Mac Harb

[Parliamentary Reform, November 22nd, 2002]

Mr.. Speaker, Hansard is here to stay. The member can review Hansard . Historically, since we came to government, it is his party as well as other parties in opposition that have voted more en bloc than this party has done. Consistently on important issues we have had the freedom to choose and to vote.

Unlike what he said has taken place, the hon. member can review Hansard . They always vote on a blockbuster type of arrangement.

[Parliamentary Reform, November 22nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it is an excellent point. Out of the 54 bills I have introduced, I am happy to report to the House that through the administration of government I was successful in having about seven or eight of them adopted, nearly all of them dealing with the UN convention on the rights of the child.

Treasury Board, for example, adopted my private member's bills when Mr. Masse was the minister. On the issue of the definition of a child, the justice department adopted my propositions. The former justice minister, who is now the Minister of Industry, adopted two of my private member's bills dealing with certain aspects of the Criminal Code. The industry minister adopted two of my bills, one dealing with whistleblower legislation, as part of the Competitions Act.

Introducing private member's bills gives me an opportunity to put them on the record and from there on to approach the specific ministers to see if there is a possibility for my bills to be adopted as part of a government initiative. Whenever a bill from the government is introduced which has something to do with my private member's bill, I approach the ministers to see if I can get their support.

On private members' bills, the government and the Prime Minister have allowed more free votes in Parliament than ever before in the history of Parliament and far more than the opposition has ever allowed on bills as well as on motions. This Prime Minister has allowed more freedom for members of Parliament than any other prime minister ever in the history of Canada, not only to speak their minds within caucus, but outside of caucus as well as in the House. This Prime Minister has taken more initiative to bring about changes to Parliament than any other prime minister in the history of Canada. This Prime Minister has done more for Canada on the economic front as well as on the political front than any other prime minister in the history of Canada.

It is a privilege to serve with members of the House with the leadership we have in the Prime Minister, specifically on the notion of free votes, of reform to the parliamentary system and of leadership, both economically and politically.

[Parliamentary Reform, November 22nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it is a very interesting question and here is where I am coming from. We have a country that is huge, with different regions, some remote and some urban. We have representation in the House by males and females who represent their constituents, and this election of chair of a committee is not as straightforward as my colleague would think.

We need to have a balance, like the balance we have with the selection of members of cabinet, secretaries of state and parliamentary secretaries. From time to time the government parties will have to establish a balance. How many women chairs do we want? How many male chairs? What regions do we want to have represented on that specific committee?

I am sure my colleagues go through the same exercise when they want to select people to sit on committees. It may not be all the time, but any member of any party in the House, including mine, who chooses a committee to sit on, does not always end up on that committee. I have selected committees in the past that I wanted to sit on and I was not given that opportunity.

The most important point I want to tell my colleague is that we are over the age of 18, most of us in terms of age as well as mental capacity. I am sure the member does not mean to generate insult here insinuating that some of my colleagues are afraid to speak their minds on committees. That is far from it. We already vote on the committees by a raise of hand or by roll call. However I also want to let him know that if we do not have a secret ballot in the House why should we have a secret ballot at the committee level?

I also want to tell him that when it comes to cabinet proceedings, even though they are confidential and after 30 years are rendered public, is he suggesting that committees should use the same procedures to release the voting patterns of members? I do not know. I would say that it is gone, we have voted on it but, nonetheless, I would suggest it was the wrong thing to do.

[Parliamentary Reform, November 22nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure this morning to speak on this very important agenda item that the very capable House leader has put before the House.

In fact, it goes back to March 2001, when the House affairs committee met at the time and considered a number of recommendations in order to address the whole issue of modernization. It reported in June 2001 and made a number of recommendations. There was a wide range of recommendations: the ratification of appointments of parliamentary officers by the House; a new format for emergency debates to take place in committee of the whole; more take note debates; allowing votes to be deferred to 3 p.m., after question period, therefore freeing the House and members to do other important things.

It also addressed the notions of permitting the Leader of the Opposition to refer two sets of estimates to the committee of the whole for debate for up to five hours each before the May break, as well as a 30 minute debate with the responsible ministers on motions, time allocation and closure. As well, it addressed the notions of tightening the sanction for questions on the order paper that are not answered on time, increasing advance notice of the text of opposition day motions and permanently equipping a second room for televised committee hearings. The report also looked at programming of government bills when referred to standing committees and increasing the use of ministerial statements.

I cannot state how important these issues are, for many reasons. Many of my colleagues have faced a lot of frustration in the process in the House and in how we have been dealing with issues that come before committee.

The House leader has gone to great lengths in order to consult with and bring on board members of the opposition parties in the House so that we can address this once and for all. It is timely. Why? Everything is changing around us and our citizens are demanding of us more transparency, more efficiency and value for money. You will recall that in the House not long ago, Mr. Speaker, we spent up to five days, 24 hours a day, voting in the House of Commons on issues, some of which were valid and others which were not so valid. I would say that it is high time for us to come together on a non-partisan basis and address those issues. This submission by the House leader does just that. I want to commend him on his commitment to the House for many years and his commitment to the renewal process, which began quite some time ago and continues to take place.

A number of initiatives have been passed so far in 2002. As a result of the minister responding to members and some of their queries, a change to royal assent was passed, allowing royal assent to be given to legislation through a written procedure. A new Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates has been established. Its members have been identified and it is already operational.

As well, the House of Commons has done something that I believe is extraordinary, which is to address the bilingual nature of our country and to reflect that in the House of Commons proceedings. As a result, we have established the Standing Committee on Official Languages.

Also, the House adopted the procedure committee's report making private members' business votable. As well, the House agreed to require the election of committee chairs by secret ballot, although I am not in favour of that.

If we stand up to vote in the House, our constituents have a chance to see us voting. I do not understand why they should not also be allowed to see us voting in the committees. Why it has to be secret is beyond me. Nonetheless, it is water under the bridge. It has gone through.

Also, the modernization committee has taken a number of other initiatives. The House leader has agreed to propose to the House that there be a second phase of modernization to consider further changes to the rules of the House.

I would say that along with what has been done, which have been very positive steps, I believe there are other things the committee could consider. One is to see what other jurisdictions are doing, whether it is in the parliamentary system in the United Kingdom or that of Australia or other commonwealth countries, to see whether or not we can share some best practices.

One of the issues we would need to address, for example, is the whole notion of the handling of question period, such as the timing and how many times it would take place in a week. Perhaps we could look at themes that come from different departments and so on. Also, we should look at what the committee could do in terms of examining bills at report stage and how we can make that system a little more efficient.

There are other procedural issues that House leaders have talked about in the past and have brought to a debate in the House. One, for example, is how we handle private members' bills after the prorogation of the House. Speaking of private members' bills, I am one of those guilty people who has approximately 60 private members' bills. Every time the House prorogues I have to come back to my seat with a pile of private members' bills after they have been reviewed by the legislative counsel. Quite often I have asked the House for its consent so I can introduce them all at once without debate.

Nonetheless, as everyone will recall, on a number of occasions some of my colleagues in the House have denied me the opportunity to introduce all 60 at once. As a result of that, I had to stand up, along with you, Mr. Speaker, 60 times. There has to be some sort of a mechanism so that we do not have to do that. While we have tried so far to move forward on bills that come from the government, I would suggest that perhaps it is high time for us to do the same thing when it comes to private members' bills.

Again speaking of private members' bills, I think we have a huge opportunity to make a difference in the House by eliminating some of the frustrations that exist in our community, whereby, if for whatever reason one of our colleagues has an idea that is worthwhile considering, the individual MP does not have to wait until his or her name is drawn and then decide which one of the bills or motions will be introduced to the House. I think what has taken place is very positive. In fact each one of us will be given an opportunity to choose legislation that the House will debate and the committee will consider it and report back to the House. I think that is a very positive thing.

Also, I think we have other things we can address and deal with, such as the use of modern technologies. I know that electronic voting is a pretty ticklish issue with some of the members in the House. I do not think it is a good idea for us to continue using the old system, which is for each member of the House to stand up individually. By the time two or three votes take place we have spent approximately an hour to an hour and a half of House time. Our translators have to be in place, the camera people have to be in place, Hansard people have to be in place, all of the clerks and yourself, Mr. Speaker, as well as many other support staff, have to be in place.

I would suggest that if we were to eliminate that alone the savings to the House on an annual basis would be tremendous. Somebody told me, and the House leaders can correct me, that the cost per hour for every hour we sit is over $30,000. If we multiply that times the number of days the House sits, the number of votes that take place and the number of hours, I would suggest there would be a substantial savings as well, not to mention more efficiency and transparency, which would be very important.

Regarding the use of technologies by members of Parliament, I am a telecommunications engineer but frankly I am embarrassed to say that I am not using the modern technology that is available efficiently. In fact, there was study done which found that only about 58% of MPs have websites. I do not have a website yet, which is terrible because I should have one, and I will undertake to have one.

Nonetheless, if we were to encourage our colleagues to use modern technology, I would suggest that our constituents would be a lot more pleased with us than otherwise, and at the same time we would have an opportunity to access information a lot easier, save staff time and improve efficiencies.

Speaking of modern technologies, and I am not getting off the subject here, but it is really frustrating for members of Parliament nowadays when we have, on an average daily basis, approximately 100 e-mails coming to us from all over the world. In some cases we do not know whether Sam or Sue is asking us about an issue involving a constituency matter, asking us to buy one item or another, or asking us to pass on propaganda of one form or another. It is a challenge for us because our staff time has been extensively overused in this particular area. I hope someone in the field will figure out a way where we could do some sort of a filtering in order to remove the junk mail that comes through the computer system so we can respond more efficiently to our constituents. Technology is not all good. Some elements of it are pretty good and other elements, I would say, need to be changed.

Other improvements have taken place. For example, the member for St. Paul's, who chairs the Subcommittee on the Status of Persons with Disabilities, is making great use of modern technology. Therefore, I think we could work a little more on that particular element. We could make our websites more interactive and use plain language, in a sense.

I would suggest and I would hope that when the time comes for phase two that we will work a little more aggressively in order to move forward with some of the issues that the House leader has been speaking about and consulting with the opposition leaders on. I also hope that we always keep in mind the interests of our constituents. To that extent, perhaps we need to do things on a non-partisan basis and move forward with them on a non-partisan basis.

I had the pleasure of sitting in for a colleague on one of the standing committees. During the half-hour I was sitting in the committee, the committee was taken up by one member who spoke about one issue. In my view, while the comments were exceptionally valid, I felt that the time allotted to individual members to speak on one item of legislation needed to be tightened up somewhat so that committees would not become somewhat inefficient and cumbersome.

As a result of my experience, I think it would be a good idea to have a standard system for all committees of the House so that, like the House here, every member of Parliament would have to play by the same rules. I would also suggest that we have standard rules for all committees to follow. As a result, we would not have one committee dealing with procedures in one way and another committee dealing with procedures differently.

We also have to figure out a mechanism whereby it will be a lot easier for our respective caucuses, as well as the government and the leadership within the parties, from time to time when members of Parliament come up with good ideas to bring them forward. I do not see why we do not approach the specific cabinet ministers with those ideas to see whether or not the cabinet minister is willing to adopt the private member's bill, whether from this side of the House or the other side of the House, and make it an initiative of the House of Commons and move with it as such. We would remove the element of where the bill is coming from and we would focus mainly on the substance of the bill and what the bill will do: is it really beneficial for our constituency, is it beneficial to the country as a whole. We should do that assessment and move forward with it. I would say that would prove to be exceptionally helpful.

Another thing is the way committees do their reporting to the House. I suggest that it is working but it could work a lot better. In some committees, without getting specific, some reports linger around in those committees for close to eight months and in some cases up to a year. There is nothing really in the system to ensure that once an item is referred to a specific committee that it has to report within a specific time to the House, in particular when it comes to studies.

The public accounts committee is a case in point where we are still sitting on a report that goes back to 2001 as well as early 2002. We are almost moving on to 2003. Something should be in the procedures of committees, such as that the committee has to carry on with the work once priorities are established, that it cannot move out of the priorities and decide along the way that it wants to debate other issues that may or may not have anything to do with the mandate of the committee.

It is exceptionally important to look at some of the nitty-gritties of procedures, not only when it comes to the House of Commons but also to committees themselves.

I sometimes sense, and I am not the only person, many of my colleagues have the same feeling, that when the House is in session it seems as though we run through corridors almost like chickens without heads. We do not seem to be able to control the flow of information that comes from every angle.

What the House leaders are proposing will improve efficiency so that we do not have to take away valuable time from our constituents and from our work as legislators, and to spend that time on useless votes and, in some cases, on fictitious motions and ridiculous amendments to legislation when the main objective is not to allow legislation to go through and delay legislation for pure partisan objectives. This does not improve on the efficiency of how government runs its business.

Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I want to commend you for the leadership you have taken because you have done a marvellous job in trying to make Parliament run more smoothly and more efficiently.

The member for Peterborough also played a leadership role. He chaired the same committee, the House affairs committee, where a lot of those changes that came to Parliament actually passed through that specific committee. With your previous leadership, Mr. Speaker, and the leadership of the member for Peterborough, whose constituents are very fortunate to have him as their MP, you both have done a marvellous job in bringing forward reports that respond to the aspirations of members of Parliament, to the needs of Parliament and to the overall hopes and aspirations of Canadians.

I am delighted that the House leaders have moved forward with this wonderful initiative. I am also delighted that discussions between all the House leaders on the very important issues that affect the House and the operation of the House are continuing to take place.

[Al-Anon Family Group, November 21st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the Al-Anon Family Group on its 50th anniversary and acknowledge its important contribution to our communities. This very special occasion coincides with this year's Canada National Addictions Awareness Week.

For 50 years the Al-Anon Family Group has been a source of help and hope for families and friends of alcoholics in communities throughout 115 countries. Al-Anon, and its group for younger members, Alateen, have founded in Canada alone over 1,600 Al-Anon and 115 Alateen groups.

With treatment and support, people can recover from alcohol addiction and make a positive contribution to their communities, their families and their workplace.

I offer my congratulations to the Al-Anon Family Group and urge my colleagues to join me in recognizing the important role it has in our communities.

[National Child Day, November 20th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, in the Speech from the Throne the Prime Minister noted that Canada's future rests in the hands of our children. We must therefore provide families with the tools they need to plan for our children's future.

November 20 is National Child Day. I would like to review with my colleagues the steps the federal government has taken to support children and families.

We have committed $2.2 billion to the early childhood development agreement with the provinces to focus on healthy pregnancy, birth, parenting, family support, and early childhood development. We have doubled the length of maternity leave from 6 to 12 months, and increased parenting benefits to give fathers more flexibility in helping to raise a family. In addition, the federal government has continued to increase the Canada child tax benefit to help poor and middle income families, but sadly, there are still too many children who go to bed hungry at night and much more remains to be done.

The investments we make today will make a better tomorrow for all of our children.

[Infrastructure, November 8th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, municipalities are faced with a very serious problem when it comes to water and sewage systems and transportation. They are wondering whether or not the government plans some initiatives in order to lower the burden on Canadian municipalities.

Could the secretary of state responsible for rural development tell the House what he has in his coffers for Canadian municipalities?

[Canadian Women's Soccer Team, November 8th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, this Saturday the whole country will watch with pride as Canada's women's soccer team takes on the United States at the women's gold cup finals.

Canada steamed through the initial rounds, outscoring the opposition 23 to 1.

Christine Sinclair is just one of many bright stars on our team. She led the tournament with seven goals. Captain Charmaine Hooper heads into Saturday's championship already with six goals under her belt.

I invite all Canadians to join me in wishing the Canadian women's soccer team the best of success. They are truly a source of inspiration for all of us.

[Kyoto Protocol, November 7th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, with the pending implementation of the Kyoto accord, could the parliamentary secretary tell the House whether a process at the World Trade Organization can be initiated to clarify whether implementing the accord would create or could create an even playing field for some countries?

[Youth, November 1st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, in the recent Speech from the Throne the government made a number of commitments to youth, to help get youth out of poverty and to build safe neighbourhoods and communities.

I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice to answer to the House and Canadians the concern raised at a recent conference of some youths. They indicated that they were having a difficult time obtaining information about education, safety and other issues.

Would he tell the House what his department is doing in order to ease the flow of information to youth?