Bev Desjarlais

[Supply, October 31st, 2002]

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.

[Supply, October 31st, 2002]

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.

[Supply, October 31st, 2002]

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--

[Supply, October 31st, 2002]

Madam Speaker, following along the same lines, what the problem was with the motion, I cannot help but think that it was not a matter of what the problem was with the wording of the motion. It was simply a matter of the government not liking the motion.

In our efforts to be respectful of the integrity, the intelligence and the commitment of all members of Parliament, I am somewhat annoyed that my colleague would suggest that those committee members really did not know what they were doing, that they really did not know they wanted a secret ballot, that they really did not know they wanted a change in the procedure of the vote, and that they really did not know there was no expiry date mentioned.

Each and every member in the House has a fairly good idea of those things. The committee certainly had a very good idea of those particular issues. It is somewhat annoying, offensive and disrespectful of all of us as parliamentarians to suggest that we do not know and that we have spent this entire day speaking so passionately to something so important.

[Points of Order, October 31st, 2002]

I will not use the term weaseling. I am trying to be respectful here.

To disallow democracy to take place, something is seriously wrong. I have the utmost respect for your ruling, Mr. Speaker, and I know you can see beyond what is happening here. Yesterday, a notice of motion was given. Whether it was one or two is not the question; a notice of motion was given. In order to finagle around the issue we saw the government come before us this morning to find the loophole to get out of it.

The bottom line is the opposition day motions are looked at as a time where the opposition parties can get out there and force the government into some serious discussion, and force it to finally vote on some issues, ones that it has skirted around forever. I would ask that you give the opposition day motions the right of that broad flexibility and rule in favour.

[Points of Order, October 31st, 2002]

My colleagues are saying common sense and that is what we are dealing with. We are dealing with basic common sense and democracy. We can skirt around the issue and look for loopholes and technicalities, but by doing so we emphasize even further the serious problem we have here within the House. When we have to rely on those types of meanderings and ways of doing things--

[Points of Order, October 31st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I will not get into all the specifics of Marleau and Montpetit, and whether the amendment is voted on or not. What we are dealing with here--

[Committees of the House, October 31st, 2002]

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

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

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

[Committees of the House, October 31st, 2002]

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

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

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

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

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

[Committees of the House, October 31st, 2002]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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