Deepak Obhrai

[Modernization Of The Standing Orders Of The House Of Commons, May 1st, 2001]

Mr. Chairman, frankly I have no comment except to say that this is exactly what I am saying. We feel that after working so hard in the committees at the end of the day it does not go anywhere. The member has given a dandy example of it. Then we ask what we were doing on the committee. This applies to the members on the government side as well.

We are not in a boxing match. We are trying to see how we can really work this out with suggestions from this side and that side.

The point he indicated about committees was to say how committees can be ineffective. Maybe the government did not want it. If it did not want it, its members could have been told.

We need effective committees. The member is right. He has used an excellent example.

[Modernization Of The Standing Orders Of The House Of Commons, May 1st, 2001]

Mr. Chairman, actually he is absolutely right. For the first time I am hearing some positive suggestions on the committees. On all the suggestions that have been made I do not have any difficulty, except maybe a caveat here or there, but on the general scheme of things, no. A caveat for argument's sake on TV, yes. I think it is a good idea. It is accountable. We will probably have to be accountable for committee travel.

I think travelling is a good idea because we want to hear from Canadians and not all Canadians can come here. However, I do have a problem with travel. A judgment has to be made on travel. We cannot just have blind requests coming from every committee. When I was vice chair of a committee I definitely looked at the purpose of the travel, how it worked and what the advantages were. I will tell members that I did extensive travelling on the foreign affairs and international trade committee on the WTO hearings. I thought we were totally wasting our time and our money at some of the places we went to because the input was hopeless.

I agree, but what I am saying is that there is a need to sit down and review it and see if this travelling we are doing gives Canadians a voice. I do not have an objection to it, but every travel request should be looked at to see if it functions within the broader objective of getting what we want to get at. At times we are denied travel because the government is muscling its majority and not giving it to us.

On continuity, yes, there is nothing wrong with it. We do need to have continuity in a committee. Also, the idea of smaller committees is good. We need to have smaller committees to be effective. What the member is saying to me is that he recognizes that committees need improvement and that all members of parliament, not only the opposition members but every member of parliament, should be feeling that they are contributing to that committee and doing an important job.

I am sorry, but right now if we were in the government and we had a parliamentary secretary over there, the hon. member would probably be standing up saying the same thing to me and saying to take the parliamentary secretary off, because then the government would not control it. So the hon. member is right.

[Modernization Of The Standing Orders Of The House Of Commons, May 1st, 2001]

Mr. Chairman, my colleague from the NDP is telling me to say yes.

[Modernization Of The Standing Orders Of The House Of Commons, May 1st, 2001]

Then stop heckling me.

Let us make all private members' bills votable. Interestingly I heard the government House leader raising objections that it will take too long. He asked how many hours and what we should do. He also said that it would tie up resources.

Because the government House leader raised these issues I see reluctance on his part. He is trying to say that this cannot be done. I am telling him everything can be done if it should be done.

The point is that 301 members of parliament represent 301 constituencies and speak on behalf of their constituents. Even the Prime Minister phoned a bank on behalf of his constituency and proudly said that he was working for his constituents. The fact of the matter is that we are working for our constituents, but if we are muzzled, if we cannot raise anything after spending so much time on it, what is the point? We must be objective about it. Let us make them votable.

At this point in time we should put no restriction on it. They should just be votable. It is common sense. The government House leader said it and I agree with him. I do not want to put forth a bill that will be defeated. I will look pretty stupid if I put forth two votable bills that are defeated. Maybe I could come along and put forth three bills. In the beginning I could be very proud, but I can say very rapidly that I will become a laughing stock if my bills are not acceptable all round.

I have a question that counts. Should private members' bill be subject to a free vote? It would be best to have private members' bills votable but they should be free votes. If they are not free votes, they fall back on to the government agenda.

It would be far more advisable for such bills to reach committee stage to consider their good elements. One good thing about committee is that witnesses are called before it and provide a broader view of what people are saying. At the end of the day, whether or not it becomes law, I agree the government has been chosen but at least we know that good points in a bill have been picked and the voice of Canadians has been heard.

Let us have all private members' bills votable. They should be free votes. It is not binding on the government. The free vote would only say it is going to committee. Once it goes to committee, we can take the good points and filter out those that do not fit or make a slight amendment.

When we start doing this we will have an argument from the government House leader saying that it will tie up resources, that they do not have the resources and the committees will be tied up. I do not think so. At the end of the day we can do it, if we want it to work.

I am totally opposed to the subcommittee on private members' business. I have been through that subcommittee and I can only say that I will not appear before it again. I will not appear before those four people to try to tell them what I am doing on behalf of my constituency. I felt like a bloody fool. I know that is not parliamentary language, but I do not feel that I should appear before four people to represent my constituents. I do not feel that subcommittee should be made available.

If it is a frivolous bill the House leader could sit and explain to the member that it has no chance. The bill could be weeded out through common sense. If not, we should let it go.

If the government has two or three defeated bills the opposition would love it and could play on it during election time. Members must therefore work hard to make sure their bills are passed.

We all come here to work. We do not come here to play a media game. We come here to work and we put in a lot of hours. I put in a tremendous amount of hours behind the scenes on these things. It is not a media circus.

I am sure that at the end of the day it will settle down and we will find a happy medium. The problem is that we are not letting things rise to the top because we are putting up barriers. The government House leader says there are not enough resources and that a bill may tie up the system.

I did a quick calculation regarding private members' bills. Let us say we have a votable bill and are deciding whether to take one, two or three hours to debate it. If we have a maximum of two speakers on such a bill it would take the five parties two hours to debate it. It is as simple as that.

Two speakers is enough. My colleague made a good point when he said two speakers could put forward their own and their party's position. He is right. We do not need three or four speakers. Two speakers could present the gist of an issue. After that it becomes repetition. I therefore recommend two hours for private members' bills to become votable.

The House leader said a lot of private members' bills deal with justice and could therefore tie up the justice committee. Let us think for a second. What is wrong with setting up justice subcommittees? There are 301 members of parliament. Why should the main committee be stuck on this? The Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade could not handle all its work so it created subcommittees. What is wrong with that?

Justice is an issue on the minds of Canadians, and members of parliament are bringing questions to the justice committee. Why not have subcommittees? Once the justice issues settle down we will perhaps no longer need subcommittees, but let us not have restrictions. There are solutions to this issue.

I want to address another point. House leaders, government ministers and private members put forward bills and then we are forced to stand and do a lot of huffing and puffing and all that kind of stuff, and the parliamentary secretaries do not have the foggiest idea. We should have a question and answer period for bills that are tabled. Dialogue is more important than simply making statements.

Speeches should be followed by a question and answer period, with extended time for the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and the members tabling the bills.

I have sat here at times and heard statements I did not agree with. I would have liked to offer my point of view but could not because there is no question and answer period. I believe there should be a question and answer period after every speech.

This is a house of debate. This is not a place to sit, make statements and then go away. We want to debate the issues. That is why we are here.

My third point, and this is quite a contentious one, is committees. The way our committees are structured must be addressed to better deal with the issues. If we are to send private members' bills to committee we must structure committees to be able to deal with them. We are all here to see that things improve. We are all speaking for Canadians. We must therefore take a serious look at committees.

I do not know which government members formerly sat on this side as the opposition, but I am sure they know that sitting in a committee is very frustrating. At times I have gone to my leader and asked him to take me off committees. I find it hopeless. I asked him to send me where I could do something useful.

I cannot do anything the way this committee is structured. No one is interested in listening. The witnesses all favour one point of view. Government legislation needs to be pushed through so everything is done accordingly. Ministers come to the committee and make a speech, and I have three minutes to ask them questions. What can I ask in three minutes? Nothing. Then the ministers get to say they have set up a committee to address the issue. The committee tables its report and it ends up on the shelf.

Canadians have this notion that parliamentarians are not effective. As far as I am concerned, the protests in Quebec City reflected the feelings of the Canadian public that parliament is irrelevant. Maude Barlow has said quite clearly that she feels parliament is irrelevant.

When I was in Geneva I heard United Nations bureaucrats saying that they, and not parliamentarians, speak for the people because they talk to them better. There is a growing mindset out there that it is okay to bypass parliament. Why? It is because of the way parliament is structured.

I am glad we are having this debate tonight. There are good points coming from all sides. The hon. member made a very good point about the estimates. He is not comfortable because the estimates come in and go out and billions are spent and gone.

The hon. member for Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot said something about being paid for sitting on committees and I have a hard time agreeing. I am not here to make money. I came here to make a contribution. I had quite a comfortable job before I came here. We need to make this contribution. I am sure 99% of members of parliament are here to make some kind of contribution.

I will now look at committee structure and recommendations on how to make committees more effective. First, we must get parliamentary secretaries off the committees. I call them the whips. They sit there and control what happens. We should also rotate committee chairmen so that government members do not always occupy the chair.

The government controls committees but does not give them power. One may wonder if at the end of the day the recommendations of committees are binding on the government. They are not, and yet the government wants to control the committees.

I totally enjoyed making this point because of how I feel about it. I will leave it at that.

[Modernization Of The Standing Orders Of The House Of Commons, May 1st, 2001]

What do you mean by non-partisan? I suppose we can use ordinary language since we are in committee?

[Modernization Of The Standing Orders Of The House Of Commons, May 1st, 2001]

I know the member agrees. I just heard the member say he agrees, but the question is: Will those who have the power to make the changes agree? That is the point. I do not know. Frankly speaking, after listening to the minister, I do not know whether he will agree to this votable bill. He has put out a survey. So what?

I have sat on enough committees that have been chaired and have seen manipulation take place. Whatever the government side wanted, the frontbench wanted, it was done.

[Modernization Of The Standing Orders Of The House Of Commons, May 1st, 2001]

No, because the committee did not make it votable. There are four people sitting out there deciding what should be on the table. There is something wrong with the system.

We have identified this issue and the government House leader has come here and said there is an ongoing survey. I do not know, but maybe my colleagues can remind me. In the last parliament did a survey come out on the same issue, on whether private members' bills should be in committee?

I was a new member. I was not experienced on private members' business so I did not fill out that one. I have strong views now on how the system works. I strongly believe that if a member works hard for two or three years to get an issue before the House, we owe it to the member that the issue be votable. There is no point in doing three and a half years of work otherwise.

[Modernization Of The Standing Orders Of The House Of Commons, May 1st, 2001]

I spoke my mind too. The question is what should I do now.

[Modernization Of The Standing Orders Of The House Of Commons, May 1st, 2001]

Is that right?

[Modernization Of The Standing Orders Of The House Of Commons, May 1st, 2001]

Gone. People out there are thinking and saying something about this. There is a viewpoint out there. If a person does not agree with a viewpoint, that is fine. If the government does not agree, it should not allow the whole Canadian voice to go out the window with one swat. We are a little concerned. Now what? I stand here shaking my head and asking now what. What do I do with the bill?

One member has been in the House seven and a half years and has never been allowed to speak his mind. Now what should I do?