring about a change, a political will to do things differently for instance.

There may also be a desire to change direction. In the past 30, 40 or 50 years, there has been a tendency to concentrate more power in the hands of the executive branch than in those of the legislative branch. I think we have come to a point in our parliamentary history where the legislative branch is expressing, in various ways, the desire to try to come back toward a better balance.

The pendulum seems to be swinging back, in the sense that, for many years—30, 40 or 50 years—the trend has been toward concentrating the power in the hands of the executive branch, even at the expense of the legislative branch at times.

I feel there is a need to gradually correct this situation. It is not a good idea to rush to introduce changes that affect the well-being of everyone. I am not the first to say this. I recommend that members read the book by Professor Donald Savoie entitled Governing from the Centre , which is being quoted widely.

Nevertheless, we get the impression that, since the 1960s, there has been a move toward greater concentration in certain executive bodies and, consequently, greater concentration of power in the hands of the executive branch as compared to the legislative branch. Our experts, Messrs. Marleau and Montpetit, who produced a very important procedure manual, also trace this evolution over the decades.

In this context we find certain tools of great importance to the legislative component. The first of these, in my opinion, at least the one I have been involved with throughout my many years here, is the committee, whether a standing committee of the House or a special committee. The committee structure itself is, in my opinion, the ideal tool for restoring some of the influence, some of the authority, some of the power, to the legislative branch.

In this connection, I trust that the Special Committee on the Modernization and Improvement of the Procedures of the House of Commons, along with others, whether within individual caucuses or all-party groups with an interest in this question, will take certain matters into consideration.

Where committees are concerned, for example, did members of each party have an opportunity to speak about the number of committees in place? Their number can be problematic; we are called upon to sit on so many committees that, in some ways, we feel we are no longer effective. Might certain committees be consolidated? Might others be created? Is there room for any more?

Society evolves and I had to go through this. In fact, it was the former Leader of the Opposition who suggested a standing committee on science and technology. Unfortunately, such a committee could not be created and it was attached to the Standing Committee on Industry, which is already a busy committee. While we cannot doubt the goodwill of committee members, we may question the committee's ability to do all this work.

Perhaps we should also look at the number of members who make up a committee. There seems to be a standard formula. It is understandable that some committees may generate more interest than others. It seems that there is always a great deal of interest for the finance committee or for the foreign affairs committee. Perhaps we could have more members on some committees and fewer on other ones. I realize that all the parties want to be represented and this poses a problem, but I think we should look at this.

I am also thinking about the staff of the committees. Why is it that the clerks of certain committees are replaced on a regular basis? During a session, some committees will have two or three different clerks, while other ones will keep the same clerk not only for the whole session, but for the whole Parliament. There seems to be something wrong here, depending on the committee.

The same is true for budgets, the resources available to all of the committees. I had the opportunity to sit on the liaison committee and I saw that the resources allocated to the committees are not sufficient, first, but also that they are not allocated fairly. So there is also this whole issue that should be considered.

There is also the issue of reports, which has been raised by other members. Incidentally, I will have to reread Hansard for yesterday—I read it quickly—and for today, in order to ensure that I fully understand all of the comments made by those who have taken the floor.

As for reports, I have a recent example in mind. The Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages issued a report on the situation at Air Canada and the company's lack of compliance with the Official Languages Act. I must say that I was very disappointed by the government's response. First, it took a long time. Yes, it was within the 150 days, which may be too long, but it was a flat refusal. We have here a situation in which a company that has responsibilities under the Official Languages Act continues to shirk them, and the government refuses to put any pressure on it. Perhaps we need a better mechanism to follow up on committee reports.

There is also the whole issue of parliamentary secretaries. Should they be members of committees or not? There are arguments for and against the idea. They could certainly attend, without any right to vote. This might be the best solution for everyone.

Finally, we need to affirm ourselves. Are members who sit on committees, and those who chair them really aware of all of the powers of authority committees have? I doubt it. I am not fully aware of them myself; I have discovered some of them, and exercised them and it was wonderful. Twice, witnesses did not wish to testify, and we summoned them to appear using the authority given to committees by the House.

Members of committees could learn more about the powers they already have and do not use. I think it would be useful for the modernization committee or some other committee to look into this, to really focus on the role of committees, but also the tools available to them to improve their effectiveness and their authority.

I also have a few quick comments to make on oral question period. I have always been fascinated by this question period where we give 35 seconds to someone to ask a question, then 35 seconds to another to answer it. The subjects being dealt with are often incredibly complex, and sometimes quite broad.

When there was an exchange between the Prime Minister and the four opposition leaders on our participation as a country in the effort in Bosnia, the rules were suspended for a while. For three quarters of an hour, perhaps an hour, the party leaders were able to ask questions. These were well thought out questions; they had had the time to prepare them and the Prime Minister had the time to respond. The 35-second rule was set aside.

I must admit that this was one of the best exchanges that has ever taken place in this House, and I would like to see more like it.

The matter of the Board of Internal Economy is another thing that bothers me. It is the board that administers the House of Commons, the members. All the members from the government side are appointed by the executive branch. The five representatives from this side of the floor are appointed by the executive branch, not the legislative branch, not the MPs. It might be worthwhile looking into that and having the representatives chosen by the elected members of this House. The only one who is selected by everyone is the Speaker, who is elected at the start of each Parliament.

I do not know anything about the agendas or the outcomes of decisions reached there. I do not believe I can even attend the meetings, whereas any other committee meetings, even in camera ones, are accessible to all MPs. I question the barriers built up around the Board of Internal Economy.

Finally, where private members' business is concerned, progress has been made, and I acknowledge that, but there is still one thing that needs changing, in my opinion. We must not have to depend on the luck of the draw to bring a bill or motion before the Parliament of Canada. This is still the case, and I think it needs reviewing. We must ensure, one way or another, that each member of Parliament can present his or her motion or bill, and there must be some kind of mechanism to ensure that these are examined publicly.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to what my colleague had to say. I have heard his proposal for a standing committee on science and technology before, and I certainly would encourage anything within the system, a committee being one example, that would focus the extraordinary resources which the federal government already has in the area of science and technology, including financial resources, physical resources in terms of laboratories, and human resources in terms of scientists. Anything that could focus it I would certainly support.

I want to ask the hon. member about committees. He is right. That is where there should be some changes if this is to empower members of Parliament. I would like to ask him about a technical thing which I believe restricts the influence of our committees.

Mr. Speaker, as you and the hon. member know, on each standing committee there are typically 16 or 18 members with an appropriate distribution from the parties. There has to be a quorum of a certain number for regular events, to pass motions and so on, and they have a much smaller quorum for hearing witnesses and taking evidence and that kind of thing.

It is my thought that if committees are allowed to travel, it automatically empowers the members. It seems to me that when members go to Nunavut or Quebec or somewhere else to hear evidence they hear people speaking on their own ground and the members come back to this place empowered as a result.

There are at least two problems with regard to this. They are technical problems. It is possible now to have a quorum to hear witnesses, so it is not always necessary for 16 or 18 people to travel. There is a problem, however, that is, the committees are supposed to represent all parties in the House. Two of our parties have only 12 or 13 members and as a result it is a great burden on them if one of them has to leave for a few days to conduct hearings.

A committee may decide to travel and visit certain parts of the country to study whatever it is studying, but the motion requesting permission to travel comes to the House and requires unanimous consent. It almost never gets it. This is not, by the way, refusal from the government side, but often from the opposition side, and as I have said, I understand that problem.

Can the hon. member think of any way that we can develop enough confidence in the House that committees can designate five or six members who can travel and then a mechanism whereby we could get permission for them to travel in a relatively easy way?

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we are certainly capable of doing that if we have the budgets to do it with. As it is now, a committee first has to get permission to travel from everyone in the House. I think a committee should have the ability within itself in a majority way to decide if it is going to travel or not, and second, it should have the budget and it should live within that budget.

This is not something new. Most committees have the ability to travel. The finance committee does it on a regular basis every fall in its prebudget hearings. We have had the fisheries and oceans committee do extensive travel, and the transport committee as well. This is nothing new and by and large it is a very useful exercise. Also it is less costly than when the executive does it. I have seen budgets for when departments carried out the same kind of exercise throughout the country. They were much more costly and involved than when committees of the House did it.

I do not have a problem with it if the responsibility for and the decision to travel rest with the committee, within the confines of the House sittings and so forth. There has to be respect for quorum calls and for the ability of the government to pass its legislation and so forth. Everyone understands that and it is why we have so-called off weeks. Maybe we could deal with the scheduling. I think that the authority could easily rest within the committees as long as they have some control over their budgets.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on the issue of modernization in this place.

I honestly believe that we need to have a long hard look at the excessive use of time allocation and closure and bring back meaningful debate. Quite likely very soon, the House will be asked to debate the Kyoto protocol, arguably the most important issue to hit this session. While I would never anticipate a decision of the House, I will anticipate the Prime Minister and his House leader. Even though the government has absolutely no agenda it will resort to closing off debate on Kyoto because it is concerned that if enough Canadians become aware of the impact, the government will be in hot water.

If one is on the right side of an issue and debates it sufficiently enough, one will win, and the Liberals know that they are on the wrong side of the Kyoto issue so they will respond by stifling debate. They used the same tactic when they raised the CPP premiums by 70%. The figured that if Canadians were upset about a 7% GST, they would not have much appreciation for a 70% CPP hike, so they rammed the bill through using closure at every turn.

The naval aid bill of 1913 marked the first time in Canadian parliamentary history that closure was used. When it was used to shut down the pipeline debate in 1956, a respected academic, C.E.S. Franks, dubbed the incident the most important in Parliament's history. He argued that the pipeline debate had “inaugurated the modern parliamentary age of both obstruction and reform”.

If 1956 marks the inauguration of the modern parliamentary age of obstruction, then I submit that 2002 marks the age when the right of the opposition to filibuster died. The opposition no longer has the tools to obstruct. Normally, as soon as the government gets a whiff of a filibuster or anticipates controversy, it closes off debate and advances the bill through the system before the public gets wise to its contents. On the second day of debate on the CPP bill, the government invoked time allocation. The remaining stages of that bill met the same fate. The public felt the impact of Bill C-2 long before it ever heard there was a bill before Parliament.

It is important to note that the finance minister at the time was the member for LaSalle—Émard, the member who now cries crocodile tears about democratic deficit.

Time allocation and closure are supposed to be about managing time. The government uses time allocation to manage controversy. When it introduces a controversial bill, it invokes time allocation almost immediately, slipping the bill through Parliament before the opposition has time to solicit public support for its point of view.

Filibusters are a part of our history and play an important role, since they raise the profile of an issue so that the public can learn and respond. Sadly, that tradition has been lost because this government and its predecessor have taken just about every filibuster tool away from the opposition.

The last time the opposition waged a successful filibuster was with the Nisga'a bill. Unlike debate, the government could not curtail voting, so the Reform Party introduced hundreds of motions, causing the House to vote around the clock for 42 hours. It was that unusual event that made news as far away as the United Kingdom. It was a successful filibuster tactic in that it raised the profile of an issue.

How did the government respond? The first order of business in this Parliament was to remove that tactic. The current government House leader shuts down debate at every turn, often leaving the House with nothing to debate. Since this session began we have had an unprecedented number of take note debates. We have taken note more often than we have taken action. There is no legislation, so we take note and navel gaze for days at a time when Canadians are faced with serious issues that demand action.

The reason we are taking note today is not that we do not know what to do or that we need to convince ourselves that reform is needed. It is that the government has nothing else to do and would rather take note than take action.

It has become so bad that sometimes government members have had to filibuster their own bills in order to give the appearance that the House has something to do. Under the current House leader's reign, the House has had to be adjourned early every Friday and sometimes on Thursdays. Just last Monday, we shut down more than one hour early.

It might come as a surprise to some, but the Canadian Alliance is not entirely opposed to the use of time allocation and closure. With a few changes, these procedures can be used legitimately and effectively. I would like to read into the record the Alliance's policy on closure and time allocation from Building Trust II, our document on the issue:

First, we recommend amending the rules to provide the Speaker with greater discretionary authority. The Speaker should only allow a time allocation motion to be put forward if he is satisfied that the motion does not infringe on the rights of the minority.

Second, we believe that a change in attitude is required. An Alliance government would respect the parliamentary tradition of the balance between the right of an opposition to solicit public support through debate and reasonable delaying tactics and the right of a government to eventually have its legislation come to a vote.

The final point would be to provide more legitimacy to the legislative process, including the process for allotting time, by allowing free votes.

The excessive use of time allocation is symptomatic of a larger problem. The government has little time for parliamentary process because it arrogantly believes that its own internal process is sufficient.

While we can appreciate that much work goes into the creation of legislation, Parliament is where the views of the public are brought to bear on the process. The current process is unacceptable. Once a bill is introduced in Parliament, or leaked to the media in advance, another extremely thorny subject but best left for another day, once introduced, the public and the media accept that it will become law. The parliamentary process is often seen as little more than a delay. What takes place on the floor of the House is nothing more than a time game. Debate is not intended to convince anyone of anything but is used to fill time. That is the perception of the public.

The government is interested in only one thing. The question it asks of the opposition is not how it feels about a particular bill, or how it feels it might be improved, or why the opposition's constituents have a problem with it. No, the only question on the mind of the government is how much time the opposition is going to spend on it.

The government House leader takes all this information from the opposition parties regarding time and decides if it fits into his timetable. What is said or done on the floor of the House and in committee is rarely considered. The concern is not what is being said, but how long it takes to say it. This is the only leverage the opposition parties have, so they use it. An opposition that messes up the government's agenda occasionally succeeds in getting change. The result is that speaking and listening become irrelevant, while disruption and delay occasionally achieve change.

We should consider giving more value to debate, rather than time, by allowing free votes. Free votes would go a long way toward altering this dysfunctional relationship between the legislative and executive branches of government. With free votes, the government would have to listen to debate. It would have to negotiate and be willing to compromise. With this process, legislation could be improved.

Because of the use of closure, members have resorted to other means to legitimately raise the profile of an issue. These other means are no substitute for legitimate debate, but in the absence of such, members are left with little choice. The most obvious recent example is the Nisga'a voting marathon in the last parliament. I am sure that Canadians would much rather listen to reasoned debate than to the ringing of bells or to members' names being called for 42 hours straight.

[Jason Kenney, Canadian Alliance, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend my hon. colleague for what are characteristically thoughtful remarks on this subject.

I would like to ask the member a question. First, I share his frustration with the strange allocation of time and debates in this place. I have never quite understood why it is that for some bills on which I have wanted to enter into debate I have been unable to do so because of time allocation and closure, yet we find ourselves now, and very frequently, with no legislation before the House. Why is it that some members are prohibited from speaking on critically important pieces of legislation but then time is burned in this place?

It is funny that whenever there is time allocation to which the opposition objects, the government House leader gets into a frenzy about the costs of operating the House and says we cannot permit the House to debate extensively because of the cost. That does not seem to be a factor on days like this.

My question for the member is in regard to his observations regarding take note debates and their increasing frequency. Is the member aware that in the Westminster parliament there is a convention whereby the senior member of the executive responsible for a particular issue will actually sit in the chamber as a matter of strict convention and monitor a take note debate, so that somebody literally is taking notes, somebody with executive authority and responsibility? Would the member care to reflect on whether that is the practice in this place and whether he sees, now or at other times, senior members of the executive responsible for the matters of concern taking note of what the legislature has to say?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. I know it is not appropriate to comment on the presence of members in the House so I will not do that.

I accept the concerns of my colleague on this because, for myself, participating in these take note debates completely intrudes on my time. I know I could be doing something more constructive. With the way things have been going in the last little while my constituents are asking what members are doing because they do not see any legislation. When I tell them we are doing these take note debates, they ask me: What are those? If nobody is taking notes, what comes from them?

There are times when I honestly have not been in the House myself to take notes. I am sitting back at my apartment while the debate is going on so I am trying to take notes by watching it on TV. However, from the perspective of what these take note debates are supposed to be about, we would hope that when we are dealing with some of the issues that have come up on these take note debates that the senior government members are taking notes and paying some attention to what members are saying.

That goes to the thrust of what I was trying to say. How much of this is valued comment and does the government sit and listen occasionally when we are talking about what we consider to be substantive issues? I do not believe the government cares. The government is just filling time, as we can see by the House adjourning early on numerous occasions lately, and the total lack of substantive legislation before us at this time.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed to hear the member's comments. I understand the role of the opposition is to criticize, but I am disappointed when members condemn out of hand normal procedures and practices in this place, particularly when the member asks who is taking notes.

The purpose of this debate is to make it public. It is on the electronic and written record. That is why we engage in discussions of this type. He may feel that we should have a vote at the end of this or something of that type. However, I would be disappointed if he simply felt that this is a waste of time. My colleague mentioned another Parliament. I do not know of any other Parliament where there is a free and open discussion of this type. I realize the limitations.

I hope the hon. member is not condemning out of hand everything that goes on in this place, which is likely the most open Parliament in the world with all its limitations.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would not condemn out of hand absolutely everything that goes on in this place. What I would condemn is the fact that the government does not seem to care what goes on in this place because it never seems to take any of the views of the opposition seriously.

There may be some arguments and political differences, absolutely. Some people may consider that some things are frivolous. That is fair enough. The problem is we never see any reaction by the government to actually take what people have to say seriously and incorporate it into its legislation.

Certainly, I take this place seriously. I would not come here if I did not take it seriously, but what I do take seriously is my committee work because I feel that is where a lot of the work is done. Unfortunately, the public is not that terribly aware of it. What the public sees is what goes on here. People are getting a little incensed at what has been going on here for the last couple of weeks because they see nothing productive coming out of this place.

[Diane Ablonczy, Canadian Alliance, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, today we are debating the so-called modernization of Parliament. What we really should be talking about is the re-democratization of Parliament. This place has become undemocratic in so many respects that I could talk all day about examples that I personally have experienced in the last nine years in which I have been a member of this place.

I wish to cite some examples that happened today. We had two points of order brought to the chair. One was from a committee where a committee member had something to say on an important issue before the committee and was summarily cut off by the chair. It was like “you are not going to get to talk about this, sorry, you lose”.

Since when are members barred from engaging in the kind of discussion which is the point of committee work? Yet that happened. Members complained and the response was that if they did not like it they should have asked for the ruling of the chair to be challenged. Then what would happen? The Liberal majority on the committee would simply uphold the chair. Opposition members are sitting ducks.

I have sat in committee where the gavel comes down, the meeting is adjourned before it is time because the minister is there and getting in hot water. I have sat in committee where the most basic rules of fairness and democracy are torn to shreds and the response is that the committee can do whatever it wants.

We all know, from personal experience in the House, that the rules of democracy and fairness are not followed in committee a lot of the time, particularly when the government is getting into trouble and decides it is going to railroad the process to get its own way. That is not democracy.

What we have in our country, and let us be honest about this because there is no point in not being honest and we are not going to get anywhere if we are not honest, is an elected dictatorship. We have a Prime Minister, it does not matter who that person is, who practically runs the country single handedly. We have a Prime Minister who appoints all the members of cabinet and parliamentary secretaries. Increasingly the Prime Minister decides who gets to run in a particular riding to be the candidate for the party.

The Prime Minister appoints all of the justices of the Supreme Court, the Federal Court, and any other federal court appointments. The Prime Minister decides who gets to be the head of a crown corporation. The Prime Minister decides who gets to sit in the Senate. The Prime Minister runs the country with such immense power that it is becoming increasingly undemocratic.

That is the problem. That is the real nub of this whole thing. Many members on both sides of the House from all parties want to see this place re-democratized. It will not happen because there is a lack of will in this chamber to make it happen.

In opposition there is much beating of breasts about re-democratizing the system. Before the Liberals were elected in 1993, when they were in opposition, they put forward in the red book a good plan for re-democratizing this place. As a candidate at that time I agreed and supported that plan. The plan disappeared as soon as the Liberal Party was elected. Since that time more power has been arrogated to the Prime Minister's hands. Any re-democratization has been a figment of imagination.

In order to re-democratize this place two things would make that happen. First, we must have a Prime Minister who would be willing to give up power. To ask someone to give up power is a pretty chancy proposition. If we want to have a real change in this place we must have the cooperation from a prime minister who holds so much power in his or her hands.

Second, we must have government members who are willing to support in real substantial ways the re-democratization of this place. That is just not happening. Why is that not happening? We go full circle because government members want to benefit from the power that is held in the hands of the Prime Minister.

Government members want the appointments to cabinet. They want the appointments as parliamentary secretaries and chairs of committees. They want to ensure that their nomination papers get signed so that they can continue to be members of this place. They do not want to be on the outs with the Prime Minister who has their future, their political opportunities, in his hands. So they simply kowtow and bow to whatever they have to do to ingratiate themselves with that all powerful Prime Minister.

We see the incredible spectacle of members of Parliament on the government side bringing arguments forward in committee and in the House that no intelligent, rational person could ever credit as being proper arguments. They twist and mangle facts. There is a devious interpretation of things. We see it day after day.

I could bring up examples that happened today in debate but I do not want to embarrass anyone. It is not my intention to do that. We must face facts here and the fact is we have members who twist themselves in knots to follow the agenda that is put forward by their political masters in the PMO. That is exactly what is happening.

We have good suggestions for parliamentary democratization, not just from the opposition. We put forward our “Building Trust” document, which people can find on our website. Those are good issues. The PC Party brought forward a good parliamentary redemocratization document. I agree with most of what is in there. The Liberals have brought forward those proposals but they never go anywhere. Why do they not go anywhere? There is no collective will on the side of the House that has more votes than the opposition side to make it happen.

We can blow all the hot air we want to. We can talk until the cows come home about all the things we would like to see happen, but until members on the government side of the House are willing to stand up and stand firm, and be counted when it comes to redemocratization of this place, the rights and privileges of all members and the democratic conventions of the House will continue to be eroded. It does not matter what we say or want. It does not even matter what government members say they want because they are not willing to vote for those things.

In only one instance did that happen this month and that was because there was a political personality clash on the other side. It was not about principle so much as about factionalism on the Liberal side. Thank goodness there was some movement, which government members supported to the extent that we got it through, to allow us to elect committee chairs by secret ballot. It was a big breakthrough. That was the only one in nine years I have seen. That was because there was factionalism on the Liberal side, not because of a matter of principle.

If it were a matter of principle there would have been more reforms coming through. If it were a matter of principle Liberals on committees would never allow the kind of abuse of the democratic process or the rights of members that happens almost every week in this place, if not every week. That is the problem we have.

We are talking about parliamentary modernization, which is a total misnomer. It should be about restoring a reasonable level of democracy. I am not suggesting that the opposition should be able to run everything. I hope to be in government myself and I would not want the opposition to be able to filibuster, obstruct and completely hold up the business of government. That would be ridiculous. No one would support that. I do not support that in opposition. I am talking about a reasonable level of democracy where democratic rights of process and procedure are not steamrollered every day of the week in this place without a peep being raised by the majority, which has the power to change it.

The government has nothing on its agenda so it will throw out something for us to talk about to fill in the time. A little while ago it was health and everyone talked about health. The government said that it would let us talk about that awhile. Then it said that we would talk about parliamentary “modernization” because it was a hot issue.

It will not change unless the Prime Minister decides it will change or unless enough members in the House decide they will put the principle of democratization ahead of their own personal partisan political future and advantage. That is the truth of the matter. We need to get serious about it if we are ever to address this problem in a meaningful way.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Before proceeding to questions and comments, it is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Davenport, Fisheries; the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst, Employment Insurance.

[John O'Reilly, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I am always interested in what the member for Calgary—Nose Hill has to say. She has a very interesting perspective and dissertation.

She indicated that she was in favour of the plan. I did not quite understand how she agreed with the Liberal plan but ran against it. She wants the opposition to appoint the cabinet. That would then mean that the government side would appoint the critics. I am not too sure how far this goes; I am trying to get this straight in my head.

Democracy is based on a majority rule. The government in power has an obligation to govern and the opposition is paid to oppose and is supposed to offer alternatives.

What are the positive rules she would ask to have changed to modernize the way Parliament operates? I would be interested in her views on that.

[Diane Ablonczy, Canadian Alliance, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member ought to be well acquainted with the things we want to do to re-democratize this place because we have published them, we have put them forward and we have tabled them in our Building Trust documents. They are many and varied.

This is another example of the extreme disingenuous response of government members to rational debate and thoughtful comment. The member said that I agreed with their reforms but that I am against them. That is not so. I said that I supported them. I also said that the Liberals were against them because they never voted for them once they were in a position to put them into place.

He said that the opposition wanted to appoint the cabinet. Never once did I say that and he knows that I did not say it. He knows it would be complete and utter foolishness to suppose that the opposition should appoint the cabinet.

I would expect him to fight for his caucus to have some say on who sits in the front benches, but I doubt if he would even fight for that.

Instead of responding in a thoughtful way to what I said, he twisted and mangled it to misrepresent the points I made. That is not what we call debate, and yet that is what is happens continually on that side of the House. Why? Because the Liberals do not really want to grapple with the issues. They simply want to throw enough mud at the issue so no one knows what anyone really is talking about and we really cannot reach a reasonable consensus.

[David Anderson, Canadian Alliance, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, for the last while in the House we have watched the government avoid its legislative responsibilities. We have found today and yesterday that it is trying to use up time with the health debate and parliamentary reform debate. However I want to talk a little about what we are not doing.

We heard today from the Industry Canada study that the effects of Kyoto will be very severe in a lot of different industries. In the coal industry, investment may be down 48% and employment may be down 21%. In the crude petroleum industry, investment may be down 33% and employment may be down 14% if Kyoto is ratified. In the refined petroleum sector, investment may be down over 50% and employment may be down 27%. I have been involved with agriculture. We have heard about the fact that input costs could go up 30% and net income could drop 25% to 40% because of the implementation of Kyoto.

I find it interesting that, while we have spent a lot of time over the last week talking about some of these things that are important, when it comes to what I would call an issue that is essential for the future of Canada, the government seems to have indicated that it will give us hardly any time at all to debate this issue.

Would the member be willing to give us her wisdom on the aspect that on one hand we seem to be filling in days and on the other hand, when we come to these important issues, it seems like the government wants to rush them through and not give people the chance to debate them cleanly and clearly?

[Diane Ablonczy, Canadian Alliance, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, time to debate is important. I certainly concur with my colleague in that. I would suggest that in addition to time to debate and study issues, it should be meaningful. Simply giving people time to get their thoughts off their minds does not help anything, unless we are willing to thoughtfully consider the perspectives that are brought forward and by trying to reach some consensus on behalf of Canadians. That is exactly what does not happen.

I raised a point of order in the House this afternoon because I received an e-mail of high importance at my office last night at 4:56 about an important briefing that was going to happen at 8:30 this morning on Kyoto. What was the response from the other side? I am sure everyone is fascinated to hear this. The response was that they tried to give us the information as fast as they could. If we get something in the middle of the night and we pass it on in a briefing an hour later, have we discharged our duty to inform members of Parliament? Of course not. That is ridiculous. That is the kind of ridiculous argument we hear from the other side.

It is not just that we have time to debate Kyoto and other important issues, such as the issue we are discussing today, but it has to mean something. It will not mean something unless members on the other side work and mean business about bringing forward a consensus of members of the House, respecting the perspectives of other people, taking them into account and going with some of the recommendations that are made.

The committee made 76 recommendations on the regulations for the Immigration Act. After all the hours of study, how many of them were accepted by the government? I was not on the committee at the time, but this is what happened. Out of all the recommendations, only one-third were accepted. Why are we wasting our time in debate if it is not taken seriously and if it does not have the kind of impact that it needs to have?

Again, there has to be a seriousness in coming together to discuss issues in a way that will address them on behalf of Canadians rather than simply serving the interests of the governing party.

[Aileen Carroll, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I can assure the member opposite that I take very seriously the opportunity to engage in this debate. What I only regret is that, with the pace all of us work, sometimes we do not have the time to gather all our thoughts of a number of years and present them in the House. I take the task very seriously and I consider this opportunity a privilege.

One concern I have, which leads me to conclude that parliamentary reform is very important, is the serious decline in voter turnout. During the last election we saw approximately 60% of Canadians exercise their franchise. Even worse, a lower percentage of young people are exercising their franchise. It is my belief and contention that the reason they have declined to do so is that they have stopped believing they influence the governance of their country. They do not consider that who they select and send to Ottawa will be able to give input to the process and therefore convey their convictions about public policy. That in and of itself should trigger a need to look at parliamentary reform.

After five years as a member of Parliament, I too have experienced the frustration of attempting to give input and influence that said development of public policy. From a personal level, that motivates me to join my colleagues on both sides of the House in the discussion and debate that we now have before us.

It is not an easy task. Some very renowned Canadian academics have articulated the need for parliamentary reform and proposed a methodology. In the process they have provided excellent insight into this complex and formidable task.

It cannot be done in a haphazard or incremental manner. However lodged we may be now in what appears to be an increasing, perhaps outmoded format, the process of change must be balanced. It must be interwoven. If we move too quickly in one direction, we risk altering the entire system in a way that will have an adverse effect on the desired outcome, the desired outcome being the modernization of our parliamentary process.

What do I think is key in what needs to be done? It is the need to enhance committees. It is in committees that we as MPs do our best work and work that is often disregarded.

To enhance committees, we need to see the referral of legislation after first reading. Some ministers have on occasion, if not commonly, done so in draft form. Then MPs and Canadians can develop legislation. If we wait until after second reading, the legislation has already been passed by a majority in the House in principle. Going to committee after first reading allows an engagement process. This is somewhat denied if we go there later on.

The engagement of citizens is an important factor in allowing them to understand the government agenda and to convey their public interest. These are the two ingredients of the development of good laws and public policy.

The strength of a committee is its openness in hearing from citizens and their organizations. Only when we enhance committees will we be able to find a commonly articulated level that will allow Canadians to represent a diverse country. It is not easy to find a public policy that fits all parts of this great country.

To develop that commonalty, we need openness and we need the ability to allow witnesses to truly have input. While it exists now insofar as bringing witnesses to Ottawa or taking our committees to the citizens, I do not think what they say, what we hear and what we propose is adequately incorporated into the final product.

In addition to the committee changes, I would suggest changes in the methods here in the House of Commons, because debate on the floor of the House of Commons, in my view, rarely plays such a role as committees could in the enhancement of the format.

Regarding committee membership and chairs, we certainly have had considerable discussion in recent times, as to whether or not the chair should be voted on by the members and indeed whether or not that vote should take place in secrecy. I would suggest that this too is an area in which we have to move in a measured way. That is to say, it is more important to first enhance the role of our committees than to decide whether or not we should elect a chair. While I think the latter is worthwhile, I am not at all convinced that a secret ballot is necessary. Again, at the outset a secret ballot may allow members a freedom they feel they do not now enjoy, I would certainly hope that we would evolve away from choosing secrecy as we have enhanced our committees and we see parliamentary reform in total as a move forward in the direction many of us want to see it going.

Mostly what needs to be considered is that the role of the House of Commons is twofold. First, the House of Commons controls the public purse. Second, the role of the House of Commons is to hold the government accountable. Over many years the executive branch has taken off while the House of Commons has stood still. House of Commons control over the executive is virtually limited to the draconian measure of a vote of non-confidence. The Canadian executive branch therefore wields near total power in Parliament. The Prime Minister and the cabinet make most policy decisions and in fact within the Canadian system the Prime Minister is indeed far more than primus inter pares, first among equals.

What changes can be brought about to shift power back to Parliament, bringing about a far better balanced relationship between the legislature and the executive? One proposal that I think has considerable merit is the Westminster system's concept or usage of a three-line vote. It has been proposed in a talk given by the hon. member for LaSalle—Émard in another venue, but I think it is very worthwhile for this new committee on modernization to consider. The three-line vote consists of the following: a one-line vote would not be a confidence measure and members of Parliament would be free to vote as they chose; a two-line vote would include a strong policy recommendation to government members, but would still not be considered a matter of confidence; and three-line votes would be restricted to key matters such as the budget, with MPs indeed being expected to vote on party lines as it would be considered an issue of confidence in the government.

Finally, although there are many other priority items, the all important matter of control over the public purse is one of the greatest and most important powers of the House of Commons. The budget process, however, such as it is, I think is chiefly meaningless. The majority of MPs are totally confused by the estimates, part I, part II, and part III, and it is easy to get caught up in performance indicators. Instead, we need a process that is far more accessible and far more user friendly, and done not by the government but by the House of Commons. A well considered proposal, brought forward by an academic as well, recommends that the House of Commons pick two or three departments annually and do a precise and indepth review instead of endeavouring to review all departments every year. In my view, this proposal bears considerable merit and should be considered by the committee as it looks at the report we are sending to it.

The Special Committee on the Modernization and Improvement of the Procedures of the House of Commons has to be enhanced right from the beginning, because it is undertaking the task that we are all attempting to give input to today, as we tried to yesterday. So in my view the committee must be free to listen to Canadians in a manner that not many committees have attempted to do. If this process of modernization and reform of Parliament is not an open, public, consultative one, it is doomed to failure. It is an oxymoron. This committee, as constructed, must make itself very available to Canadians, to the young people who do not bother to vote, to the interest groups that feel they have tried to give input, unsuccessfully, to public policy development, and to the members of Parliament who think that they too could do a better job.

I commend the members of the committee to their task. While I recommend this openness and this consultative approach, I believe too that it must have a time line. It cannot be open ended. All of us are coming to a sense that changes, real changes, must be made, but they must be made in the balanced way that I believe I and other colleagues have recommended.

I have said elsewhere that when I was elected to come to Parliament and my colleagues were elected to come here and represent their constituents, we were chosen partly because of the parties we represent and partly because of many determinants. But I am of the firm belief that I was chosen to bring to the process my judgment, my critical analysis and my particular life skills. I do not feel that with the system as it now exists I am able to do that, to use them to their fullest. Indeed, at the end of three or four years we will be judged on whether we did or did not do that and that is the essence of the democracy we are discussing today.

In order to do what we have been tasked to do, we need to enhance our role in committees, we have to enhance the committees themselves, and we need to enhance this place where it is a privilege to stand and speak.

There have been other suggestions. One that has been brought forward and that we need to think about and debate, and which has been mentioned in other venues, is whether or not appointments to the Supreme Court should be reviewed by a legislative committee. From my perspective, they should not. I have a very firm belief in the separation of three powers: the judiciary, the executive and the legislature. I think we would risk slipping into the circus of our neighbours to the south when it comes to the kind of appointments to the American supreme court we have watched in the past, if we think we can bring that in and slide the appointment process across into the legislature. At the current time, it is the prerogative of the Prime Minister. Perhaps we should consider whether that prerogative should be more broadly expanded to include cabinet.

These are the kinds of issues that I think we all have the brains and talents to discuss well.

Finally, I too, as do many of my colleagues, strongly support an ethics counsellor responsible to Parliament, just one person in one office, overseeing the House, the senate and the cabinet.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed the very thoughtful intervention of one of my favourite colleagues. I always use her as an example when people ask me for an example of integrity in thought and deed. I think my colleague is wonderful.

Because my colleague expressed so much interest in committees, I want to ask about how the structure of a committee meeting can affect the atmosphere. I want to follow up on the thought I was pursuing earlier this afternoon with respect to the relationship between the shape of the two houses in the United States and the shape of the two houses in Canada.

In committee, as we know, for every meeting we line up like troops of opposing armies, one on each side of the committee room. Of course we start on the very first day with a structural confrontational atmosphere, which is not always the attitude.

Would there not be times when it would make sense for us to sit anywhere in that circle? People could sit in any seat, which would be symbolic of facing a common problem together, of looking forward to solving that problem on behalf of Canadians as one group instead of being in a confrontational structure. In fact, we have already made some advances in that respect in the House, because as members know we have the set-up of the committee of the whole, in which people can sit anywhere. I think that leads to a very collegial and very productive debate when we are all trying to come to a solution on a particular problem.

[Aileen Carroll, Liberal, Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his kind comments and I am also grateful for the insights that he shared earlier today. I did not hear all of them, but I think he has given a good précis for me to respond to.

Once we build in an enhanced role for our committees, and once we send to committees legislation after first reading or in draft form, so that what we hear from our witnesses, the reports we study and the homework we do, which is very important to the task we have, once we have that ability to get in on the ground level, that in and of itself will diminish some of the partisanship. It will not be an easy task.

The other discussion that needs to ensue, and I did not engage it tonight because we are all trying to get in our timelines, is how committee members should be selected. Some have proposed that instead of the government House leaders it should in fact be the caucuses that should interview and talk to the members and find out what special interests and expertise people have. They would be the people to do it. I have not thought enough about that.

In many ways what we are doing here is bringing forth ideas that we hope this committee will seize upon, while admitting that we have not thought everything through. It is a very serious process and nothing should be changed until it has been thought through. Once those kinds of changes have come to the committee format, then the dynamics the hon. member has described will alter in the direction for which he is hoping.

[David Anderson, Canadian Alliance, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of her speech the member opposite talked about the importance of the voters selecting good MPs and making sure they have good representatives here.

I am just wondering if she would agree with me, then, that her party's policy, used in so many places and times, of appointing candidates rather than letting the constituents choose their candidate for her party, undermines her credibility and her party's credibility when they claim to be interested in allowing parliamentary reform and in allowing voters more participation in the process.

[Aileen Carroll, Liberal, Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. First, I would say that in my experience appointments have been the exception rather than the rule. I understand why they were made in some cases, when there was an attempt on the part of the Prime Minister or other prime ministers to create a balance in gender or in cultural groups that have come to Canada so that the House reflects our diversity. I can see the motivation. I think that most likely, to be frank, it should be used as a last resort, because if we step back further from the House into the nomination process that is a very important part of what we are trying to accomplish. I would say that in my experience it has been the exception rather than the rule.

[David Anderson, Canadian Alliance, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am interested in knowing if the hon. member thinks it is more important that the Prime Minister appoints those members to create those balances, as she calls them, rather than letting the voters in the constituencies make the choice of the candidate they would like to have represent them in the House of Commons.

[Aileen Carroll, Liberal, Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the people have the opportunity to vote for whomever they want to at the time of the election. What we are discussing here is how a person is chosen to represent the party. Having been involved in one of those contests, as I am sure my hon. opponent has, I probably found it a tougher job and I worked harder, spoke to more people and put myself forward in more venues than I did even when I ran in the election. Largely I am comfortable with that. I am being frank, and I can say that I have always had some difficulties with affirmative action. I see the upside and yet I am concerned about the downside. I think that is factoring into this from the hon. member's perspective. I do not think I have anything more to share on that.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member said earlier that we had to elect good people because they come here to give thoughtful consideration to legislation and debate.

Does the hon. member have any suggestions on reform related to the huge demands on time? There are so many responsibilities in committee, in responses to e-mails and letters and in the vast volumes of legislation and amendments. How can more considered and detailed thoughtfulness be given to a particular piece of serious legislation when in the present system there are all these competing demands on time?

[Aileen Carroll, Liberal, Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, ON]

Mr. Speaker, like my colleague from Yukon our party has more questions than I have answers in that regard. Historically when people came to this place, to serve their constituencies and the people of Canada, they had to cope with the amount of information that comes when one is in charge of foreign affairs, defence, health, immigration and all of the issues. However, never has any generation of members of Parliament lived in an information driven era such as the one we live in today.

It becomes increasingly difficult as we get into this important discussion of reform. We want to enhance our committees. We want them to be able to input the process, to bring all the collective wisdom and experience that they hear from Canadians and organizations, to develop the best public policy they can. That is what should come out of committees. It is bringing information to the House where colleagues have been caught up in processes dealing with human resources development or defence.

How do we inform one another, even if we all survive the information process that the member so accurately described, to be able to, at the last post, share the fruits of our labour so that we are able to inform our colleagues of the good job we have done and why they should support us on both sides of the House in what we have brought forward. It is no small task that we have engaged.

[Steve Mahoney, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, one of the first things we should change around here is we should stop wasting an entire parliamentary session talking about change. It is interesting because we have a system where we could actually do this in committee. The problem is it is not on television and it is not what the opposition wants.

I want to congratulate the opposition for actually having taken over the agenda and forcing us to go through an entire parliamentary debate. The point was made, although somewhat disingenuous, by a member opposite that we could be debating Kyoto, Iraq, health care, housing, seniors or immigration. These are things that matter to people outside of the beltway.

We live in the beltway, so what do we do all day long? We say that we are frustrated. We cannot get anything done. We are lonely backbenchers and so we want to change the system. What is interesting is that, in my experience of having spent eight years in a provincial legislature and five and some here, it is usually the people who lose that want change.

Let me give the House an example. From 1987 to 1990 I was part of the David Peterson government in the province of Ontario. The leader of the opposition was the hon. Bob Rae. Mr. Rae and his caucus would put out platforms on parliamentary reform saying that they needed more free votes, more power for backbenchers and more power to the people. They would stand on their hind legs and make these pronouncements. Then we all remember what happened. It was an accident in history. All of a sudden that same Bob Rae woke up as the premier of Ontario one morning and said, “Holy smokes, how did that happen?” There is nothing more fearful to an individual or more frightening than when he or she actually wins when not expecting to. Hence, he became premier.

Did we see changes? What we actually saw in the Ontario legislature was a tightening of the screws. Members of that caucus and party could not go to the washroom without permission from the whip never mind having the freedom to stand up and speak their minds and do as they wished. He went from being a loser, whining about not having enough freedom to express views, to having won the responsibility to govern.

Let me address that for a moment. What I hear in this place, particularly from the opposition members in an attempt to discredit the government which I understand is their job, is that we should have votes on everything in parliament. They feel that the government should not have the authority to go out and make a decision when in fact the government, which is the Prime Minister and the cabinet, not only has the authority to make a decision it has the responsibility.

If we were to put every issue on the floor of the House of Commons and only move on that issue, and if we had a majority vote each and every time, we would polarize this nation. We would put ourselves in the position of being unable to act in the best interests of the majority government that was elected by the people of this country. It would be an addication of the responsibility of the Prime Minister, the cabinet, and of those on this side of the House who support the government.

A backbencher is technically not part of the government. One can declare oneself to be a backbencher in support of the government or, in the case of the opposition, to be a backbencher not in support of the government. As we have seen from time to time there are members on this side of the House who would call themselves backbenchers not in support of the government. It is the way the system works.

We talk about reform. We can have one-, two-, or three-, line. I was a whip for five years in Ontario. I understand the process. I was a candidate for the leadership of the provincial Liberal party in Ontario in 1991 and I had a platform. I had a platform that came from Jim Coutts who was one of the advisers to the Hon. Pierre Elliott Trudeau. Guess what the platform included? It was unbelievable. It could have been, should have been, might have been but was not. What can I tell the House. It was not my decision. I voted for me, although there is no proof because it was a secret ballot.

Let me go to the issue of secret ballots in committees. What a farce. To suggest that somehow it is the democratization of this place is the most laughable fraud that has been perpetrated upon the people by the people in this place, that somehow it has freed us up and we are running down the street yelling that we are free, we can vote the way we want.

I was not here for the vote. I was in Norad doing something that I thought was important: learning about the North American defence system; learning about what we would do in case of a missile attack from North Korea; and learning about what Canadians do in the military to help support the United States to keep North America safe. I thought that was more important than worrying about how we elect vice-chairs and chairs of committees. I was not here for the vote, but if I were I would have voted against the motion. Someone who does not live in the beltway, who does not totally understand the issue, might ask me why I would vote against secret ballots.

Every time we vote in this place we should be required to stand up and say, “I am the member for Mississauga West and here is my vote”. We should not have the option of doing it in secret. The only secret ballot that should apply in a democracy, and with respect I know we have made an exception to elect the Speaker, is the one that is in the hands of the people. They will cast their secret ballots and that is exactly what they have done.

In 1993 they cast secret ballots and they sent a majority to this place that is represented by the Liberal Party. They did it again in 1997, through secret ballot, and again in 2000. My advice to the opposition is if it wants more power it should get more members elected. That is what it is about. It is not about coming here and saying “I ran on a campaign that said everything was rotten in Parliament and it is undemocratic but I lost, so now I am going to tear down the institution from within”.

That is what is happening with all of this. I respectfully suggest, and I might be in the minority, that this is a travesty and a waste of time of the talent of the men and women on all sides who should be working hard on behalf of Canadians instead of spending an entire day on this, and now the opposition wants more time. Our House leader has to negotiate with other House leaders in committee, so there is give and take. They give us this bill or that bill or that vote or let us get on with this and we will give the opposition more time. Then it has the nerve to stand up and say it is our idea.

We want to get on with the business of the government, the business of the people of Canada. We want to get on with dealing with things that matter to Canadians. What has happened here through the negotiation process with the House leaders is that our House leader is finding himself shackled because the opposition members want the opportunity to stand up. They know it is a glorious opportunity to stand up and say that the government and the Prime Minister are awful as if the Prime Minister invented the parliamentary system. They say he is a dictator.

If we were to go back to the beginning to Sir John A., we would find that the parliamentary system has had a basic core based on the British parliamentary system that has not changed. One might argue then should we change? Well sure, let us make some changes that take ideas to committees. What is interesting is that if a committee wants to do that it can order its own business. Committees should travel more, get out into the countryside. They should meet with Canadians and hear what they have to say. However, what happens?