Larry Bagnell

[Parliamentary Reform, November 21st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member said earlier that we had to elect good people because they come here to give thoughtful consideration to legislation and debate.

Does the hon. member have any suggestions on reform related to the huge demands on time? There are so many responsibilities in committee, in responses to e-mails and letters and in the vast volumes of legislation and amendments. How can more considered and detailed thoughtfulness be given to a particular piece of serious legislation when in the present system there are all these competing demands on time?

[Parliamentary Reform, November 21st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed the very thoughtful intervention of one of my favourite colleagues. I always use her as an example when people ask me for an example of integrity in thought and deed. I think my colleague is wonderful.

Because my colleague expressed so much interest in committees, I want to ask about how the structure of a committee meeting can affect the atmosphere. I want to follow up on the thought I was pursuing earlier this afternoon with respect to the relationship between the shape of the two houses in the United States and the shape of the two houses in Canada.

In committee, as we know, for every meeting we line up like troops of opposing armies, one on each side of the committee room. Of course we start on the very first day with a structural confrontational atmosphere, which is not always the attitude.

Would there not be times when it would make sense for us to sit anywhere in that circle? People could sit in any seat, which would be symbolic of facing a common problem together, of looking forward to solving that problem on behalf of Canadians as one group instead of being in a confrontational structure. In fact, we have already made some advances in that respect in the House, because as members know we have the set-up of the committee of the whole, in which people can sit anywhere. I think that leads to a very collegial and very productive debate when we are all trying to come to a solution on a particular problem.

[Parliamentary Reform, November 21st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the member has done a very good job in raising this in the House and he has to keep his campaign going.

On behalf of my constituents, televising committees and other processes for constituencies like mine, which is the farthest from this honourable House, is very helpful because there is a disconnect the farther we are away. Constituents cannot walk into the offices on a daily basis and feel connected to what is going on. Anything they can see through the televised system is a big help. It gives them a sense that this is their Parliament and their House. They can see what their members do and how they might have input.

One problem for my constituents and constituents of many of my colleagues across the way is the three hour time difference. This makes it even worse. They have even less access in normal time spans to some of the procedures.

[Parliamentary Reform, November 21st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, with respect, the member did not quite listen to all of my last answer. I explained that I would not give a yes or no answer to his question. However, there are yes or no votes on opposition day motions on such items.

[Parliamentary Reform, November 21st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, it is a very timely question because, as a matter of fact, our foreign affairs caucus addressed that issue this morning.

To be honest, I will not answer yes or no to the question because it obviously requires a larger debate. I am glad the member brought it up because it is important for people to consider here. However I can say that there are a number of ways that all of us, as the member has, can eloquently express some views on this. I have on a number of occasions already. As I said, we were working on it as early as this morning. There are various avenues to get the very diverse views of our constituents across to the decision makers who ultimately have to make the decisions.

There are a number of things involved, partly for timing reasons and partly for confidence reasons. Members have been elected by the people and cabinet is elected to ultimately make certain decisions. However, I think through the methods that we have talked about, those lengthy take note debates, debates in the House on this issue, as well as opposition day motions and question period, the mechanisms are there to get the views of the people, which, as he knows, are very controversial on this particular topic, as it is on all important topics, and bring these views forward to the group of people that Canadians have selected to make that ultimate decision. I think it is very important to get those views to the decision makers.

[Parliamentary Reform, November 21st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the hon. member for Ottawa—Vanier.

As we talk about modernization once again, I want to put forward a few points that, as we talk about it over the coming years, might be put into the discussion, and some points which may not have been raised before.

Sometimes I get frustrated with the time we spend talking about procedures here when we are on the verge of a war where our sons and daughters and many innocent citizens could be killed, when people do not have shelter or enough food to eat, when many people in my riding and in others are unemployed, when fishermen have no fish and when farmers are in a drought. Hopefully we can get back to dealing with some of those issues quickly.

However, in that we have set aside two days for this debate, I would like to put out some ideas to think about in the coming years.

Last week I was in Washington observing the U.S. congress until it closed at three in the morning on, I believe, Thursday night. It is not that I am recommending we copy the American system, but there is an interesting structural difference in the shape of both of those houses, which are different than the two houses here. As we know, here we have sort of a confrontational system. In case the public does not know, we are actually a distance of two sword lengths from each other and, with the passion of today's question period and others, they might see why.

In the United States congress the houses are built in a half circle, with both parties sitting in the half circle facing a speaker in the centre. One can symbolize that as common people from a common country facing a moderator with a procedure or a problem. They are all trying to address a problem together as partners with different points of view, but the opposition is the problem facing the country, not each other. Whether or not that works, I think it might be interesting for further consideration.

Another thing the members of the U.S. congress can do, which is quite interesting, is share their time in debate. One of the previous speakers who spoke in the debate this morning had a 20 minute time slot. A person can get through a lot of points in 20 minutes. I will probably get through about eight or so in only 10 minutes.

In the American system, officials can stop and lend their time to one, two or three other people to make an intervention and then carry on. What happens then is that they get quite an animated debate with several people from each side offering different views on the point as it arises. It is quite interesting and something to think about.

Another long term thing to think about, although I am not necessarily advocating it but putting it on the table to consider, is finding a way of ensuring that members in cabinet have the technical expertise in cabinet, especially in an ever increasing technical world. For instance, in the American system and in the French system, which is a hybrid system, unelected members of cabinet or members who were experts in their field can bring a great deal of expertise to the portfolio, which has of course the deterrence of not having the moral authority but the advantage of having the technical expertise to lend for consideration.

We also should at some time consider the possible disconnection with the bureaucracy in the House, especially with people who are outside cabinet or a parliamentary secretary responsible for a particular department. If one were to go to a political science class and ask what the legislative branch of the federal government is, the simple answer that person would be given is this body. However that is really only the tip of the iceberg. The legislative process involves several hundred thousand government employees and ultimately the population, and reference to similar legislation in the world community.

In the months and years it takes the experts and employees of the government bureaucracy to develop legislation, a lot of knowledge, a lot of rationale and a lot of consultation with citizens of our country and other countries have gone into the legislation. When it gets to the House, members are rushed. They must deal with dozens of constituents, address many bills and attend many committees and meetings. I am not sure they have adequate time to ask questions, to consult or to have interaction with some of the people in the bureaucracy who have the expertise on a particular bill to be able to justify or explain any misconceptions. On the other hand, questions being asked by Canadians could then be asked of the experts who would have to respond, explain or do further research.

I also want to make a brief comment on the sitting schedule. I of course am the worst case in this situation because I am on a plane 6 out of 14 days. Perhaps the House should look at a way of having a longer number of days together, 10, 14 or more. We could then have more days off for travel time. I know there will be all sorts of varying opinions on that.

I also wish to comment on the take note debates which have been and can be a very successful medium for dealing in more depth on the urgent matters of the day. These matters have sometimes been left by the wayside as we carry on with the regular procedures on long time law-making of things that are worked over decades. The perfect example is September 11 when we were in the process of discussing some poison for ground squirrels and a take note debate for a number of days allowed us to spend time on a very serious issues at the time, given the appropriate time and input from all members of parliament because it can go on late into the night.

However, if we do hold those debates, which I think have been handled very well so far, I think it is incumbent on all the participants, and that includes not only the people in the House but the people in the government departments who are responsible for the particular area, to carefully analyze the many hours of debate and extract the salient points. As well, the employees of the minister should be taking notes so the minister and other decision makers can have those salient points to look at in a reasonable time without sifting through all the extraneous material. They can use that information to improve or solve the situation. The purpose of the whole debate is to find a better solution to the problem by using all the good ideas that come from all members of the House.

I believe this has been done to some extent in the take note debates so far. I hope that will become a practice, where there is that involvement and that sifting out of the very valuable information from all sides of the House.

One of the parties had suggested advance time on opposition day motions. Once again this makes eminent sense. Legislation can take months and years to prepare. If a motion is proposed the day before, how will Canadians know that we have made a thoughtful, reasonable and well researched decision on a major issue?

Those are some of my ideas. I would be delighted to entertain questions.

[Grain Transportation, November 21st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the threat of a strike or a lockout with regard to the ongoing grain dispute at the port of Prince Rupert has rested heavily on the minds of many members of the House.

I would like to ask the Minister of Labour what is being done to bring the parties to this dispute back to the bargaining table, and when can we expect a settlement?

[Parliamentary Reform, November 21st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, could the member give his opinions on one of the items for the debate today, the potential review related to judges? Some people suggested that judges should be elected. I wonder what the member's thoughts are.

[Parliamentary Reform, November 21st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues in the Bloc have given a standing ovation for this speech, a longer one than I have seen in some time, so I am curious and will ask a question.

I have never said this myself, but there are people who have suggested in modernizing Parliament that to be elected to Parliament members should be patriotic to the country and the nation as one whole, undivided, non-separated nation. Therefore, certain members who are in the House now, under those proscriptions, which I have not brought forward but some have, would not even be allowed to serve. I am curious as to what the member thinks about that.

[The Environment, November 18th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I wish to congratulate the Gwich'in chiefs and other heroic Canadians who are in Ottawa today after marching on Washington, D.C. Saturday to protect the porcupine caribou herd from oil drilling in their calving grounds in the 1002 lands of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. This herd sustains a civilization that is thousands of years old and is one of the hallmarks of Canada's proud diversity.

I would like to commend the efforts of northerners like Fred Carmichael, grand chief of the Gwich'in tribal council; Peter Ross, chief of the Gwichya Gwich'in; Abe Wilson, chief of the Tetlit Gwich'in; Joe Linkletter, chief of the Vuntut Gwich'in; Ken Madsen, the walk coordinator; Wendy and the kids, Abe, Malcolm and Norma Kassi.

I was pleased to join them in Washington this past week to raise awareness of the calving grounds of the porcupine caribou herds. I wish to commend all the participants in the walk for their hard work so far.

Because of the recent elections in the United States it is important all of us here in Parliament redouble our efforts. The Canadian government has always supported this fight and we must all keep up a great fight.