Mr. Speaker, within the eight minutes, I hope to shed some light on the debate. However, many of the points that I wanted to bring up have already been covered by all three of my colleagues here in the House, including the mover of the motion, the member for Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia.
There was certainly a lot of work involved in this proposal. The motion is quite broad in scope, with sweeping measures that would be brought in with one particular vote.
For that reason, I share some of the concerns of my other colleagues, outside of the mover of the motion, in that once it is done, it is done, and then the changes would take place within the Standing Orders. It has been common practice here to take reforms of this magnitude before the procedure and House affairs committee to study. The committee then calls certain experts in the field, along with former parliamentarians and Speakers of the House. Once that is done, the procedure is to come back and report the findings to the House of Commons, and at that point any of the members, excluding cabinet and the Speaker, could produce a motion that picks up on it.
I have no problem supporting some motions that would make changes to the Standing Orders. Some of the particular instances that the member has here have quite a bit of merit and I would vote for them outright, but on others I would want to have more answers before I could decide to move on them.
For example, the hon. member from Ontario, the mover of Bill C-586— the reform act, as it was called across the country—brought in measures prior to that pertaining to question period and its function. The hon. member who spoke on behalf of the government also brought up that point. He quoted from O'Brien and Bosc and talked about how the conduct of question period is based more on precedence and tradition than on what exists in the current Standing Orders. However, my hon. colleague from Ontario was talking about the fact that at the end of question period there would be more flexibility to allow an individual member to stand up and ask a question. Most likely it would pertain to the member's particular riding, as opposed to a particular strategy or news of the day that was national in scope. That is something I would vote for outright.
The allowance for individual members' questions is outlined here in O'Brien and Bosc and our current Standing Orders, which describe the function of question period and how it operates. The motion before us would codify some of what has been performed more by tradition than anything else, and for that I congratulate the member, because more clarity around how we behave is certainly welcome.
The member talked about the three main measures. I spoke about the one pertaining to question period. Another measure is the constitution of certain committees.
As others have said, and as I thought when I first read it, it is a novel concept, because people who do not have first chance at bringing private members' bills would, at least on the other end of that, have a chance to sit on the committee that they desire.
For example, the largest industry in my sector is the fishing industry. I would love to be on the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, but it is difficult because we only get one seat. This measure would give me a better chance of doing that. For that reason, yes, I would agree with it.
However, the problem is that parties here in the House have to weigh the national interest with regional interests, gender interests, and so forth. For instance, if someone in the caucus is a member of a visible minority, that person would be beneficial on a particular committee.
By way of another example, if a member formerly served in the Canadian Forces and has a genuine interest in sitting on the veterans affairs committee, I think it is legitimate to ask to do so. However, it is best for that member to make the case in front of people who make the decision and not do it through a draw or a lottery. That said, these are the two ways that we deal with it.
Again, I applaud what the member is trying to do here, because the power of the individual member of Parliament has been eroded for quite some time.
I defend what he is doing, which is why sending it to the procedure and House affairs committee would have probably been a better route. Certainly whether this motion succeeds or it does not, maybe we should consider asking the procedure and House affairs committee to go forward with a study anyway, to see how we can increase the role or the powers of individual members of Parliament.
Again, I would turn to the example about interest: regional interests, gender, and visible minorities. This is what we do in selecting cabinet. When the governments of the day select a cabinet, they use those criteria. It is not just about a particular person who is well suited for that job; they have to consider regional interests.
Right now there is nobody sitting in cabinet from Newfoundland and Labrador. That is because there is nobody on the government side who was elected from Newfoundland and Labrador. There are no Conservatives who have been elected there. I have always said they are a smart bunch in Newfoundland and Labrador. I have always given them credit for that, and I continue to do so, of course.
