Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate this chance to speak to Motion No. 89 and I also appreciate my colleague's good will to let me get on to another function as soon as I am done.
I would like to take this opportunity to lend my wholehearted support to this private member's motion, Motion No. 89, put forward by my friend and colleague from Mission-Coquitlam.
This whole thing deals with the idea of free votes and I would like to preface my remarks by saying something that probably all of us in this House know, and that is that Canadians are seeking dynamic and constructive change in their political institutions. Canadians are asking for political representatives who will listen to them-it would be a marvellous change to have political people listen rather than talk all the time-who will consult with them, who will respond to them, and then will come to Parliament and represent their views.
We in this 35th Parliament have the opportunity as well as the responsibility to examine the concerns expressed by Canadians. For example, we can determine the deficiencies in the way we do business in this institution and then seek to improve the process to bring about constructive change.
The exercise of freer voting through relaxation of the confidence convention would be a great first step. Freer voting would be a progressive and constructive change in the way we do business in this institution. Freer voting would encourage more consultation with constituents, thus strengthening the link between the individual representatives and their electors. Freer voting will allow ordinary members to demonstrate independence of thought and give them greater influence in committees and in the House.
Members' views, particularly on the government side, will be given greater weight by cabinet and constituents will realize that they too have a stronger voice.
Freer voting is only one of several sensible, pragmatic, progressive parliamentary reforms that this House should adopt to improve the quality of representative democracy in this country. We will serve Canadians well if we adopt this motion by my friend from Mission-Coquitlam during this Parliament.
It is easy to say we are changing the standing orders, we are making all kinds of things different to make sure that members are better heard, and yet we hear stories already about the backbench blues from the government side, realizing that the way the system is set up right now we are not able to have backbenchers have real, solid, significant input to the whole political process, that cabinet makes all those decisions.
Let us look at the historical perspective of it for a moment. I have attempted to do some modest reading on the evolution of parliamentary government in Canada to gain a better understanding of why ordinary members, particularly on the government side, have become so inconsequential in the development of legislation and have become trapped in the iron cage of party discipline.
I was delighted to find that in the British House of Commons in the mid-19th century members acted in a highly individualistic way. Private bills were common, legislation introduced by cabinet members was often amended or defeated without the fall of the government. It would be so refreshing in this House to see that there was a vote taken and that cabinet members perhaps voted against something, or backbenchers voted against a cabinet member's legislation which would not mean the defeat of the government; it would just mean the defeat of that particular piece of legislation.
Our Parliament is fashioned after the British parliamentary system and in the early days of our Parliament political parties were relatively loose associations of like minded people and it was not uncommon for members to vote against the party line. Party leaders spent much time seeking support for proposed legislation and there was continued dialogue between the party leadership and the backbench members. A political career was possible without the backing of a political party.
If you go ahead to the present from the past you see how different things have become in this very Chamber. It is one thing to talk about the political institutions in Canada and about how things were way back then, but this is the same place we are standing in today and we realize how important it is for MPs in this day and age to be backed by a political party. It was not always this way.
Political parties now have become the dominant actors in the political process. They provide the identity for candidates, the research and policy development process and they have the ability to raise taxpayer supported funds, necessary in large amounts today as we all know to fight an election campaign. Once elected an MP cannot function effectively without the support of a political party. Maybe there are things to be learned and gained from the past.
This growth of political parties and their importance to aspiring or elected politicians has enabled them, the parties, to exercise strict discipline. Those who speak out against party policy or vote against the party line are disciplined. Witness the last Parliament, Mr. Speaker, in which you and I sat. At least four members were publicly disciplined or expelled by their parties.
How well I remember the whole situation in 1990 when a couple of members crossed the floor. They had voted against the GST, the government line, and were banished from the caucus within 24 hours. I laugh always and say they were given the worst fate possible from the government: They had to sit beside the member for Beaver River in the very back row. How times change.
The present situation is succinctly stated by C.E.S. Franks in his excellent work entitled The Parliament of Canada , 1989 edition, page 110:
Disciplined parties are necessary for responsible government, but it is difficult to escape the conclusion that discipline is excessive at present. A terribly high price is paid both in terms of bringing Parliament into disrepute and in terms of restricting the contribution individual members can make in Parliament.
As I have come to know some of the members, certainly not all of them, I am impressed with the amount of individual talent and individual skill members possess in this House. It upsets me that we are not able to utilize that to the fullest because of the excessive party discipline.
During the last 30 years there have been all kinds of studies, forums and committees on parliamentary reform. Many recommendations have been implemented concerning the use of Parliament's time, the timetable for business of the House, standing orders, rules of debate, et cetera. Several of them have discussed the confidence convention and the role of members.
Rather than just tinkering with the standing orders or talking about generalities we should look at the most significant and specific of these. That of course is the special committee on reform. It was an all-party committee chaired by the Hon. James McGrath which tabled its report in this house in 1985.
The McGrath report stated that if members are to exert influence over policy making in committees or in the House itself, they will have to be able to demonstrate independence of thought. Again I say how refreshing that would be to see independence of thought in this place where individual members were able to have real input rather than for example, a government backbencher being told: "That's fine, thank you. Cabinet will discuss it and make its decision".
They argued in the McGrath report that the only thing which stands in the way of the exercise of independence is the need for a change in attitude on the part of government. It was not the need for a change in fancy rules, the laws or the constitution of country, but just a change in the attitude of party leaders and private members.
This change in attitude would lead to a reduction in party discipline. It would demonstrate that unquestioned obedience to the party line is not the only route to advancement in the party. Let me digress by saying that unquestioned obedience is expected in a German Shepherd, not in a member of Parliament. We need a change in attitude that would allow members to vote as their constituents wish which at times is against the wishes of the leadership without fear of reprimand or punishment.
The McGrath committee made other recommendations which called for a change in attitude by the government and all members in this House from all sides.
An important change was with respect to the election of the Speaker. The committee recommended that the Speaker cease to be appointed by the Prime Minister. Rather, he or she would be elected by secret ballot of the members. All of us in this House have experienced the positive change which was brought about. The Prime Minister of the day, the Right Hon. Brian Mulroney, allowed that change to take place.
In this the 35th Parliament, we had one of the most exciting days of this entire parliamentary term when we saw the election of the Speaker for this House in January. Changes are possible and we are excited about that.
My colleague's resolution is of similar scope. Modest in concept in what it proposes, it asks only for a change in attitude from all members in this House, all backbenchers, opposition parties, government, cabinet and the Prime Minister. A change in the attitude to the confidence convention and a change in
attitude to the independence of members are what we desperately need now. It is not a large request.
Also relevant of course are the 1991 speech from the throne, and the 1991 constitutional proposals in the booklet entitled "Shaping Canada's Future Together", which of course was the map work, design and the beginning of the proposals for the Charlottetown accord. They noted even though those proposals were defeated soundly there were good things in them. They noted that excessive party discipline and excessive partisanship are factors which erode the public's confidence in their representatives.
The House management committee in its report of April 1993 suggested there be some reform of party discipline and endorsed the idea of freeing up voting in the House: "With few exceptions, motions proposed by the government should be considered as motions of confidence only when clearly identified as such by the government".
The issues have been identified and discussed many times. Solutions have also been identified and discussed. Let us in this 35th Parliament take some action. Let us move ahead and adopt the motion in front of us.
Finally, let me say that even the Liberal red book which was campaigned on in this past election talked about freeing up votes. It is going to be just marvellous to see the government support this motion. Hopefully it will not just be something in the red book, but will be something which is transferred into this green Chamber. The government and opposition parties will be able to say: "We sat in that 35th Parliament of Canada where we made real substantive changes and reforms to the way politics are done in this country. We saw real parliamentary and democratic reform actually happening". We look forward to that and we appreciate the government's support on this matter.