;

HERI Committee Meeting

Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Tuesday, November 5, 2002

0905

The Clerk of the Committee

Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Canadian Alliance)

The Clerk

Mr. John Harvard (Charleswood —St. James—Assiniboia, Lib.)

Mr. Jim Abbott

The Clerk

Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay—Atikokan, Lib.)

The Clerk

Mr. Jim Abbott

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ)

0910

The Clerk

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

The Clerk

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Mr. Jim Abbott

Mr. Dennis Mills (Toronto—Danforth, Lib.)

Mr. Jim Abbott

Mr. Paul Bonwick (Simcoe—Grey, Lib.)

The Clerk

Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Canadian Alliance)

Mr. Dennis Mills

Mr. Chuck Strahl

0915

Mr. Jim Abbott

Mr. Chuck Strahl

Mr. Paul Bonwick

Mr. Chuck Strahl

Mr. Paul Bonwick

Mr. Chuck Strahl

The Clerk

Mr. John Harvard

The Clerk

Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ)

The Clerk

Mr. Claude Duplain (Portneuf, Lib.)

The Clerk

Mr. Jim Abbott

0920

The Clerk

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

The Clerk

Mr. Chuck Strahl

0925

The Clerk

Mr. Stan Dromisky

The Clerk

Mr. Chuck Strahl

The Clerk

Mr. Chuck Strahl

Mr. John Harvard

The Clerk

Mr. Paul Bonwick

0930

Mr. Chuck Strahl

Mr. Paul Bonwick

The Clerk

Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont, Lib.)

The Clerk

Mr. Chuck Strahl

The Clerk

Mr. Chuck Strahl

The Clerk

Mr. Chuck Strahl

The Clerk

Mr. Chuck Strahl

Mr. Jim Abbott

Mr. Chuck Strahl

0935

0940

The Clerk

Mrs. Christiane Gagnon

0945

0950

The Clerk

Ms. Betty Hinton (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys, Canadian Alliance)

0955

The Clerk

Ms. Betty Hinton

The Clerk

Mr. Chuck Strahl

1000

1005

1010

1015

The Clerk

Mr. Jim Abbott

The Clerk

Mr. Chuck Strahl

The Clerk

Mr. Chuck Strahl

The Clerk

Mr. Chuck Strahl

Mr. Claude Duplain

The Clerk

CANADA

Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage

NUMBER 001

2nd SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Tuesday, November 5, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¿ (0905)

[English]

The Clerk of the Committee: Honourable members, I see a quorum. Your first order of business is to elect a chair, and I'm ready to receive nominations.

Mr. Abbott.

Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Canadian Alliance): Madam Clerk, I wonder if we could find consensus amongst ourselves that, if required, we do any election of chairman or vice-chairman by secret ballot.

The Clerk: Is it the wish of the committee to proceed by secret ballot for the election of the chair?

Mr. John Harvard (Charleswood —St. James—Assiniboia, Lib.): Can we place a motion on a hypothesis?

Mr. Jim Abbott: No, to be clear, Mr. Harvard, this is not a motion. This is a request for consensus of this committee. We cannot have a motion, an official motion, prior to the election of the chair.

I advisedly used the word “consensus”, because I don't know if among my Liberal friends there is unanimity. There is amongst the official opposition.

Does the committee, as presently sitting here today, have consensus that we should be going ahead with any election that may possibly be required for the chair and the vice-chair by secret ballot?

The Clerk: Excuse me, there's no translation. Perhaps we could--

An hon. member: This meeting hasn't even started yet.

Mr. Jim Abbott: Yes, she dropped the gavel.

The Clerk: Yes, I brought the gavel down.

Mr. Dromisky.

Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay—Atikokan, Lib.): I'd like to ask the clerk a special question.

Do you have something in the papers before you regarding the proper functioning of a committee, regulations regarding or directives pertaining to the election of officers within that committee? Do you have such a thing before you?

The Clerk: Well, in Marleau and Montpetit, on page 830, dealing with the subject at hand, it says:

On occasion, committees have had recourse to a secret ballot. This is done only when the committee members express a unanimous desire to proceed in this manner.

So if one person says no, then it can't be done.

An hon. member: So you're looking for consensus?

Mr. Jim Abbott: Apparently I can't be looking for consensus, according to that ruling. I would have to be asking for unanimous support.

The Clerk: Is there...

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Do we not simply need a majority vote to adopt a committee decision? Therefore, if the majority requests...

¿ (0910)

[English]

The Clerk: In this case, it requires unanimous consent.

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Okay.

[English]

The Clerk: Do we have unanimous consent to proceed by secret ballot?

Some hon. members: Yes.

The Clerk: Those opposed?

Some hon. members: Yes.

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Yes, but we... If I am not mistaken, I believe that Mr. Abbott would like to add something to that effect in case there is no unanimous consent.

[English]

Mr. Jim Abbott: Well, with committees being able to be masters of their own destiny, I believe we would find that a precedent has been set yesterday, where this issue was resolved by a show of hands. I would therefore request that this committee resolve this issue by a show of hands.

Mr. Dennis Mills (Toronto—Danforth, Lib.): We've already heard more than person say they're not going to give unanimity. So what is the purpose? You can do that, but what's your purpose in doing that?

Mr. Jim Abbott: My purpose in doing it is that it seems to me we are at the cusp of some fairly significant changes with respect to the role of parliamentarians. Although we should never just be followers, certainly if there are good precedents that it doesn't do us any harm to follow...and I'm aware of the fact that, as I say, the committees that met yesterday, comprised of opposition members and Liberal members, resolved this issue in favour of secret ballots, but nonetheless resolved this issue with a show of hands.

An hon. member: A majority.

Mr. Jim Abbott: A majority. I respect the findings of the clerk, and I respect the advice received from Marleau and Montpetit; nonetheless, we are masters of our own destiny. We have precedent, and therefore I would request that we resolve this issue by a show of hands.

The Clerk: Mr. Bonwick.

Mr. Paul Bonwick (Simcoe—Grey, Lib.): Madam Clerk, I would suggest, by the actions of one committee yesterday, that is not necessarily establishing a precedent under the rules and procedures on how committees operate. When a committee is seeking unanimous consent on a particular motion and they do not receive that, it is not a voting situation; it is simply by nature of seeking the unanimous consent of the committee. You either get it, or you don't. You don't have a show of hands.

If you're having a vote on a motion, you thereby would have a show of hands, and you can have an actual kind of vote in that respect. But by seeking unanimous consent, there is no precedent.

It's done in the House on a daily basis, Jim, whereby the Speaker will ask for the unanimous consent, and there's a yea, there's a nay; it's on division. People do not necessarily have to stand up.

The Clerk: Mr. Strahl.

Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Canadian Alliance): I agree that Jim's motion asking for unanimous consent isn't going to go ahead. I mean, if there isn't unanimous consent, there isn't. However, I would like to suggest something to the committee. I know we're not bound by the decisions of any other committee--we make our own rules here--but yesterday at procedure and House affairs, which is the senior committee in the House, they did decide, by a majority decision of the members on that committee, through a show of hands, on whether to proceed with a secret ballot, as they did in agriculture and in aboriginal affairs.

In other words, you can do it. It may not be the norm, but I think we're rapidly going to depart from the norm here after today anyway. Given what was done in committee yesterday, including procedure and House affairs, which is kind of a...well, it doesn't have to be precedent-setting, but it is an important procedural committee.They actually proceeded that way, and asked for a show of hands for those in favour of proceeding by secret ballot, if necessary, which I don't really know it's going to be, frankly. The principle we'd like to establish is that the committee would like to proceed that way, if and when it becomes necessary, either now or in the future. It has been done in the past.

So I would like to ask the committee if the majority of the committee would like to proceed this way. The committee can do as it wants, but the majority of people can direct the committee to proceed that way. And there isn't unanimity, I understand that.

Mr. Dennis Mills: It says unanimous, Chuck. We just read it. You can't break the rules.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: It was done yesterday in procedure and House affairs, Dennis.

¿ (0915)

Mr. Jim Abbott: Procedure and House affairs broke the rules, according to your standard.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: I'm just suggesting that three committees did it yesterday, including procedure and House affairs, and surely they should know the rules--they set them, or at least write them--and they did it by a show of hands, guys.

If you don't want it, just vote against it. Why not proceed? Don't pretend it can't be done procedurally when it was done yesterday in three committees.

Mr. Paul Bonwick: The fact of the matter is, the rules state that it's not allowed. The clerk just read them out, Chuck. Are you suggesting we break the rules?

Mr. Chuck Strahl: I'm suggesting we do what three committees did yesterday, Paul. If you don't like it, vote against it, but--

Mr. Paul Bonwick: I'm supporting you.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Yes, I know.

Mr. Paul Bonwick: The point is, though, to get to the crux of the matter, all you're trying to do is get members to identify themselves in order that the media...or that you might embarrass them.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: I don't think there's any media here, Paul.

Mr. Paul Bonwick: No, I realize that.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Let's just do what's right.

The Clerk: Mr. Harvard.

Mr. John Harvard: I don't know what issue we're talking to, because it's already been decided. The chair of the meeting posed the question, “Is there unanimous consent to have a secret ballot?”, and there was clear indication that the answer was no. That should be the end of the issue.

Now, let me say this, Mr. Strahl. The rules are going to change, probably at about 3:30 this afternoon. It's only 9:15 in the morning, so we haven't gotten to that point. And I guess, being a democracy, we are allowed to conform to the rules, as is, until they're changed. They won't be changed for about six more hours. The rule right now is that you need unanimous consent for a secret ballot. That has been denied. That should be the end of the issue. This afternoon things will change.

The Clerk: Madame Gagnon.

[Translation]

Ms. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Personally, I don't think that any committee will agree to that type of motion, because we know full well that the Liberals will never be unanimous. Therefore, if we want to adopt the principle of the secret ballot, I think this should be done by a show of hands with the majority deciding. Of course, we must not expect the government members to vote in favour of such a motion.

We know that there are members here today who will do their utmost to defeat this motion. That was not a problem in other committees because, for once, there may have been a willingness to be more democratic and to let the majority decide how to proceed. We find ourselves back in a situation where the government will prevail and control the committees. That can be done through a vote and when there is no unanimity... We will never unanimously agree on that type of question nor on many other ones. That is the reason why democracy and the power of individual members is being debated in the House of Commons. Even on this side, we know what we have to do if we want everyone to follow the leader.

Today we are being asked to remove our blinders and to think outside the box. In my opinion, it all comes down to power. The Standing Orders are being discussed. Some committees have had no trouble accepting the principle of the secret ballot but here, the Standing Orders are invoked and are being used to hide behind. We will not make any progress that way. No committee can move forward because there will never be unanimous agreement.

[English]

The Clerk: Mr. Duplain.

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Duplain (Portneuf, Lib.): I would like to make one thing clear. If the Agriculture Committee held a secret ballot yesterday, it was not because of a general willingness to do so, but because the Canadian Alliance member had the floor and was wasting the committee's and the government's time. He could have carried on for two hours because there was no stopping him. That is the only way the committee could get on with its work. Otherwise, nothing would have been accomplished. It was not necessarily all sweetness and light.

[English]

The Clerk: Mr. Abbott.

Mr. Jim Abbott: In response to what Mr. Harvard and Mr. Bonwick were saying about the rules—I'm not a lawyer, so you'll have to bear with me—let me read two sentences the clerk read.

On occasion, committees have had recourse to a secret ballot. This is done only when the committee members express a unanimous desire to proceed in this manner.

If it said, “This can be done only when committee members express unanimous desire”, that would be a rule. This is not a rule. This is an observation of what historically has happened in Parliament. That history was broken, notwithstanding the last intervention by the most significant committee that clearly understands procedure and House affairs, being the committee of procedure and House affairs. They themselves changed and went in a different direction.

I would suggest that this sentence saying that this is done only when committee members express unanimous consent is not a rule; it is simply an observation.

¿ (0920)

The Clerk: Monsieur Sauvageau.

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: I feel that I must comment on what Mr. Duplain has just said because I was also at the Agriculture Committee yesterday. Since it was recorded, I would like to point out that Mr. Duplain supported the principle of a secret ballot at that time. If I am not mistaken, the principle was also adopted by the Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources Committee.

Contrary to what was said, to the effect that there was a breach of procedure and that the Canadian Alliance had wasted the time of those who were present, the members of the official opposition as well as those from other opposition parties availed themselves of the committee rules to try to convince the members of the Liberal Party, which they managed to do after about 40 minutes of debate.

At the outset, the government members seemed opposed to supporting the principle because they said that it was necessary for Quebec to be represented, and that we needed regional representation. That included Mr. Duplain, who later refused to allow his name to stand when they wanted to ensure that Quebec would be represented on the committee.

I don't think it would set a precedent or would be a breach of the Standing Orders if we allowed this committee to vote as a majority to recognize the principle of the secret ballot, whether it be to elect a chair or a vice-chair. Moreover, I don't think the regional representation argument would apply here since the chairman would be Mr. Lincoln, if I am not mistaken.

Therefore, I would like to join with those who feel that we can have a majority vote because it was done yesterday. That could be confirmed with a majority vote this afternoon.

Mr. Mills and others have spoken on it. Democracy can be expressed not only through unanimity but also through a majority vote.

I hope that I have corrected what Mr. Duplain said yesterday about the Agriculture Committee while explaining why I think we should have a majority vote on this principle.

Thank you.

[English]

The Clerk: Excuse me, Mr. Strahl.

I must make it clear to the committee that as clerk, I am unable to proceed to elect the chair by secret ballot unless there is unanimous consent in the committee.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Thank you, Madam Clerk, and I appreciate the difficulty that you're in as clerk. You are just trying to get through in a procedural way, and I certainly don't want to be nasty with you, of course, because you're just doing your job and this is a tough day for you. But I do want to be a little nasty with the others just for a minute, because this idea that Paul raises, that perhaps we're breaking with tradition and you wouldn't want us to break the rules or that kind of thing, kind of flies in the face of even some of the precedents laid down by the Liberal Party.

Back in 1991, when Don Boudria was a member of the government operations committee, he supported a secret ballot election of chairs in that committee. It was done. It's not like it can't be done; it was done, and Don Boudria supported it. He wasn't the House leader then, but then he supported it, because it can be done, because committees are masters of their own destiny. We can do as we please here. It doesn't offend the clerk to do it this way; it doesn't offend anybody's sensibilities. It's quite okay and in fact has been done several times.

I could list the other times, going back to Sergio Marchi. Our researcher has a whole bunch of cases where Liberals supported secret ballot elections. I think they were on the right track, and my hat's off to those Liberals who did that, because they understand that we can do here what we want to proceed with committee elections of chairs.

As I said earlier, I don't even think we're going to need a secret ballot. It's the principle of the thing that counts in this case, and the principle is that we should agree....

I agree with those who say Jim's motion for unanimity didn't work. You guys didn't want it unanimously, but I'm suggesting that we don't have to have unanimity, as was shown yesterday. The clerk has said that, but we proceeded in other committees yesterday just absolutely fine by a majority decision of the committee. In fact, it was done in three committees yesterday. As for whether it was done reluctantly or cheerfully, I don't know people's mindset, but it was certainly done.

I just remind people again that with respect to our formal proceedings, it says in Marleau and Montpetit that this is like an extension of the House. In other words, we can do as we see fit here, and we do it by majority. That's how we do it in the House. We'll do it again this afternoon, as somebody has mentioned. Well, hopefully we will do it this afternoon, but we can do it here the same way.

We're not going to get unanimous consent in the House today; we're going to get majority consent in the House, and the majority consent in the House is going to move it forward. I would suggest again that we can do it here. There is precedent in past times, including support by prominent Liberal members of Parliament, including the current House leader, who supported the secret ballot concept back in 1991 when he was on the government operations committee.

It is done. It can be done. It is not routine, but often done. It has been routinely done this year, at the start of this committee season, and I would suggest again, why don't we just ask for it? We may or may not need it. I don't think we're even going to need it, folks, but I think we should do it as a matter of principle.

If everyone kind of believes we're six hours away from a change, let's just say we're already there in spirit. We've agreed, not unanimously, but we've agreed to it. To proceed that way, I think we'll be out of here in two minutes. But I do think the principle is worth championing, even today, rather than saying the rules are wrong and we're going to change it this afternoon, but we insist on operating under wrong rules until further notice.

Let's just change it, agree to it. I don't think there will even be a vote. But then we can proceed on the principle that this committee has operated under what is right, rather than under what was fashionable in times past.

Again, the clerk is in a difficult position. She has to try to get us through this and on to the election of the chair, and she happily will stay away from the microphone for as long as she can, I'm sure. But I am suggesting again that it has been done; let's do it. It has been done lots of times before.

It's not like we can't do it again, and I suggest we do it now because it's the right thing to do, not for any other reason. Let's just do it. We'll be out of here in a minute, and we've done the principled and right thing. We can rubber-stamp it this afternoon if we want to.

¿ (0925)

The Clerk: Mr. Dromisky, Mr. Bonwick, and Mr. McGuire.

Mr. Stan Dromisky: Thank you very much.

In light of the fact that the loyal opposition and the government representatives on this side have already made some kind of agreement prior to the official opening of this meeting regarding who should sit in what positions--vice-chairs and the chairman--there seems to be some type of unanimous consent between the two parties. And in light of the fact that there is filibuster going on right now, and I have a hell of a lot of work to do in my office and I think you have a very important agenda here, I'm asking the clerk to conduct the meeting and carry on with the business of this committee as quickly as possible. Therefore I'm asking you to put the question on the floor, and let's proceed.

The Clerk: I am open to nominations, not seeing unanimous consent to proceed by secret ballot, which is my only avenue of action.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: I'd like to make a nomination, Madam Clerk.

The Clerk: Do we have nominations for the chair?

Mr. Chuck Strahl: I have a nomination right here.

Mr. John Harvard: Whoa. There's a speaking list here. I think it was Mr. Bonwick next, and then Joe McGuire.

The Clerk: All right then.

Mr. Bonwick.

Mr. Paul Bonwick: Sorry, Chuck, if you're in a hurry to get out of here in the next minute or two. I don't know how many times it can be said—at least four or five—lose the partisan aspect of it. You're talking about two separate things. You're talking about directing the brunt of your anger at us, when in fact you're really arguing with the chair. The chair is the one who read the rule. Your convincing argument should be to the chair, not to us.

That being said, in the interest of cooperation and the tradition of cooperation this committee has had, I would once again suggest that the committee review its decision. Simply look at the matter at hand and what's going to happen in the next few hours, and once again revisit whether or not we're prepared to have a secret ballot or not. That would quite clearly end a lot of the discussion now.

¿ (0930)

Mr. Chuck Strahl: What are you suggesting?

Mr. Paul Bonwick: I'm suggesting that the clerk revisit the committee and see if there is unanimous consent to support--

The Clerk: Mr. McGuire, Madam Gagnon, and Mr. Tirabassi.

Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont, Lib.): Madam Chair, I move that Clifford Lincoln be elected chair of this committee.

The Clerk: Are there further nominations?

Mr. Chuck Strahl: I'd like to debate that motion. I'd like to speak, Madam Chair.

The Clerk: Are there any further nominations to the election of the chair?

Nominations are closed.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: I have my hand up here.

The Clerk: We have a motion on the floor, Mr. Strahl.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: There are more nominations. I've got my hand up; I'm waving my hand.

The Clerk: All right.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: I'd like to explain why I'd like to nominate somebody else. This might take a little while.

Mr. Jim Abbott: Is there unanimity amongst the Liberals to proceed?

An hon. member: We have the nomination for chair.

An hon. member: There is another nomination on the floor.

An hon. member: We'll nominate you.

Mr. Jim Abbott: We're not going to do that.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: I'd like to explain the kind of person that I think should be in the chair of the committee. I think it's important to get the right kind of person for the right reasons.

The person I'd like to see chairing the committee is someone who has the confidence of the committee; someone who has experience—someone like that just walked into the room—someone the committee has recognized as having provided the leadership and the kind of decision-making that has the confidence of everyone here on the committee. I would argue that the best way to promote that person into that position is to have a secret ballot, in order to give them the vote of confidence that we need.

With a secret ballot for that kind of a person, two things happen. First off, you get a person who has the full support of the majority of the committee. There's absolutely no doubt about who has support amongst the committee members. It's a majority. It's obvious that no pressure has been exerted, so the person has the support of committee. I think the person who has been nominated already fits that bill in many ways and likely will go on to become the chairman.

Secondly, though, it's important to have a secret ballot election because someone who decides they don't want that person in the chair should be free to vote against him without fear that, down the road, they're not going to get recognized as often; they're not going to get their day in court, so to speak; they're going to have a chance to express their opinion for someone else or their disappointment in the nomination for the chair, without having the idea that there are going to be reprisals for it. Now, again, in the nomination that we have right now, I don't expect that's going to happen, but there are other committees that I've been on in which that does happen.

You do want to have the freedom to choose the committee chairman based on merit rather than on allegiance to the party office, to the party, or to the PMO. It's not who you know in the PMO—which rhymes nicely—it's picking the best person who has the confidence of all parties on both sides...well, we're not even supposed to be sitting on sides at the table. But it's someone who has the confidence of everyone here.

Of course, it really is an extension of what we've done in the House, where we elect the Speaker, the arbiter between us all in the House of Commons. We do that by secret ballot, and we do that not because there have been awful speakers in times past, not because there are people there who we think should have never held that high office, but because we give a stamp of approval by doing so. We give them more than just the blessing of the Prime Minister's Office or the people who chose those kinds of things in times past. We give them the blessing of the entire House of Commons.

Of course, it's quite an elaborate thing in the House. We have eliminations; everyone's on the ballot unless they're removed from it, and so on. But we decide, at least in the House of Commons, that it's more important to proceed that way because the principle at stake is more important than the principle of expediency.

It may be expedient, it may be easy, it may be the thing to do when you're an old party-faithful person, but what we're really looking for is a chance to duplicate that in this place here. In other words, this may be a microcosm of the House, but right now, at least to date, we haven't dealt with it as a microcosm, we've dealt with it as a rule unto itself rather than a microcosm of the House. Now, I would suggest that since we are supposed to be microcosms of the House, what we should do is proceed as best we can not to totally copy the House of Commons, but to emulate it as closely as possible and in a way that gives us the greatest degree of legitimacy possible.

Again, I believe the chairman-nominee we have on the floor right now has the confidence of the committee and I believe he will be voted in. I don't know whether it will be unanimous in a secret ballot, but I'm going to guess it would be overwhelming—if not unanimous—because he has already proven himself. But that's not the point, of course. The point is that we follow a principle and that the principle is the same here—it should be the same here—as it is in the House of Commons. It's not that good people can't come here by being appointed by the party hierarchy; it's just that it's not the right way to do it, it's not the fair way to do it, and it's not the proper way to do it. In fact, as has already been mentioned in this committee, I would suggest that we're only a few hours away from that changing anyway.

¿ (0935)

It's interesting that every time we propose some of these kinds of changes...I proposed this when I was House leader a couple of years ago. This is one of the changes that we proposed at that time, in writing, in a document called “Building Trust”, which was a series of proposals. I remember that the government House leader at the time stood up and said the idea was preposterous, that it couldn't happen, that it was an awful thing, that it was a heinous thing, that the world would fall, that parliamentary democracy would be at an end, and that, in the end, the sky would fall and Chicken Little would run for cover.

As it turned out, though, at least three of the proposals I proposed at that time and that were in the “Building Trust” document have gone ahead over the course of the last couple of years. There was very little fanfare about them, but the right thing has been done slowly and gradually because people understand that, although our parliamentary democracy needs to be respected, it is something that needs to be tweaked from time to time. One of the tweakings that is necessary is the election of committee chairs by secret ballot.

This is one of those things whose time has come. It's another item that was proposed by the Canadian Alliance over two years ago and that should be done. In fact, it has also been proposed by other esteemed members of the House of Commons, including the member from LaSalle—Émard, who talked about the democratic deficit in this place. One of the critical elements to restoring confidence not of the general public, but of the members of Parliament in general, is to have a secret ballot election in committees. This is done not because it will turn this place on its head, not because the Prime Minister will suddenly not have a meaningful role anymore; what it will do is set a tone, set things in place, set things in motion. Suddenly, what was unthinkable before becomes a practical suggestion today and becomes a fact by tomorrow.

Madam Clerk, I do think this kind of idea will eventually become the norm, it will become something that all of us look forward to. We will one day see secret ballot elections in every single committee in the House of Commons, maybe as early as today. People will say we should do it for the right reasons—not because Paul Martin wants it, not because Jean Chrétien is against it, but because it's the right thing to do.

Madam Clerk, when that happens, all of us will stand and cheer. We'll give credit where credit is due, which is to all members of the House of Commons. In this committee, however, we are still masters of our own destiny. So when that happens, it will be a pleasure to say that this committee was one of the pacesetters, that this committee was one of the ones that set the pace, that it did what was right when others wouldn't stand tall. It will be a pleasure to say that when others failed to stand tall, this committee took the bull by the horns and did the right thing, unafraid of party consequences, unafraid of the party whip, and that we moved forward aggressively and positively for the future of Canada and the future of democracy not because we were told to do so by the party whip, but because we knew in our hearts it was the right thing for all of democracy, including the Canadian way.

Some hon. members: Hear, hear!

An hon. member: More! More! More!

Mr. Shuck Strahl: Madam Clerk, I have more that I'd like to contribute to this debate.

It is interesting that many officers appointed by the House of Commons, people who report to Parliament and usually are appointed in some way by the House and Senate, are often appointed.... These are principal officers of the House. I'm talking about people like the Auditor General, the Chief Electoral Officer, the Commissioner of Official Languages, the Information Commissioner of Canada, the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, and the Clerk of the House of Commons. They're not appointed just by bullying things through committee and forcing them through the House of Commons without some consultation. It's not done that way. How is it done? It's done by bringing people together and having them agree to someone not because the appointment comes out of the Prime Minister's Office, but because it comes out of a consensus of the members of Parliament. One of the jobs we have is not to ride herd on what is happening in the rest of the House. We don't just give it to the Prime Minister, take our paycheques, and all go home. We're here to make sure things are done properly.

¿ (0940)

One of the reasons we're having trouble right now with the Ethics Councillor is that we don't have agreement amongst everyone about what that job should be and who that person should report to. Because there isn't any unanimity, there's a real problem. It's the same thing with committee chairs. It's not that they're bad people. The Ethics Councillor is not a bad person, but he has been given poor marching orders. How can he respond when he doesn't get to table reports in the House, he doesn't get to respond to the initiatives by members of Parliament and others who say they want to check out an ethical situation? He's trapped.

In the same way, we can set the pace here in this committee. We can tell people in whom we have confidence, and we can send that direction clearly in a secret ballot. And when that person takes the chair, do they take it reluctantly? Do they take it by acquiescing? Do they take it by slinking into the role? Of course not. When they get elected by secret ballot, they take it with confidence, they take it with assurance, they take it with pride. They can go home and say they have the confidence not only of Liberal members of Parliament, but of the damn committee. They can say the committee is behind them, that the committee supports them, that they have been elected into this role. They can set forward confidently, knowing they have all the members with them.

What a difference. It's just like the Speaker. What a difference it is for the Speaker to stand up and say he is the servant of the House but has been elected by the House, and that he will give direction to this House because he is not weaseling into the job. He didn't get it by courting favour. He got it because he's qualified, he's ready, he's prepared. In the same way, we should do the same thing. We should elect the chairman of this committee by secret ballot.

Madam Clerk, I rest my case. Thank you.

The Clerk: Madame Gagnon.

[Translation]

Mrs. Christiane Gagnon: Madam Chair, I am somewhat disappointed to see how things are unfolding this morning. I looked into it and I know that this is the only committee that has invoked the Standing Orders with respect to unanimity. This is, in some way, a precedent. Look at what the government members are doing. When they are not happy, they leave, and when comes the time to vote against an opposition motion, they all vote the same way, according to the will of the chair and the orders that they have been given.

And so, Madam Chair, I am a little disappointed. This morning, you could have abstained from invoking the Standing Orders. Other clerks did not feel the need to do it. They did not invoke the Standing Orders and everyone managed to get along. The Standing Orders can easily be used to grind everything to a halt.

On the principle of the secret ballot, Madam Chair, that could have been settled much more quickly this morning. I think we all agree on who should be the chair. You know full well what is at stake with a secret ballot. They talk about democracy and about giving more power to individual members. We have witnessed, this morning, what that additional power really means. This morning, we were not able to exercise the power that we might have had, as they were able to do in other committees.

Earlier, the Member for Portneuf told us that the opposition member at the Agriculture Committee had made quite a speech, that he had taken up a great deal of time, and that that was his somewhat clumsy way of putting across his point of view.

I am not sure I agree with him on that. We do what we have to do as opposition members. We believe that the changes we would like to see in Parliament are closely related to the values that we are defending. We have been elected, and we want our voters to know who we are. When the members of the Canadian Alliance, the Bloc Québécois, the Progressive Conservative Party or the NDP advocate change in the House, then the general public can see what individual members and the parties they represent are all about.

I can see that the government members are not quite on the same wavelength as we are when it comes to the transparency that is required in Parliament, particularly when it comes to appointing committee chairs. We discussed transparency in its broadest sense, including appointments to crown corporations and various government agencies.

We could have found some middle ground this morning. Madam Chair, you know that unanimity is pretty well non-existent. We can give you all kinds of examples. As we have just seen, it does not happen very often.

So I would say that there is no free choice in a committee. In theory, it might be possible, but in practice, Madam Chair, we know full well that that is not the case. We are all in favour of a free vote, but when the time comes, we are not afforded an opportunity to exercise the power that has been bestowed upon us by our constituents.

So in fact, there is no free vote. We wanted the government members to change their attitude, but that change never did come about. They didn't want to go along and so they left. Since no political hay can be made here his morning, they are letting the opposition parties have the floor.

We know that the powers that be will maintain the system that best serves their purpose. This morning, their purpose was served by leaving. There was no agreement on the proposal that was on the table. There was an attempt to hide behind the Standing Orders. Madam Clerk, you are chairing this morning's meeting and you are the one who invoked the Standing Orders, even though we know full well that other clerks proceeded differently yesterday.

The fact that the Prime Minister chooses the committee chairs is an irritant for all members of Parliament. Many of us have a number of years of experience. We are familiar with the parliamentary system and with the caliber of those who are part of it. I don't think we were attacking the individual who has been chosen to chair the committee so much as the procedure that was used to make that choice.

¿ (0945)

We are all familiar with what can happen when there is no secret ballot. The consequences for government members can be harsher than they would be for opposition members. Everyone knows that your future within the government ranks depends upon how well you follow the orders that are given by the leader, the whip. We all know that it is the Prime Minister's way of seeing things that is the crux of the issue here today.

This morning, the Standing Orders were invoked. We could have proceeded differently, with a majority vote. There was a majority in agreement this morning, Madam Chair, and we could tell that members wanted to go ahead with a secret ballot. We could have done things much differently, and that is something that I blame you for.

Why would we do things any differently when it comes to choosing a committee chair? For example, we were all elected by a secret ballot. In my riding, the day after I was elected, everyone said they had voted for me. I know full well that they didn't all vote for me, but they like to say that they did. It's a perfectly human reaction. In any case, I would prefer to believe that most people are happy to have me as their member.

We all know that a secret ballot could give government members a little more leeway than they have now. In other committees, there may be some disagreement as to the choice of a given chair. We have had the same chairman for some time, and I don't think we want another one, but if our chairman decided to step down, for example, and if we had to chose another one, then we would like to have a little flexibility. There is no flexibility within this committee today. I am very disappointed to sit on a committee that seems to be so close-minded and that wants to do things differently. It all boils down to a change in attitude. Understanding is often lacking. People will vote here without really knowing what the vote is all about; they have simply been told to vote in favour of or against something. If we had a secret ballot, even for a motion, Madam Chair, then our hands would not be tied. The same applies to opposition members. You know that our party often wants us to all vote together. If we had a secret ballot, the result might be different.

I think that each leader, whether from the government side or from the opposition parties, can learn something from the debate on the discretion we would like to have in making our choices, in our values and in our way of seeing things.

I think that the only thing that matters this morning is whether or not the person is qualified. When we elect a chair, this criteria should be uppermost in our minds, and should come before any party line or regional representation. There are also other ways in which we serve our political party rather than the voters. No society is unanimous. Madam Chair, this morning you referred to unanimity as applied in the Standing Orders.

¿ (0950)

In my riding, for example, if the majority of voters--and I mean the majority, not all of them--would like me to support a given issue, then, Madam Chair, I would like the Standing Orders to give me that option. What I mean is I would like to have the opportunity to express a majority opinion, and not a unanimous one, on some particular issue that is of interest in my riding. Many people have said that a secret ballot is not very democratic. If we were to pursue that line of thinking, Madam Chair, we would be challenging the idea of the democratic vote. Is it democratic to elect a candidate if the ballot is secret? I think that is a specious argument. It is an argument that is being put forward by the party that has the most to gain from these practices.

So you will understand my disappointment this morning, Madam Chair. I truly thought that we would all be able to get along in the Heritage Committee, because I always felt that we were open-minded, that we were ready to see how the majority... Often, when the government wants our support in debate and when our help is sought to put forward a proposal or a motion, then the government is only too happy to have the cooperation of opposition parties.

I think it is a simple matter of common sense and understanding. This morning, we have completely ignored the fact that transparency and qualifications should be the main issue in the debate.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[English]

The Clerk: Mrs. Hinton.

Ms. Betty Hinton (Kamloops, Thompson and Highland Valleys, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Madam Clerk.

Let me begin by saying how much I respect you and the position you hold and the work you do for this committee. I have been impressed from day one, and that has not wavered.

I would also like to tell you how disappointed I am today in the fact that the members from the Liberal Party walked out on democracy. We have a meeting going on here where we are discussing something as simple as the right to vote privately. That is something that is afforded to anyone at a municipal level or any of the other levels that are below the federal level, and I don't understand the fear.

It's a given in this committee that the chairman of this committee will be a member of the Liberal Party. That is the way the process works, and it's understood by all who are here. So I don't understand why they fear the democratic process.

The nominee whose name has been put forward is also a man I have learned to respect over the last year and a half of working with him. He earned that respect. He is a very good chairman and certainly knows the ins and outs of this committee. I don't think there would be any reason for anyone on the government side of the House to fear he would not be put back into the position he holds today.

But since we have found ourselves in the position we find ourselves in today with a whole side of the table missing, I would ask you to call for a quorum, please, to see whether this can continue or not.

¿ (0955)

The Clerk: I have no authority to call quorum. I note that we do not have quorum, but if members wish to continue speaking, I'm at their disposal.

Ms. Betty Hinton: Madam Clerk, I would bow to your experience. I'm assuming, when you say we don't have quorum, that means no vote could take place regardless.

The Clerk: That's right.

Ms. Betty Hinton: So perhaps, as some of the members on the other side have said, there are members on this side too who have more important things to do if we're not going to be able to proceed.

Thank you.

The Clerk: Yes.

[Translation]

Mr. Chuck Strahl: I would like to repeat what I said earlier, this time in French. This is an important debate. I would like everyone to understand what I am saying; I would also like the opportunity to practice my French, which is not perfect, even if we are discussing a difficult issue.

It is nevertheless an important one. It involves democracy. Democracy is important, not only in French and in English, but in every language of the world. I will have to remove my earpiece because I am having trouble understanding what I am saying.

It remains an important issue. I have to say that when Mr. Boudria was a member of the Public Accounts Committee in 1991, he voted in favour of the secret ballot to elect committee chairs. He felt it was important for him as a committee member. Now that he is the Government House Leader, it is no longer important for him and he is not in favour of it. He and Mr. Chrétien have both said that it is a catastrophe, that it is awful and impossible. But it was possible when he sat on the committee. It's incredible.

[English]

Perhaps I should continue in English, because I'm afraid to read my remarks in either English or French.

À (1000)

It's important to note that the principle we're following, and I think we're gradually coming to understand in the House of Commons, is that he who is faithful in the little things will be faithful in the big things. It is that principle we're trying to follow that I think will get us to the right place. We're not going to have a democratic nirvana here because of what we're working on here today, but what we are going to have is a gradual understanding that being faithful in the little things will give us at least a better democracy in the long run.

The little things are things like this: the democratic election of committee chairs. It's a small thing. It's interesting that when the member from LaSalle--Émard was proposing his six-point plan to fix the House of Commons--he says there's a real democratic deficit around here--one of the things he did was to cater to an understandable demand by Liberal backbenchers that they don't like this idea of being told who to vote for in the election of committee chairmen.

To them it was a small thing, symbolic of a greater problem. To quote Mr. Martin, who you know in the PMO seems to be more important than whether you want to follow democratic rules that we would expect in any government in the world, let alone the government in our own land. That's the greater problem.

It's interesting to me that what is so difficult here this morning, which is to get unanimity to follow secret ballot elections, is a routine proceeding in many other democracies, including British parliamentary democracies. In Australia, they would look at us like we had dropped off the corner of the world for even debating this. They'd say, what's the problem; it's easily done and routinely done in our legislature, in our Parliament.

In fact, they go so far as to say that maybe they should have elected Senators. That's a radical concept, but again, faithful in small things. It may not fix everyone's idea of the Senate--a lot of people still want to abolish the Senate--but if you fix the little things, gradually you increase people's confidence in your ability to handle the big things.

That's why little things like this, while procedural in nature, not interesting outside this place, kind of esoteric, kind of wild and crazy to your average citizen in the street, are important symbolic moments for members of Parliament who understand what's at stake here. What's at stake here is not whether or not Clifford Lincoln is going to be the chair of the committee. I fully expect he will, and he'll be a great committee chairman. What's at stake is the bigger principle of doing the right thing for the right reasons, and setting a tone and an atmosphere where democracy flourishes instead of coming under the thumb of the party whip or the Prime Minister's Office.

It's the small things that determine that. It's the ability to vote freely on private members' bills. It's the ability to elect committee chairmen. It's the ability to elect the Speaker of the House. It's the ability to work to consensus, and I'd even say unanimity, on important officers of Parliament--for instance, the Auditor General or the official languages commissioner, and what I hope will be a reasonable, proper, and newly expanded role for an ethics commissioner who reports to Parliament. There's no sense putting those officers in place if two-thirds of Parliament rejects them. You put them in place with unanimity, or at least with consensus, because you understand that without this, their rulings don't mean anything. Their rulings have to be equally valuable to both opposition and government sides.

When the Auditor General brings down the report, we all look at it and say, well, this person's not a party member, this person's not beholden to the Prime Minister, they don't answer to the official opposition, and they don't listen only to the Bloc. He or she doesn't talk just to her friends and neighbours; she does things because she's qualified. She is meritorious. She deserves the role, or he's the best we can find in all of Canada to carry the position.

That type of thing has given the Auditor General tremendous legitimacy and tremendous power over the government's accounts. In the same way, we should have...in fact we have a unanimous committee resolution on the estimates, where the estimates should be handled differently in this place.

À (1005)

Just for the record, right now the estimates are handled in such a way that when they come to committee, you vote either yes or no. You can't move around a dollar, not a dollar, in a department. You can never change anything; you can't change a jot or a tittle. Because of that the estimates process becomes a lark. Eventually committees don't bring the ministers before a committee to defend their estimates.

What's the point, really? It becomes a political show. All of us understand that. It doesn't become a legitimate estimates process. It becomes a politicization of how we spend money.

If our role, and it is certainly a proper role for members of Parliament to have, is to be guardians of the public purse, then the estimates process should be legitimate. That's why the procedure and House affairs committee brought forward a proposal--actually it was brought to them by the public accounts committee--on a different way, a better way, to control the estimates process.

What it means is we could get the estimates in committee. The government certainly has to govern. They would give us the estimates; they would tell us what they would like to do. Then if in the wisdom of the committee--and I would use this one as an example--if in Canadian heritage we decided that a better way to handle the estimates, or a better way of distributing the money, would be to, say, give an extra $10 million to museums and $10 million less to national parks, just as an example, because we felt at this time it was the best way to look after our heritage needs in Canada, well, the budget envelope would stay the same, but this committee could bring its expertise to bear on the official estimates.

That was brought forward by the public accounts committee unanimously to the procedure and House affairs. It was brought forward, of course, and never adopted by the government, because the government would have to relinquish some of their control if they went ahead with that estimates process.

By relinquishing the control, what you give up is some control; that's true. What you get in return is respect for Parliament, respect for the estimates process, respect for individual MPs who have ideas on how we can make Parliament work better. You bring respect back into this place instead of turning everything into a partisan debate.

We're into it again here today. It's not only about electing a chair now. It's about the principle of the thing.

Oddly enough, most other committees have gone ahead with the election of committee chairs. They've done it without incident. It's interesting to note that sometimes they've elected members other than the official opposition to be deputy chairs. I guess that's their prerogative too, isn't it? But the point is it went ahead democratically. It went ahead this morning in environment by secret ballot. Nobody had a bird; the sky didn't fall; the walls stood straight; the snow continued to fall. Things were pretty normal here in Ottawa. We proceeded in that committee because it was the right thing to do.

Now, Madam Clerk, it's interesting that this kind of thing, while it's rather new for this committee, will set in place a series of steps that I would argue will be for the betterment of all Parliament. It's not just that we'll have an election of the chair. What it will do is strengthen the hand of every member who sits around this table for future events as well.

I've been in committees, Madam Clerk, where an awful lot of work is done by very talented members of Parliament. They do it with all their heart, and they bring their best judgment to play. They do the Burkean thing; they bring their best judgment to the table. They ask the best questions they can. They formulate the best amendments for a bill. They bring forward the best reports they can--often unanimous and often giving good direction, I think, to the government.

But I have seen in committees where at the critical hour, sometimes after months of negotiation and witnesses and amendments and report writing and whatever it might be, at the critical moment when the vote is about to be taken, the party whip will come in and change certain members of Parliament in order to defeat the amendments all committee members had previously agreed to.

À (1010)

It's a very discouraging thing for members of Parliament on both sides of the House to see the work suddenly negated by a strong-arm tactic we wouldn't expect to see in anything but a third-rate country, let alone a first-rate democracy. That is a problem. Not only does it set a bad tone and leave a bad taste in your mouth, but how do you get the best work out of members of Parliament if, at the critical hour, they're yanked from the committee in favour of someone more loyal to the directives from on high?

One of the wildest examples I can give you took place a couple of years ago at the environment committee, when some controversial legislation went through in the last Parliament. The member for Port Moody--Coquitlam, Mr. Sekora, had the floor. He'd been substituted in at the last minute in order to do the bidding of the party whip.

As Mr. Sekora gave an impassioned speech about the future of the environment, tears practically welled up in my eyes. Without this amendment going through, he said, our environment wouldn't be safe; our children wouldn't be safe; the future wouldn't be safe. The environment that Canadians had come to know and love would be at risk, and all would be lost if this amendment didn't go through. He gave a very impassioned speech off the cuff, all ad libbed. It was almost worth listening to--except, Madam Clerk, as he finished his speech to rounds of applause and tears in our eyes, the assistant whip came over and whispered in his ear that, actually, the government was against this amendment. They wanted him to vote no. “Oh,” said Mr. Sekora, “then I vote no.”

There's something wrong with that system, I would argue. I've told that story before, because it's absolutely true. You can get it from the records of the environment committee.

The sad part is that this happens too often. People think their job is to do the bidding of whoever's in charge instead of doing either the bidding of their constituents or the right thing in the committee.

Again, I would just argue that once you start down this road of absolute democracy, or shared democracy amongst the parties, who knows; maybe we'll have an outbreak of democracy. Maybe it'll start sweeping the nation. Maybe the attitude toward Parliament would actually change.

If people keep refusing to vote in federal elections at the rate they have for the last two or three elections, and the percentage of people participating in the election continues to drop--we were at a record low in the last federal election--soon the legitimacy of this place has to come into question. You'll get people saying they'll do what's right in their own eyes as opposed to do what's right as passed by legislation.

There's a famous Biblical quote about this, that in the end times, people will do whatever they feel is right in their own eyes rather than what they've agreed to amongst themselves ahead of time. That's a dangerous precedent as well. We see it already, of course, in the underground economy, where people just say, you know, I may or may not pay my taxes; I may or may not declare this income. And they have not a qualm about it, not a qualm. They say, why should I bother? Parliament is a joke anyway, or Parliament is not democracy anyway, or they don't listen to us anyway.

All those things send shivers up and down my spine as a parliamentarian who really does believe this place is legitimate and should be a place of good repute and held in high esteem by all Canadians.

I can give you an example of what happened to me on that front. A guy called Jim came by my house out in the country. To be blunt about it, he came out to pump my septic tank. It has to be done every five years. So he came out, pumped my septic tank, and when I asked him what the bill was, he asked me if I wanted a receipt. I said, “It doesn't matter to me, I'm just paying the bills. It's up to you to declare the income.” He said, “If you want a receipt, it's $120. If you don't want a receipt, it's $90.” I said, “That's not quite right”, and he replied, “Well, when they quit stealing money from me, I'll quit worrying about how much money we have for the government.”

À (1015)

[Translation]

I will now speak in French, because it is good practice for me.

I would like conclude my remarks. I may speak in French again for some other special occasion.

Thank you. That is all I have to say.

[English]

The Clerk: Should I bring the gavel down?

Mr. Jim Abbott: Why don't we all walk out of the room for a minute, Chuck?

The Clerk: Are you coming back?

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Not necessarily.

The Clerk: The meeting has simply dissolved. I should feel obliged to go back to my duties in the committees directorate.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: I haven't spoken about closure. I'm tempted to go once more, in French.

The Clerk: That would be far more painful.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: It would be far more painful for everyone listening, anyway.

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Duplain: Since everyone has left, must I conclude that the meeting is over?

The Clerk:Yes.

Mr. Claude Duplain: I had stayed to listen to the debate, but if it is over, then I will also be going.

[English]

The Clerk: The meeting is adjourned.