Mr. Speaker, as the member for Toronto—Danforth and parliamentary and democratic reform critic for the NDP, I am pleased to speak to Motion No. 431, moved by my colleague from Saskatoon—Humboldt.
It is a simple motion, but it is also a very surprising and worthwhile motion.
The motion asks that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs conduct a study to consider the election of committee chairs by means of a preferential ballot system by all the members of the House.
Here is how it currently works. Since November 2002, pursuant to Standing Order 106(2), chairs of standing committees are chosen by committee members, as the member for Saskatoon—Humboldt pointed out.
When more than one candidate is nominated for the office of chair, the election is conducted by secret ballot within the committee. However, in practice, as the member just said, the convention is that the party whips determine which members of their caucus will be put forward for the positions each respective party is allowed pursuant to the Standing Orders of the House: either committee member or committee chair.
As things stand, committee chairs have to satisfy committee members that they are being impartial and exercising good judgment.
This system has been around for nearly 10 years and seems to work fairly well; few have criticized it. I am not saying that everything works perfectly all the time. For example, during the past two years, some chairs have been unable to manage committee business in such a way as to give opposition members a fair opportunity to prepare for meetings involving witnesses or to present amendments with sufficient notice.
The member for Saskatoon—Humboldt presented this motion to temper the dominating influence of the Prime Minister's Office and other political parties on aspects of parliamentary life and MPs themselves.
The NDP welcomes research and studies that could help improve the democratic character of our system.
As the critic for democratic reform, I am wide open to the idea of studying the member for Saskatoon—Humboldt's motion, especially given that the United Kingdom recently adopted a similar system.
The NDP is actually in favour of improving several parliamentary practices to achieve a better balance between legislative and executive power and to relax the strict control of the Prime Minister's Office over parliamentary life.
That is why we are in favour of studying the member for Saskatoon—Humboldt's motion.
Our reasons are simple. Even though there is no urgent need for reform, and even though some parliamentary reforms are more of a priority than this one, there is nothing stopping us from taking a serious look at this issue.
The NDP has always advocated for more open, more transparent democracy. Canadians know that.
No doubt the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs will do some very interesting research that could potentially be of great value to Parliament. As a member of the committee, I look forward to participating in that process.
However, before anything else, there are some key aspects that we would like to talk about during the committee's study to ensure that they are given due consideration. I am talking about the principle of gender equality and maintaining the practice of reserving some committee chair positions for the opposition.
The hon. member for Saskatoon—Humboldt felt that this was important, and I thank him for raising the issue.
We must also think about the voting method used. For example, would votes be secret and confidential or not? We must also see whether the preferential ballot being proposed by the hon. member for Saskatoon—Humboldt is the best election procedure for the situation of our Parliament, the composition of our Parliament and our House of Commons, the way we operate and our traditions. We certainly need to hear from witnesses who have the social science expertise on this.
The Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs will examine this motion. This study will be added to the long list of proposed amendments that the committee has to examine.
Is the government just as interested in parliamentary reform as the official opposition? It is not quite clear. However, yesterday's events and the wise ruling of the Speaker of the House give me hope that things might change. Perhaps we will see more interest in this from the Conservative backbenchers and maybe even from the rest of the party. We will see.
In this regard, there are a number of other parliamentary reforms that come to mind. I would like to mention a few.
The first is to limit the systematic use and abuse of in camera proceedings in committee, which decrease transparency and impartiality.
The second is to more strictly enforce the objectives of the statements made under Standing Order 31. These days, the time for members' statements is being misused by many members—most but not all of whom are Conservatives. They use this time to launch attacks and spew drivel from the Prime Minister's Office.
The third is to limit the government's use and abuse of time allocation motions in order to stop the Conservatives from systematically limiting debate in the House of Commons. In this regard, it is important to note the November 2011 motion moved by the NDP member for Windsor—Tecumseh, which would give the Speaker of the House of Commons the authority to determine whether the grounds for the time allocation are reasonable.
The fourth is to modernize the process for tabling petitions in order to allow for online petitions. This was suggested in part by the NDP in the motion moved by the hon. member forBurnaby—Douglas in February.
The fifth involves the reform of the procedure for making amendments in committee. Under the Prime Minister's watch, almost none of the opposition's amendments have been accepted. It is important that the work of the committee be recognized and put to better use.
To conclude, I have only listed a very few of many dozens of reforms that come to mind. There are many—as I have said, into the dozens— of changes that could enhance our parliamentary democracy to ensure Parliament functions honourably, effectively and in a dignified way.
In the short term, we must, through a combination of procedural reform and incentives, change the prevailing parliamentary culture and resuscitate and then deepen our disappearing parliamentary traditions, collegiality, cross-party co-operation in the public interest, and civility. Prime ministerial power must be ratcheted back in favour of a return to a more robust form of responsible cabinet government, respect for Parliament as the executive branch's conscience and its commander, and multiple levels of greater accountability through greater transparency.
