Mauril Bélanger

[Queen's Jubilee Medal, December 12th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, on Monday next, December 16, I will be presenting the Queen's Golden Jubilee Medal in a ceremony on Parliament Hill.

My congratulations go to: Marc Arbour, Harvey Barkun, Georges Edouard Bourgoignie, Pierre Choquette, Robert Charles Day, Jeffrey Docksey, Jennifer Eastham, Sharon Evans, Timothy Graham, Christopher Jackson, John Hadwen, Norman Lafrance, Jack Lee, George Lindsey, Ian Morgan, Faye Morgan, Mario Denis Paillé, the late Joan Robinson, Renald Paquette, Paul de B. Taillon and Philip Whitehead.

I also had the privilege of presenting a posthumous medal to the late Fred Shortt at a commemorative evening held in his honour on Monday, December 9, at the Canadian Aviation Museum. I will also have the honour of participating tomorrow afternoon in the ceremony honouring the National Research Council's outstanding employees.

A well deserved honour to all.

[Human Genes, December 11th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry.

Last week, the Supreme Court of Canada handed down its decision on the patenting of life forms. In response to a question posed in the House on this matter, the minister said, and I quote:

We will be acting soon in response to the issue. We will be consulting Canadians.

Up to now, the private sector has dominated the debate on the patenting of human genes and life forms.

Can the Minister of Industry tell us when and how the government will consult with Canadians on this important issue?

[U.S. Embassy, December 4th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, my question deals with the cement barricades around the U.S. embassy. I have asked the Solicitor General this question and debated with his parliamentary secretary, yet cannot get an answer to the question.

Last year cement barriers were put up to prevent or push back a car or truck bomb attack, an attack we all hope will never happen. Should it happen however, the point of impact would be five metres further away from the embassy, and by the same token, five metres closer to our own citizens who work and live across the street.

Are we not putting our own citizens at greater risk with these barriers?

[Ottawa—Vanier Community, December 4th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, today I would like to pay homage to three pillars of the Ottawa—Vanier community, who have passed away recently: Laurette Roy, Paul St-Georges and Robert Madore.

They were exemplary in their dedication to our community. Ms. Roy, Mr. St-Georges and Mr. Madore were always there to lend a helping hand to individuals and organizations in need.

They will be sorely missed at the Centre Pauline-Charron, the Canadian Legion (branch 462), the Knights of Columbus (council 5571), the Optimist Club and the Institut canadien-français d'Ottawa, among others.

It is impossible to truly honour these three citizens in one minute. Nonetheless, I wanted the House to know that the people of Ottawa—Vanier will not soon forget them.

I wish to express my sincerest condolences to the members of their respective families.

[Anti-personnel landmines, December 2nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow, December 3, is the fifth anniversary of the signing of the Ottawa convention banning anti-personnel mines. On this day, in 1997, 122 countries made a commitment to the rest of the world.

Since the beginning, Canada has been a leader in the campaign to eliminate anti-personnel mines. Since 1997, Canada has spent $100 million on anti-mine programs to encourage countries to take part in this effort, on demining operations, on assistance for victims of landmines and on destroying landmine stocks.

I am all the more proud because, on Friday, the government announced that it was renewing its funding to the tune of $72 million.

One hundred and thirty countries have now ratified the Ottawa convention and more than 34 million landmines have been destroyed. I also wish to congratulate the numerous volunteers who organized the second annual potluck dinner at Ashbury College in Rockcliffe Park last Friday night for the benefit of the landmines fund. I congratulate all those people.

[Kyoto Protocol, November 29th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today on ratification of the Kyoto protocol. I will do so in both official languages and will address it under three heads, essentially: Why Kyoto? How? Why now?

First, why Kyoto? I think it is becoming self-evident that the environmental sciences have given us a picture of our world as it is and what perspectives we can expect as it changes. By combining those two, scientists have basically warned us about the current conditions and the trend that our world faces. All experts agree that our climate is changing. Most agree that this change is not good. It is in that context that Kyoto was born.

As we know, the protocol addresses global climate change, a problem affecting the entire planet. No country, no matter how large, how small, how rich, how poor, no matter what resources it has to exploit, no matter what its emissions are, is exempt from the effects of climate change.

One of the principal factors contributing to this climate change is the presence of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere. While these gases do form naturally, humans are responsible for adding much of them.

Most of the things we do to stay alive, to live our lives, involve the consumption of energy. Be it to heat our homes, to heat our businesses, to transport ourselves or goods, or to power our industries, these contribute in one way or another to the production of greenhouse gases. Science informs us that there is a direct link between rising atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, global warming and more frequent extreme weather events.

Scientists have also noted the effects of global warming on our variable Canadian climate. According to a group of scientists in Alberta, in a letter written to Premier Ralph Klein:

...considerable warming has already taken place on the western Prairies. Increases in temperature since the early 20th century have been from 1 to 3C at various prairie locations...The resulting increases in evaporation have without doubt aggravated the drought conditions that currently plague the western Prairies.

This is but one example. We also know that our forestry, our fisheries, our coastal communities and even our water resources are or will also be affected.

Scientists are not alone in noting these changes. Everyday folks are noting them as well. If anyone has spent a summer day in one of our large urban centres, especially those in central Canada, in Toronto or even in Ottawa, it can be noted that we have had more and more frequent smog warnings. We have to warn people who suffer from asthma. We have to warn the very young, our children, and the very old to stay indoors during the grand days of summer. Climate change affects not only our resources; it affects our health.

There are very few absolutes in life. In this case it is not an absolute. Not every scientist in Canada and not every scientist in the world agrees that the severe weather situations we have experienced are the direct effect of greenhouse gases. I do believe, though, that somewhere around 85% to 90% of scientists do concur with that view. There are those who do not and will not, and down the road we may find out that they are right. I do not think so. Most of the scientists do not think that way, but we cannot discount that 100%.

I have had constituents write to me about this. There is one response that I will quote which pretty well explains my position on this. It is a letter that I sent to Mr. Ronald Mace, whom I have had the pleasure of meeting. We have had very civilized, very constructive discussions. He has been quite reasonable in his approach and sometimes quite convincing. However, I had to say this in my letter:

Dear Mr. Mace:

I have taken note of the material you sent me on October 10th regarding the scientific underpinnings of the Kyoto Protocol.

Consensus does not entail unanimity. Indeed, unanimity is seldom, if ever, attained in many areas of scientific endeavour; especially one as young, vast and complex as the environmental sciences.

However, I do believe that far more scientists--and I could supply you with forests of paper to that effect!--concur with the need to be concerned about global climate change.

Perhaps those scientists who do not agree with this concern are right; perhaps not. If I am to err, then I will err on the side of caution. I will support ratification of the Kyoto Protocol.

The plan--yet to be finalized--to give effect to our commitment must be realistic and equitable to all regions of Canada. Therein lies our true challenge.

This is the approach I believe the government is taking, one of being cautious, one of being responsible, and one of addressing something that must be addressed. In the end, to govern is to choose. The government has chosen to ratify the Kyoto protocol before the end of the year, something I wholeheartedly support. I believe it is doing the right thing. As I have said in writing to my constituents and as I have said in interviews, I intend to vote in favour of ratification of the Kyoto protocol.

That begs the question of how to implement Kyoto. There has been and there will continue to be tremendous debate on the plan to implement the protocol. I am convinced that we collectively in Canada will make errors and mistakes as we proceed. We will change the plan, we will improve it, and we will correct it as new technologies are perfected. We will find out at times that we are not going as fast as we should and that we have to be more aggressive in reaching our targets.

There is not a single individual or family in Canada who could state categorically and establish a 10-year plan without having the ability to change it as they proceed. That is what Canadians will do as we embark on reaching our targets once we have ratified the protocol.

I would like to give a good example of that ability to change. In today's Globe and Mail , the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, one of the associations that has been dead set against the ratification of Kyoto, has now floated an idea. It has suggested that companies which do not meet their gas emission reduction targets be compelled to contribute to a green fund which in turn would be used to develop new technologies. It has suggested that these companies should be compelled to buy into this green fund instead of buying carbon credits as had initially been lobbied to be done.

That is great encouragement in this change of approach by an association that has been steadfast in its opposition to the ratification of the Kyoto protocol. It realizes that Canadians can and will find ways of reaching these targets if we put our minds to it.

There is one other point I would like to raise. It comes from page 35 of the plan.

There is a little part that we should focus on:

The Council of Energy Ministers instructed officials across governments and departments to develop terms of reference for an expanded analysis to identify institutional, regulatory and economic constraints to new regional transmission development in Canada, and to set out options to address these constraints. This work is to take into account the evolving competitive and integrated nature of North American electricity markets.

It would be extremely advantageous to consider making the necessary investments to develop some way of transmitting our electrical energy from east to west and vice versa. The province of Quebec has an impressive hydroelectric capacity and exports a considerable amount of its energy. I believe it might be appropriate for the Government of Canada to participate in developing the means of exporting this energy from east to west.

The province of Manitoba also has excess hydro capacities. We should consider seriously investing infrastructure money to develop an east-west grid. That would go a long way to help Ontario, for instance, which will need some additional electrical capacity to meet its commitments and to supply the energy that its citizens need.

In a householder I sent out this fall, I indicated that I would be supporting ratification of Kyoto. The reaction of those who took the time to phone or write me indicates clearly that 75% to 80% are in favour of ratification. They are delighted that I have taken that position. I believe it is important to proceed with that ratification now.

On December 11, that is 12 days from now, it will be the fifth anniversary of the signing of the Kyoto accord protocol. Five years since the protocol was signed. It is high time it was ratified. I feel that five years of consultations, five years of analyses, five years of discussions, have brought us to the point now that we are prepared to ratify this agreement for the sake of our future and that of our children, and so that we can live in harmony with our planet.

[Science and Engineering, November 28th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate Dr. Tito Scaiano, a chemist at the University of Ottawa, on being named winner of the 2002 Gerhard Herzberg Canada Gold Medal for Science and Engineering.

For the past 30 years Dr. Scaiano has been at the forefront of research into the interactions of light and molecules, which has contributed to the development of free radicals, antioxidants, photo-activated pharmaceuticals and better sunscreens.

With more than 500 journal articles to his name, Dr. Scaiano is Canada's most widely cited chemist.

The 2002 Herzberg award guarantees that Dr. Scaiano will receive $250,000 over the next five years to supplement his existing research funding of $1 million for the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council.

I also congratulate NSERC which, over the last 10 years, has contributed over $5 billion into basic research, university-industry projects and the training of Canada's next generation of scientists and engineers.

[Canada Health Act, November 22nd, 2002]

moved that Bill C-202, an act to amend the Canada Health Act (linguistic duality), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise, and I am doing so eagerly, to speak to Bill C-202, which will be debated in the House today for the first hour at second reading stage. Before going any further, I want to thank my colleague, the member for Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, for supporting this bill at first reading, and the member for Leeds—Grenville for supporting it at second reading.

I said eagerly because I have been waiting for this moment for five years, since this initiative started its journey in the House in 1997.

This bill would add a sixth principle to the Canada Health Act. This basic principle would ensure that Canada's linguistic duality is respected in the health care system everywhere in Canada.

When we put it like that, it sounds cold, legal and perhaps even incomprehensible to people who have better things to do than to read the Canada Health Act, things like earning a living for instance. However, for those who, like us, look into issues that are of concern to Canadians and are responsible for deciding on the best course of action for the future of one and all, this is downright scary.

This is when people start looking for—and they always find some unfortunately—the kind of arguments that hold us back. The most common one is that it is too expensive. Believe me, there will always be complaints about anything having to do with the rights of minorities being too expensive.

That it is not true, however. Quite the contrary. Bill C-202 asks that we take account, and I quote, “of the human, material and financial resources” of the facilities involved in developing health care access plans or delivering these services. No action shall be taken without looking at the capacity of each facility.

Also, with new technologies like telemedicine and diagnostic software, health care professionals will be able to provide services to several facilities.

Granted, hiring personnel capable of providing health care services in both official languages will entail additional costs. However, given that health care reform is unavoidable and actually well underway, we need to train more physicians and nurses anyway. So, why not train enough health professionals capable of working in both official languages of the country?

The current political climate suggests that the Government of Canada will have to reinvest in health care. So, with a sixth principle, a portion of the additional contributions would be dedicated to steps taken to respect the principle of linguistic duality.

The other reaction we get to the addition of a sixth principle is to say that this is an area that does not fall under the jurisdiction of the federal government. I say that it is not so. Yes, and everyone agrees on this, health programs and their management are the responsibility of the provinces. But the Canada Health Act and the Canada Health and Social Transfer are within the federal jurisdiction. In fact, the highest court in this land has recognized the constitutionality of the Canada Health Act. It is wrong, therefore, to say that the Parliament of Canada cannot set the conditions for the transfer of credits to the provinces.

You do not have to be a rocket scientist to realize that Canada and each of its provinces and territories are having serious problems in the area of health, especially in terms of ensuring that everyone has equal access to top quality health care and services.

The whole country is facing significant shortages in terms of doctors and health professionals. There are also too few nurses. We see a shortage of family physicians in big cities, something that, not so long ago, used to occur only in remote areas. Even at that time, it was unacceptable.

I am not blaming anyone, but we have to realize that governments were unable to find a solution and to stop that shortage from affecting the big cities and now almost everyone.

And as if that were not enough, our governments now have to pay more just to maintain the current level of health care. A huge portion of every government's budget goes to health care. We restructure. We merge. We innovate. We introduce new methods. We close beds. We perform more day surgeries. We keep looking frantically for a solution to this problem, which has reached epidemic proportions.

In its substantial report, the committee chaired by Senator Michael Kirby raises these concerns and proposes solutions. In Canada, the people wants this to be the number one issue.

The commission chaired by the hon. Roy Romanow will be releasing its final report next week.

I draw hope from the words of Commissioner Romanow in a speech he delivered for the John Kenneth Galbraith lecture on public policy at Memorial University in Newfoundland last October 23:

The principles of the Canada Health Act were built on basic values like equity and solidarity. To Canadians, these values mean everyone should have access to our health care system on the same terms and conditions, and that this access is ultimately a right of citizenship.

They mean that access to the health care system should be based on need, not a person's wealth, province of residence, gender or age. Canadians still feel strongly that these basic values must set the direction upon which the system is governed in the future. They have served us well and they show us the way.

In fact, as long as change is built from these values, I believe change will be acceptable to Canadians. In other words, I think Canadians are prepared to rethink some of their ideas about medicare, provided we do not retreat from our ideals.

Following those words from Mr. Romanow, I remind members that all minority language communities in Canada support the bill.

Umbrella organizations, which represent those communities, namely the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadiennes du Canada, or FCFA, and the Quebec Community Groups Network, or QCGN, asked that a sixth principle be added to the Canada Health Act. Those groups made that request to Mr. Romanow during his Canada-wide hearings and they made the same request to the Senate committee chaired by Senator Kirby. Our communities want it.

This debate and the subsequent vote will not be an easy task, but hon. members will agree that we are not here to make easy decisions. If everything always went well, we would not even need to be here. We are here because the task is difficult and because people, in each of our ridings, regardless of the political party or the region, expect us to deal with issues that are difficult but important for their future.

I dare say that issues dealing with linguistic minority rights are central to our idea of this part of America, where we chose tolerance and diversity rather than the absolute quest for uniformity. We have chosen difficult tasks because they allow us, collectively and individually, to reach a higher level.

All parties in the House acknowledge the relevancy of Official Languages Act, the rights of Canadians enshrined in the Constitution and the preponderance of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We all have undeniable rights.

Even the Canadian Alliance which, as the former Reform Party, did not consider linguistic duality as important, in its policies, now acknowledges the importance of our two official languages, and I quote:

We support the need for key federal institutions, such as Parliament and the Supreme Court, to serve Canadians in both English and French.

In its policy statement of May 2002, the party also acknowledged, and I quote:

--the federal government's responsibility to uphold minority rights.

No one will be surprised to hear that the million francophones making up minority communities in Canada have an urgent need for services and health care in their language. A study published by the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadiennes, the FCFA, indicates that at least half of that community has no access to health care in French.

The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, the member of Parliament for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, has recognized the difficulty minority communities experience in accessing proper health care services in their official language.

In addressing the Quebec Community Groups Network on October 20, he said:

You have identified access to quality health care in one's mother tongue as a very high priority. A Missiquoi Institute-CROP survey in 2000 indicated that 84% of anglophones [in Quebec] rate that type of access as “very” or “extremely important”. This is particularly relevant because a greater proportion of the anglophone community is 65 years of age or older...and more likely to use the health care system.... This older population also tends to be far more unilingual: 56% of them do not speak French.

The minister also said that access is particularly difficult outside the greater Montreal region.

As far as I am concerned, we have first and foremost a moral obligation to these communities.

Furthermore, I would like to underscore to the government and the cabinet that there is a constitutional obligation to add this sixth principle. I realize that, when the Canada Health Act was enacted, it was left out. Our history is full of such omissions, but also corrections that we have made when our mistakes became apparent.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Official Languages Act of Canada require that the federal government take into consideration linguistic minorities.

While this may not have been clear in the past, it is quite clear now. All of the successive judgments from the courts have confirmed this constitutional obligation, particularly judgments handed down by the Supreme Court of Canada on Quebec's secession and in the Beaulac decision, not to mention the unprecedented decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal in the Montfort Hospital case.

And I would go so far as to say that if the Government of Canada ignores its responsibilities, how can we expect provincial governments to shoulder theirs?

The Official Languages Act, backed by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, particularly at section 16, requires that all Government of Canada programs take into consideration our linguistic duality. Without a doubt, this includes the cash transfers to the provinces for health care services.

In fact, one only has to read the Canada Health Act to realize that failing to specify the vital nature of services to minorities was an oversight. Take only a few of these principles that are considered sacred by Canadians.

Take universality. If service delivery is to be universal in a country where there are two official languages, then it goes without saying that we must serve linguistic minorities the same way we serve the majority.

When it comes to accessibility, having equal access to health care services no doubt means access to services in one's own official language.

As for portability, let us reflect for a moment on what is included in this principle. It says that we will be treated as we would be treated in our home province, should we need to call upon health care services in a province other than our home province.

In some Canadian provinces, residents enjoy linguistic rights when it comes to health care services. This is the case in New Brunswick, which is the only officially bilingual province.

Let us ask ourselves this question: can Canadians who have certain language rights with regard to health care in their province of residence transfer those rights to the other provinces, particularly the ones that do not offer these language rights to their own residents? We have to wonder about that.

If the principle of transferability, or portability, in the health care system implies language rights for some Canadians, should we not ensure that these rights are extended to all Canadians, regardless of their province of residence?

Despite these arguments that I believe to be sound, some will ask whether the existing principles imply respect for linguistic duality. If the act, the charter and the unwritten principles in the Canadian Constitution already require that minorities be protected, why add a principle that may be redundant after all and therefore useless?

We all know the answer to that question. We have learned, after nearly a century and a half of history that, unfortunately, keeps repeating itself, that we cannot rely solely on the goodwill, the understanding and the vigilance of our governments with regard to linguistic duality.

This is why we legislate. This is why we have a Constitution. This is why we have a Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It must be written in black and white in our statutes. And even then, we know that we have to be vigilant.

I will ask those who argue that it is not necessary to add a principle to protect our country's linguistic duality with regard to health care a question that is just as valid. If the existing principles imply respect for linguistic duality, why then would anyone be afraid of adding such a principle?

Here again, we know the answer, and it is not pretty. The truth is that, politically, it is not worth it. It creates problems for nothing. In Canada, as we know, linguistic issues have always been explosive.

So we are back to square one, caught in a vicious circle of our own creation, immobilized by fear, unable to act, while the rights of the linguistic minorities keep on being ignored.

How many more court decisions will it take before we take action?

If I may, I will appeal to your sense of history, our history. We are all victims of misinformation when it comes to our history, which includes having us believe that the founders of our country were not preoccupied by linguistic duality. It is absolutely not the case.

When the Fathers of Confederation took the bold step of creating a new country, 135 years ago, they would not have conceived of Canada not respecting the rights of its linguistic minorities. The protection of these minorities was the underlying principle in all their efforts and actions.

If ever there were any doubts regarding their intentions, the decision of the Appeal Court of Ontario in the Montfort case erases them all. The judges of this highly respected court wrote, and I quote:

Protections granted to linguistic and religious minorities are an essential characteristic of the 1867 Constitution, without which Confederation would not have come into being.

The court also quotes a reference to the Supreme Court dated 1932, in which Lord Sankey wrote, and I quote:

It is important to keep in mind that the preservation of the rights of minorities was a condition on which such minorities entered into the federation, and the foundation upon which the whole structure was subsequently erected.

It is high time we lived up to the promises made by the Fathers of Confederation. It is time to set aside our traditional arguments. It is time to make hard decisions.

Under the law, under our Constitution, in keeping with our history, and in the name of the legacy we will leave to humanity, in the name of everything good this country represents, in the name of past, present and future generations, I urge this House to demonstrate a spirit of generosity, the Canadian spirit, when it comes to this bill.

[Parliamentary Reform, November 21st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, we are certainly capable of doing that if we have the budgets to do it with. As it is now, a committee first has to get permission to travel from everyone in the House. I think a committee should have the ability within itself in a majority way to decide if it is going to travel or not, and second, it should have the budget and it should live within that budget.

This is not something new. Most committees have the ability to travel. The finance committee does it on a regular basis every fall in its prebudget hearings. We have had the fisheries and oceans committee do extensive travel, and the transport committee as well. This is nothing new and by and large it is a very useful exercise. Also it is less costly than when the executive does it. I have seen budgets for when departments carried out the same kind of exercise throughout the country. They were much more costly and involved than when committees of the House did it.

I do not have a problem with it if the responsibility for and the decision to travel rest with the committee, within the confines of the House sittings and so forth. There has to be respect for quorum calls and for the ability of the government to pass its legislation and so forth. Everyone understands that and it is why we have so-called off weeks. Maybe we could deal with the scheduling. I think that the authority could easily rest within the committees as long as they have some control over their budgets.

[Parliamentary Reform, November 21st, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am taking part in this debate today because I notice that members of this House who may not necessarily be part of government have a responsibility to strive toward greater balance between the legislative branch and the executive branch.

It is within that context that I would like to address my remarks. This issue of leverage or equilibrium between these two branches, and the judicial branch as well, is fundamental to our system of government. Our parliamentary government affords us an opportunity, here in this House, where the executive and legislative branches work alongside on a daily basis and each tries to get the upper hand.

A problem sometimes arises when there is an imbalance of power. It is fundamental to strive towards a balance. It is also realistic to say that it is only natural that there be some movement. There is movement in our lives, in society, as everyone knows; things are not static. So things change. An incident may bring about a change, a political will to do things differently for instance.

There may also be a desire to change direction. In the past 30, 40 or 50 years, there has been a tendency to concentrate more power in the hands of the executive branch than in those of the legislative branch. I think we have come to a point in our parliamentary history where the legislative branch is expressing, in various ways, the desire to try to come back toward a better balance.

The pendulum seems to be swinging back, in the sense that, for many years—30, 40 or 50 years—the trend has been toward concentrating the power in the hands of the executive branch, even at the expense of the legislative branch at times.

I feel there is a need to gradually correct this situation. It is not a good idea to rush to introduce changes that affect the well-being of everyone. I am not the first to say this. I recommend that members read the book by Professor Donald Savoie entitled Governing from the Centre , which is being quoted widely.

Nevertheless, we get the impression that, since the 1960s, there has been a move toward greater concentration in certain executive bodies and, consequently, greater concentration of power in the hands of the executive branch as compared to the legislative branch. Our experts, Messrs. Marleau and Montpetit, who produced a very important procedure manual, also trace this evolution over the decades.

In this context we find certain tools of great importance to the legislative component. The first of these, in my opinion, at least the one I have been involved with throughout my many years here, is the committee, whether a standing committee of the House or a special committee. The committee structure itself is, in my opinion, the ideal tool for restoring some of the influence, some of the authority, some of the power, to the legislative branch.

In this connection, I trust that the Special Committee on the Modernization and Improvement of the Procedures of the House of Commons, along with others, whether within individual caucuses or all-party groups with an interest in this question, will take certain matters into consideration.

Where committees are concerned, for example, did members of each party have an opportunity to speak about the number of committees in place? Their number can be problematic; we are called upon to sit on so many committees that, in some ways, we feel we are no longer effective. Might certain committees be consolidated? Might others be created? Is there room for any more?

Society evolves and I had to go through this. In fact, it was the former Leader of the Opposition who suggested a standing committee on science and technology. Unfortunately, such a committee could not be created and it was attached to the Standing Committee on Industry, which is already a busy committee. While we cannot doubt the goodwill of committee members, we may question the committee's ability to do all this work.

Perhaps we should also look at the number of members who make up a committee. There seems to be a standard formula. It is understandable that some committees may generate more interest than others. It seems that there is always a great deal of interest for the finance committee or for the foreign affairs committee. Perhaps we could have more members on some committees and fewer on other ones. I realize that all the parties want to be represented and this poses a problem, but I think we should look at this.

I am also thinking about the staff of the committees. Why is it that the clerks of certain committees are replaced on a regular basis? During a session, some committees will have two or three different clerks, while other ones will keep the same clerk not only for the whole session, but for the whole Parliament. There seems to be something wrong here, depending on the committee.

The same is true for budgets, the resources available to all of the committees. I had the opportunity to sit on the liaison committee and I saw that the resources allocated to the committees are not sufficient, first, but also that they are not allocated fairly. So there is also this whole issue that should be considered.

There is also the issue of reports, which has been raised by other members. Incidentally, I will have to reread Hansard for yesterday—I read it quickly—and for today, in order to ensure that I fully understand all of the comments made by those who have taken the floor.

As for reports, I have a recent example in mind. The Standing Joint Committee on Official Languages issued a report on the situation at Air Canada and the company's lack of compliance with the Official Languages Act. I must say that I was very disappointed by the government's response. First, it took a long time. Yes, it was within the 150 days, which may be too long, but it was a flat refusal. We have here a situation in which a company that has responsibilities under the Official Languages Act continues to shirk them, and the government refuses to put any pressure on it. Perhaps we need a better mechanism to follow up on committee reports.

There is also the whole issue of parliamentary secretaries. Should they be members of committees or not? There are arguments for and against the idea. They could certainly attend, without any right to vote. This might be the best solution for everyone.

Finally, we need to affirm ourselves. Are members who sit on committees, and those who chair them really aware of all of the powers of authority committees have? I doubt it. I am not fully aware of them myself; I have discovered some of them, and exercised them and it was wonderful. Twice, witnesses did not wish to testify, and we summoned them to appear using the authority given to committees by the House.

Members of committees could learn more about the powers they already have and do not use. I think it would be useful for the modernization committee or some other committee to look into this, to really focus on the role of committees, but also the tools available to them to improve their effectiveness and their authority.

I also have a few quick comments to make on oral question period. I have always been fascinated by this question period where we give 35 seconds to someone to ask a question, then 35 seconds to another to answer it. The subjects being dealt with are often incredibly complex, and sometimes quite broad.

When there was an exchange between the Prime Minister and the four opposition leaders on our participation as a country in the effort in Bosnia, the rules were suspended for a while. For three quarters of an hour, perhaps an hour, the party leaders were able to ask questions. These were well thought out questions; they had had the time to prepare them and the Prime Minister had the time to respond. The 35-second rule was set aside.

I must admit that this was one of the best exchanges that has ever taken place in this House, and I would like to see more like it.

The matter of the Board of Internal Economy is another thing that bothers me. It is the board that administers the House of Commons, the members. All the members from the government side are appointed by the executive branch. The five representatives from this side of the floor are appointed by the executive branch, not the legislative branch, not the MPs. It might be worthwhile looking into that and having the representatives chosen by the elected members of this House. The only one who is selected by everyone is the Speaker, who is elected at the start of each Parliament.

I do not know anything about the agendas or the outcomes of decisions reached there. I do not believe I can even attend the meetings, whereas any other committee meetings, even in camera ones, are accessible to all MPs. I question the barriers built up around the Board of Internal Economy.

Finally, where private members' business is concerned, progress has been made, and I acknowledge that, but there is still one thing that needs changing, in my opinion. We must not have to depend on the luck of the draw to bring a bill or motion before the Parliament of Canada. This is still the case, and I think it needs reviewing. We must ensure, one way or another, that each member of Parliament can present his or her motion or bill, and there must be some kind of mechanism to ensure that these are examined publicly.