HAFF Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 3rd SESSION

Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Thursday, February 19, 2004

Á

1105

The Chair (Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.))

The Chair

Mr. Marcel Proulx (Hull—Aylmer, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, CPC)

Mr. Marcel Proulx

The Chair

Hon. Jacques Saada (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister responsible for Democratic Reform)

Á

1110

The Chair

Hon. Jacques Saada

Hon. Jacques Saada

The Chair

Hon. Jacques Saada

Á

1115

Á

1120

The Chair

Hon. Jacques Saada

The Chair

Hon. Jacques Saada

The Chair

Hon. Jacques Saada

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, CPC)

Á

1125

Mr. Chuck Strahl

Hon. Jacques Saada

Mr. Chuck Strahl

The Chair

Hon. Jacques Saada

Mr. Chuck Strahl

The Chair

Ms. Diane St-Jacques (Shefford, Lib.)

Á

1130

Hon. Jacques Saada

Ms. Diane St-Jacques

Hon. Jacques Saada

Ms. Diane St-Jacques

Hon. Jacques Saada

Ms. Diane St-Jacques

The Chair

Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ)

Á

1135

The Chair

Mr. Michel Guimond

The Chair

Hon. Jacques Saada

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Strahl

The Chair

Á

1140

Mr. Chuck Strahl

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Strahl

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Strahl

Mr. Michel Guimond

The Chair

Hon. Roger Gallaway (Sarnia—Lambton, Lib.)

Hon. Jacques Saada

The Chair

Hon. Roger Gallaway

Á

1145

Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP)

The Chair

Hon. Jacques Saada

The Chair

Hon. Lorne Nystrom

Hon. Jacques Saada

Á

1150

The Chair

Hon. Jacques Saada

Hon. Lorne Nystrom

The Chair

Hon. Jacques Saada

The Chair

Mrs. Judi Longfield (Whitby—Ajax, Lib.)

Á

1155

Hon. Jacques Saada

Mrs. Judi Longfield

Hon. Jacques Saada

Mrs. Judi Longfield

Hon. Jacques Saada

Mrs. Judi Longfield

The Chair

Hon. Jacques Saada

The Chair

Mr. Dale Johnston

Hon. Jacques Saada

Â

1200

Mr. Dale Johnston

The Chair

Hon. Jacques Saada

Hon. Jacques Saada

Mr. Dale Johnston

Hon. Jacques Saada

Mr. Dale Johnston

Hon. Jacques Saada

Mr. Dale Johnston

The Chair

Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, CPC)

Â

1205

The Chair

Hon. Jacques Saada

Mr. Loyola Hearn

Hon. Jacques Saada

The Chair

Hon. Jacques Saada

The Chair

Mr. Claude Duplain (Portneuf, Lib.)

Â

1210

Hon. Jacques Saada

The Chair

The Hon. Jacques Saada

The Chair

Mr. Claude Duplain

Hon. Jacques Saada

The Chair

Mr. Claude Duplain

Hon. Jacques Saada

Â

1215

The Chair

Mr. Michel Guimond

Hon. Jacques Saada

Mr. Michel Guimond

Hon. Jacques Saada

Mr. Michel Guimond

Hon. Jacques Saada

The Chair

Hon. Jacques Saada

Â

1220

The Chair

Hon. Lorne Nystrom

Hon. Jacques Saada

Hon. Lorne Nystrom

Hon. Jacques Saada

Â

1225

The Chair

Mr. Chuck Strahl

Hon. Jacques Saada

Â

1230

Mr. Chuck Strahl

Hon. Jacques Saada

Mr. Chuck Strahl

Hon. Jacques Saada

Mr. Chuck Strahl

The Chair

Mr. Michel Guimond

Hon. Jacques Saada

Â

1235

Mr. Michel Guimond

Hon. Jacques Saada

Mr. Michel Guimond

Hon. Jacques Saada

The Chair

Hon. Jacques Saada

The Chair

Hon. Jacques Saada

Â

1240

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

---

NUMBER 004

l

3rd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Thursday, February 19, 2004

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Á  (1105)  

[English]

    The Chair (Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.)): Colleagues, if we could begin, we're here pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(a), a review of standing orders, procedure, and practice of the House.

    I will introduce our principal witness in a moment, but before I do that, as you know, Bill C-3 was referred to us yesterday. It involves the same minister. This is legislation. It is my suggestion that on Tuesday, at the next meeting, we deal immediately with Bill C-3. This, of course, depends again on the same minister appearing.

    Mr. Minister, as you know, the committee is supposed to proceed as expeditiously as possible on legislation, so that would be my proposal.

    Then my proposal would be that at the next meeting, which is a week Thursday, we either continue with what we're doing now or we have the Speaker on Hill security. That's the way I'm thinking.

    One additional thing I should say with respect to that is that I would suggest to the committee that we invite Mr. Kingsley or his officials to attend Tuesday's meeting, but to be here to answer questions rather than make a presentation. The minister would make a presentation, but as it deals with the Canada Elections Act, it seems to me appropriate that we have in the room someone from Elections Canada. We could invite them to answer questions, if that's appropriate.

    Is that a reasonable tactic?

    Some hon. members: Agreed

    The Chair: Okay, that's what we will do.

    The other thing, though, is there's been a meeting of our subcommittee on private members' business. We have the chair of it here. If he could report briefly.... By the way, you should know, my understanding is we don't have to act on this unless the member who is referred to here asks to appear before this committee.

    If you could, go ahead, colleague.

    Mr. Marcel Proulx (Hull—Aylmer, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    As you mentioned, the subcommittee on private members' business met. We examined the different pieces that were in front of us. They were all, according to us, votable except for one, which was Bill C-450. We determined that this bill is non-votable according to the criteria adopted by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs as set out in its 24th report, which was specifically that the subcommittee has determined that it contravenes the criteria in regard to “Bills and motions must not clearly violate the Constitution Acts, 1867 to 1982, including the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms”. Therefore, the subcommittee unanimously decided that this bill was non-votable.

    The Chair: Marcel, I thank you and your colleagues for that. I thank you also for meeting so promptly.

    Now, my understanding of this is that this is a report from Marcel--our subcommittee--that Jim Pankiw has five days to ask to appear before this committee. If in that time he does that, it would be my suggestion that we combine that appearance with our work on Bill C-3 on Tuesday.

    Dale Johnston.

    Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, CPC): I didn't catch the number of that bill.

    Mr. Marcel Proulx: Bill C-450.

    The Chair: Is that okay?

    The topic is an act to amend the Marriage Act.

    Colleagues, it's my great pleasure to introduce the Honourable Jacques Saada, leader of the government in the House of Commons and Minister Responsible for Democratic Reform. Jacques was, of course, a member of this committee.

    We welcome you back.

    I also welcome your two colleagues. I'll give the names for the record now--Matthew Lynch and Anita Vandenbeld. Minister, could you explain their functions when you introduce them?

    You should know, Minister, that the steering committee and the committee have considered your action plan and we have some ideas in our minds as to how we're going to proceed.

    Colleagues, I think you all have, in addition to the minister's notes, a letter from the minister addressed to the chair on this matter. I'd be grateful--not while he's speaking, of course, because you're going to devote your attention to him--if you could read those at some time.

    Minister, I understand you have a statement, and we'd be glad to hear it.

    Hon. Jacques Saada (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister responsible for Democratic Reform): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

    I must first reassure you, I was sitting here, and the fact that I've been named to cabinet, I hope you'll notice, is not 180 degrees, but just 90 degrees.

Á  (1110)  

    The Chair: There's an angle in all of these things.

    Hon. Jacques Saada: That's right.

    An hon. member: (Inaudible--Editor).

    Hon. Jacques Saada: Agreed. I'm very concerned about making sure it doesn't happen.

    The Chair: I think the minister should be very careful about getting involved in interplay, unless he speaks through the chair.

    Hon. Jacques Saada: Yes, Mr. Chair.

    Actually, when I came in, I was told—I believe it was by Jamie, but I'm not sure—that I was giving this committee a lot of work. My answer was simply that I had too much fun sitting on this committee, and that I wanted you to have even more fun.

[Translation]

    Mr. Chairman, I am really very pleased to have this opportunity to speak to you today and tell you about the implementation of the government's Action Plan for Democratic Reform.

    On the day I tabled the action plan on democratic reform, I quoted Aristotle, who said "If liberty and equality—as is thought by some—are chiefly to be found in democracy, they will be best attained when all persons alike share in the government to the outmost."

    That is a free translation, Mr. Chairman, from the English, which I believe was itself a free translation of the original Greek. So we all agree on that.

    Based on recommendations of parliamentarians from both sides of the House—including proposals from individual members and party proposals, the action plan which I have tabled is designed to re-engage Canadians in the political process, an effort which starts by strengthening our Parliament and making it the centre of debate on national policies.

    To do so, we must move forward deliberately, and we are. Many of the government's democratic reform initiatives have already been implemented, including the adoption of a three-line voting system for government MPs, the referral of bills to committee before second reading and even a request to parliamentary committees to produce draft legislation.

    As you well know, Mr. Chairman, we just talked in our introduction about Bill C-3. You are also aware, of course, of the letter that accompanied that bill asking you to undertake a broader study of the Canada Elections Act.

    However, full implementation of democratic reform requires a fundamental change in our political culture. As MPs elected to represent our constituents, we must also embrace the three pillars of our reform: ethics, responsibility and accountability. I believe, Mr. Chairman, that this committee, with its tradition of often rising above partisan politics to take a much broader perspective on issues, is extremely well-positioned to provide me with sound advice, recommendations and suggestions. And that is really what this initiative is about.

    I would therefore encourage your committee to review four aspects that I would like to come back to in greater detail: first, the establishment of a code of conduct for MPs; second, the application of modern technology to citizen engagement; third, the review of appointments to certain important positions; and finally, House procedure.

[English]

    Let me now come back to these four items. Let me start with the code of conduct.

    As you know, a renewed commitment to the highest standards of ethics and integrity is at the heart of democratic reform. That is why the very first bill that was reinstated after the passage of the motion of reinstatement was Bill C-4—which used to be Bill C-34—legislation that establishes an independent ethics commissioner and a Senate ethics officer, based on the work of this committee last year.

    I should also add that adopting a code of conduct would enhance our commitment to meeting the highest standards of ethics.

Á  (1115)  

    On this front, I want to reiterate the quality of the work that was conducted in this committee, when it tabled a proposed code of conduct on October 30.

    As you know, this code was never concurred with, not because there was opposition to it, but simply because time and prorogation didn't permit that to happen. I would certainly be very glad if the committee deemed it necessary, useful, or wise to bring this code of conduct back to the House for a decision from the House in this regard.

    On the issue of modern technology, the action plan also asks your committee to develop an action plan on the adoption of new mechanisms for e-consultation. Given that the gap between our institutions and the public is widest among youth, I would invite the committee to focus on adopting leading-edge means to engage Canadians at large, but with a special focus on young Canadians.

    Moreover, improvements in communications technology have enabled committees and individual MPs to seek the views of Canadians on policy issues in new ways. For example, the Human Resources Development committee undertook an innovative study last year on the Canada Pension Plan, where they indeed used interactive web-based technology to support their consultations with Canadians.

    In short, I'm here to encourage you to break out of the box and explore innovative ways in which committees or individual MPs can enhance their exchanges with the public or their constituents. These could include videoconferencing, web-casting of committee meetings, and so on.

[Translation]

    My third point concerns the advance review of appointments.

    Mr. Chairman, a fundamental aspect of enhanced responsibility and accountability in the political process is allowing Parliament to review certain appointments in advance, such as the heads of crown corporations and other agencies.

    I will write to committee chairs, including you, Mr. Chairman, asking for their views on which appointments falling under their mandate should be subject to prior review, and I would ask your committee to consult with parliamentarians and the appropriate Senate committee on how best to coordinate the respective roles of the House of Commons and the Senate in the review of appointment.

    In this regard, I would ask that you consult with chairs of other committees in order to develop guidelines for the process of prior review of appointments.

    Finally, I would be pleased, Mr. Chairman, if you would also consider whether the standing orders provide authority for such review, or whether changes to the standing orders are required.

[English]

    Finally, our action plan calls on the government to seek recommendations on how House procedures can be enhanced in order to fully implement the principles of democratic reform. I intend to see your committee consult with parliamentarians on changes to House procedure that would enhance the ability of MPs to effectively represent their constituents in the House of Commons.

    I'd also ask the committee to consider changes to House procedure that would enhance the ability of parliamentarians to hold the government to account. For example, you may wish to conduct a review of the Standing Orders to provide greater incentives for committees to review the estimates, taking into consideration the September 2003 report of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates.

Á  (1120)  

[Translation]

    In conclusion, I want to stress that the Action Plan for Democratic Reform is only the first step in renewing Canadian democracy.

    As outlined in the Action Plan, I intend to reach out to parliamentarians on all sides to consult Canadians, especially young Canadians, on democratic reform and citizens' engagement.

    Renewing Canadian democracy is an ambitious program. Some errors may be made along the way. But we need to work together to reconnect citizens to the political process.

    Since I began with a Greek quote, I will finish with a Latin quote, so as to be fair and so that there is no political misinterpretation of my messages. Seneca said: "It is not because things are difficult that we hesitate to be daring... It is because we hesitate to be daring that things become difficult."

    Mr. Chairman, I will be pleased to answer any questions.

[English]

    The Chair: Minister, we thank you for that.

    Colleagues, I have a list; we'll go in the usual way. I have Chuck Strahl, Diane St-Jacques, Michel Guimond, Roger Gallaway, Lorne Nystrom.

[Translation]

    Hon. Jacques Saada: Mr. Chairman, when I started I forgot to introduce the people with me. I think that I should have done that.

    The Chair: Yes. I mentioned their names, but it would be helpful for you to introduce them.

    Hon. Jacques Saada: Anita Vandenbeld is my Senior Assistant for Democratic Reform. She is heading up the team that will be working with MPs on all aspects of democratic reform and relations with committees and parliamentarians.

[English]

Monsieur Matthew Lynch is the officer for legislation and House planning at PCO.

    Ron Wall, also from PCO, is my right-hand person in terms of communication between my political office and PCO.

    The Chair: And is that spelled W-A-L-L, just so that we know? Okay, go ahead.

[Translation]

    Hon. Jacques Saada: Also with me is Nicolas Ruszkowski, my Communications Director, and Marie-Claude Lavigne, my Secretary, my press attachée, my right hand for many things. That is all.

[English]

    The Chair: You're all very welcome, and we appreciate your being here.

    Chuck Strahl.

    Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, CPC): Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you, Mr. Minister, for coming here today to kick off what I think is going to be a very important series of consultations on democratic reform.

    As you mentioned in your remarks, there are others of us who have written documents and have been proposing things for some years. It's nice to see that you've been especially charged with this. I appreciate what appears to be a sincere effort on your part.

    I'm not sure whether we're going to get this done before an election. All we can do is start and see where it ends up.

    An hon. member: There's a year and a half yet, Chuck.

Á  (1125)  

    Mr. Chuck Strahl: Yes, we may well have lots of time.

    Especially on House business, it seems to me that this committee is well suited to make recommendations on changes to standing orders and how the House conducts its business. I'm not as convinced that when it comes to consulting Canadians or getting Canadians, for example, to help design a better electoral system, this committee should be the final or even the best word on how that consultation takes place. I prefer in those kinds of consultations to allow the people who are going to have to live under an electoral system to actually do the advising of us, rather than the other way around.

    That's what we're doing in British Columbia, as you know. I think there are five provinces right now that have engaged citizens in different ways to try to assure them that what we're going to do is not in our best interest here as parliamentarians, but in their best interest as the electors who want to fix the system.

    Are you open to that? There are parts of this that we're going to have to deal with—who wants to deal with standing orders out in Chicoutimi? But on the electoral process and on e-consultation and other things, there may be elements we should recommend handing over to a body or to some people outside of this committee. Are you open to that? Do you feel that could be productive? Or do you want to keep it in-house?

    Hon. Jacques Saada: First of all, let me address your first comment, that this is not doable before an election. The reform we are undertaking cannot be achieved in weeks and cannot be achieved in months. I think it's going to be spread over years, and it's going to be spread over years for the one very simple reason that we are dealing here with a change in culture. I don't know whether such change can occur that fast.

    It ties in with your second comment. My consulting this committee here is one of the avenues we'll be using to actually come to a reform. I am very aware of what's going on in B.C. Actually, I have had a chance to meet with Jack Blaney, and I intend to attend a meeting of the Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform in B.C., on March 21 or something like that. It's a very interesting process they have undertaken. Yes, citizens indeed do have a role to play in this process, and must play a role in this process, for the very simple reason that if citizens are engaged in designing a process, they take ownership of the process, which is the best way for them to take ownership of the consequences of the process.

    So it is very clear to me that we must remain very open-minded. As to whether or not we are going to have something similar, it honestly would be very premature for me to say. In B.C. they are dealing with 79 ridings and 160 delegates. We are talking in Canada about 308 ridings, for all intents and purposes, and a country that is much bigger and much wider in scope.

    If your question is whether I'm prepared to take the time to listen to Canadians on this issue, and to listen intently, not only seeing the Citizens' Assembly or Quebec or five provinces--and you're right, five provinces are really trying to address these issues--then my answer is definitely, yes, I am prepared to listen.

    Mr. Chuck Strahl: I appreciate that. Of course, as politicians, we listen. If we don't listen, it's at our electoral peril. But again, my point is that where this has been successful, I think, in the world.... I did some travelling with a former House leader to England and Australia, and went down to Boston and Washington and talked to a few folks on different subjects. In every case where it's been successful, it's been through not just broad public consultation but also allowing the citizens to drive the agenda on parts of it. As you say, they take ownership of it.

    For instance, in British Columbia they're very excited about it. It's a dynamic that I've not seen before in British Columbia politics. They're excited. It has taken it away from the regular grind of political showmanship and so on, and it's allowed people to get excited about the prospects of directing this thing.

    In Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, Scotland, Great Britain generally, all of those places, it's when the citizens have been engaged and allowed to make the final decision, especially on the electoral process, that it's been most successful, and I hope the committee will come to that conclusion. We may have to ask some of these provinces and others to tell us about their experiences.

    So I just wanted to be assured that you're open to that suggestion, if we recommend it, that you're not insistent on keeping it in-house or in Parliament. And if we go that way and make those recommendations, it's my sincere hope that you'll accept them.

    The Chair: A very brief response, Mr. Minister.

    Hon. Jacques Saada: Mr. Strahl, this committee has a function to perform, Canadians have a function to perform, and I have a function to perform. I think if we are open-minded enough on all sides, we are going to achieve what is essential for our democracy here in Canada.

    Mr. Chuck Strahl: Thank you.

    The Chair: I would like to remind the minister and other witnesses and the members that it's the member's time, as Jacques will remember from when he was here. Very often the member wants to express an opinion and ask a question, so if the reply is very long, the member loses time. You understand that.

    Diane St-Jacques.

[Translation]

    Ms. Diane St-Jacques (Shefford, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Thank you, Mr. Saada, for being here with us this morning to talk about democratic reform. My question concerns modern technology. I agree with you that we need to take into consideration new methods: that may be the best way to engage young people. However, do we not need to take into account the fact that much of the public does not use modern technologies to communicate with us?

    Can we think about different ways of engaging people, such as seniors, among others, who have opinions but who are not necessarily able to communicate with us in that way? It is difficult for them. They can still use regular mail, but would it be possible to use innovative means to gather information? Those people often have a lot to say. They could be very helpful to us in the kind of consultation we are planning to do.

Á  (1130)  

    Hon. Jacques Saada: The invitation to consider advanced technologies to consult the public does not mean that we would eliminate other forms of communication, but rather that we would add new ways. If the committee has new recommendations in this regard, I am quite prepared to hear them.

    There's a very simple reason why I am very keen to engage young people. One has to wonder whether it is normal in a democracy such as Canada that only one quarter of young people voted in the 2000 election. Is that normal? Is it the fault of young people? Certainly not. Is the general public responsible for the fact that the participation rate has dropped from around 80 per cent to less than 60 per cent over the past 20 years? Certainly not. Anything we can come up with to reverse that trend will be welcomed. I am open to your recommendations.

    Ms. Diane St-Jacques: I am sorry to come back to the question of modern technologies, but I do want to say that they sometimes do not work. I know, because I have attended meetings where the Human Resources Development Committee has tried to do interactive consultations. We will have to make sure that these technologies work.

    Finally, I agree that we need to take a modern approach, but sometimes it does not work. So I like the idea, but I have certain reservations.

    Hon. Jacques Saada: Ms. St-Jacques, what we have to understand about this is that by taking a collaborative approach we will be able to work together to resolve any problems that come up.

    Ms. Diane St-Jacques: I agree.

    Hon. Jacques Saada: That is my invitation to you. Of course, it will not all be perfect the first time: there will necessarily be some hiccups along the way. But I would really like us to see this as a collective task and not as a task for any given political party.

    Ms. Diane St-Jacques: Very well. That was my only comment. Thank you.

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

    The Chair: Merci, Diane.

    Michel Guimond.

[Translation]

    Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    To begin with, I would like to draw members' attention to some people who are doing very good work for committees: Estelle Desfossés, from my office; Mélanie Lauzon, who works with the Liberal Party whip; Laurel Laurin, who works with the Conservative Party; and Theresa Kavanagh. They put in a lot of effort with committees.

    Mr. Saada, I have already congratulated you privately on your appointment, but I would like to do so publicly now.

    If I may, I would like to make a comment on the press release that you issued on February 4^th, which dealt with the Action Plan for Democratic Reform. I would like to go over it chapter by chapter.

    My first comment deals with the general principles. You set out eight general principles underlying the three pillars of democracy: ethics and integrity, restoration of the MP's role in representation and debate, and accountability. You will not find a lot of parliamentarians who are really against those things. Without saying that these things are pie in the sky, they kind of go without saying: no one is against virtue. That is my first comment.

    My second comment deals with the chapter on ethics and integrity. You have to admit that all this was undertaken by the former prime minister. With your ideas about an independent ethics commissioner and a Senate ethics officer, you are taking almost word-for-word from the former Bill C-34, which was introduced by the former prime minister. So we can agree that there is nothing new under the sun in that chapter.

    Then there is the chapter about the three lines of votes. You know as well as I do that the whole issue of line votes and free votes is necessarily delegated to party caucuses. I know that the Canadian Alliance used to have much more flexible rules. The Reform Party did as well, and I imagine that this is also true for the Conservative Party of Canada. So this is not really a new reform. It is up to your party to adopt rules within your own caucus. I do not see how changes to your internal caucus rules have any effect on democratic reform.

    I want to give you a chance to answer. Mr. Chairman, the next issue may take more time, but I want to deal with it. The chapter entitled "Expanded Role of Committees to Shape and Influence Legislation" states:

Bills subject to two-line and one-line free votes will be routinely referred to committee before second reading so that MPs have a greater capacity to shape and influence legislation.

    I believe that since Parliament resumed that has been done quite a lot. Is that true?

    As you know, our standing orders limit the debate on that type of referral to three hours. Do you agree? You might argue that, although the debate in the House of Commons is only three hours, the intention is to give the committee more power. Is that the intention? Very well.

    Let us take the example of Bill C-18, which is currently before the Standing Committee on Finance. Last Friday, February 13, the bill was sent to committee before second reading, and debate was limited to three hours. On Tuesday, February 17, the committee was formed and my colleague Pierre Paquette tabled a notice of motion to split the bill. The Parliamentary Secretary of the Standing Committee on Finance, John McKay, stated—you can read this in the blues—that he did not need to table a notice of motion since the government was going to vote against it in any case and so there was absolutely no point in having a notice of motion. That was the first democratic deficit.

Á  (1135)  

    The second democratic deficit occurred on Wednesday, February 18^th, yesterday, when Mr. McKay and departmental officials appeared before the committee. The Bloc Québécois proposed a list of witnesses because, given that only three hours of debate was allowed in the House, it was expected that the bill would be debated in committee. The Bloc was told that the witness list was refused since the committee, without hearing any other witnesses except John McKay and the departmental officials, was moving to clause-by-clause consideration this morning.

    I want to say to you, Minister, Mr. Chair and members of the committee, that there will be no attempt to sell us on democratic reform that is meaningless. There are going to have to be concrete changes, and what happened at the finance committee does nothing to enhance credibility.

[English]

    The Chair: Okay, Michel.

    Minister, we will get back to Michel. He will have another turn.

[Translation]

    Mr. Michel Guimond: Yes. I have another example that is just as good as that one.

[English]

    The Chair: I am sure you do. So if you can say something in 10 seconds....

    Hon. Jacques Saada: Mr. Chair, with all due respect, there are so many points, it doesn't make sense--

    The Chair: In which case, if we're going to debate, I'm going to move on.

    I'll say this to all colleagues. If we go a minute or two over time, it doesn't really matter. But in fact, two minutes, if we are trying to involve all committee members, is half an hour. If every member gets two minutes, that's half an hour.

    So we will be getting back to Michel, and at that point, Minister, you can engage in his points and so on.

    I will go now to--

    Mr. Chuck Strahl: On a point of order, Mr. Chair, with all due respect, what I would hope you would do is to not.... I mean, I also want to hear from the minister.

    The Chair: I do understand that, and I did try to stop Michel. He nodded to me, and I assumed he was going to stop. He didn't.

Á  (1140)  

    Mr. Chuck Strahl: I know, but what I mean is that there comes a time when you have to say “We need to hear now.” I don't want a one-sided--

    The Chair: I understand, yes, and we will hear from the minister on all of those points when it's Michel's turn again, or if they are raised by someone else.

    In all fairness, Chuck, I think you have to have some guidelines for this thing. I have actually been really quite generous to Michel already.

    Go ahead.

    Mr. Chuck Strahl: It was my point of order, and I want to address it.

    My point of order is that you have been very generous to Michel, too generous. Eventually you have to hear from the minister. Eventually you have to cut off the speakers if they get too long-winded, and allow us to hear some responses. I mean, there were good points from Michel, it's just that--

    The Chair: Just so you know, Michel was six minutes and five seconds. You were six minutes and nineteen seconds.

    Mr. Chuck Strahl: So cut us off.

    Mr. Michel Guimond: I had 14 seconds left.

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

    The Chair: There is always a balance on these things. We try to maintain that. I'm doing that. I'm not trying to avoid debate. The minister will have time to reply to those matters.

    Roger Gallaway, Lorne Nystrom, and then Judi Longfield.

    Hon. Roger Gallaway (Sarnia—Lambton, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Mr. Minister, one of the...I'll call it “issues burning”, certainly this week, is in committees. There's a very public and very controversial committee hearing taking place upstairs right now.

    In terms of press coverage, what is starting to become apparent in the press is that committees actually have powers. I'm hearing from members who say that they didn't realize that. One of the phenomena that occurred here in the mid-1990s was that committees were...I'll say “stripped” of many of the resources they had, such as legislative counsel, with a diminishing of researchers from the Library of Parliament. I'm not talking about more money for members' operating budgets. I'm talking simply about support to the institutions of the House.

    What do you see in terms of the Board of Internal Economy opening the purse strings, in a modest way, to start to rebuild capacity in terms of committees?

    Hon. Jacques Saada: I have already made a request of the Board of Internal Economy that we discuss this issue of support to committees. Actually, some of us around this table are also members of the Board of Internal Economy, and we can testify to that.

    There are a number of issues to address, first of all to do with the short term, and then with next year, and then with the longer term. In the short term, one of the problems we are all facing as members of Parliament is that our ability to sit as members of Parliament comes from the fact that we have been elected. And we can be elected no matter what our background is, in terms of professional training or trade training or whatever. It doesn't make all of us necessarily expert at holding the government to account on public spending and the management of public funds. I think we should have some funds, some moneys, to help members of Parliament get this background training so that they can be more efficient at demanding accountability from government. No decision has been made on this, because we haven't had time to get into a longer debate on it, but the very first question I have put before the board is whether or not we can we find, with the Library of Parliament or with other sources, the resources that would help all members of Parliament to be better prepared to face the accountability procedure.

    In terms of the longer term, in my view it doesn't make sense that committees' resources should be scarce to such a large degree that they would not have access to a certain degree of “autonomy”--a word I put in quotation marks, because I don't want to be misinterpreted. I think it is important, if committees want to undertake a study and want to have a chance to undertake some form of work, that there be more flexibility built into the process.

    Now, it's not for me to decide that. It is not a government matter. It is a matter for the Board of Internal Economy. The case is before the board. We actually have a meeting scheduled. I have some of my colleagues here who can corroborate that. We are going to address that. We need to face it from the very broad perspective of empowering the committees.

    The Chair: Roger, about two minutes.

    Hon. Roger Gallaway: I know that we're very sensitive to time this morning, Mr. Chair, and I know that Mr. Nystrom is going to be the next questioner, so I want to pre-empt him.

    When we start talking about democratic reform in Parliament, what do you envision happening in terms of democratic reform in terms of the Senate?

    I thought it would be best if I were to ask that question.

Á  (1145)  

    Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Regina—Qu'Appelle, NDP): I wrote his question.

    The Chair: In one minute, Minister, please.

    Hon. Jacques Saada: I'm glad he didn't write my answer.

    In my speech, when I introduced the action plan, I was very specific and deliberate in my choice of words. As I stated, at the present time we have a system that has proven efficient over time but that is having some problems. These problems, by the way, are not specific to our own country. Most established democracies in the world are going through the same problems.

    My first preference is to see if the system we have now can be more effective, and when the time comes to consult with this committee, with the population, and I am hearing things that come to me by way of recommendations, I'll have to assess what comes to me.

    If you're asking me whether I am open-minded, my answer is yes. If you're asking me to pre-empt whatever is going to come to me in terms of consultation, my answer is no.

    The Chair: It's Lorne Nystrom, then Judi Longfield, Dale Johnston, then the chair.

    Hon. Lorne Nystrom: Roger's been stealing my question, Mr. Chair, and Chuck stole the first one.

    I wanted to congratulate the minister publicly for his appointment. I think he's a person who's very open on this stuff, and I commend him for it.

    To me, democratic reform is in two areas. You have parliamentary reform, and Roger touched on that. We also have voting reform, and Chuck touched on that.

    I wonder if you'd be open to including a section on voting reform in your paper and encourage the committee to look at voting reform as well.

    Like Chuck, I have believed for a long time that we need a constituent assembly or a people's assembly. Just to remind you, Mr. Minister, I went through the repatriation of the Constitution as my party's critic, and through Meech Lake and Charlottetown. I know that unless you have citizen engagement, you run into all kinds of problems.

    I think when we change the electoral system, which I hope we do sometime in the not too distant future.... We had citizen participation in the process, also in ratification at the end...maybe even with a national referendum. But I'm wondering whether you would encourage the committee to do a study on how we might conduct voting reform in our country, including different methods like proportional representation. Somebody has to make a recommendation to Parliament, to the government, as to what that process should be. I like the B.C. model as well. It includes the first nations people in British Columbia.

    We should be looking at various ways of conducting the process and saying to Parliament that we want them to look at proportional representation, the two-round system they have in France, preferential ballots, or what have you. Are you open to that? Would you give that your green light or your endorsement in terms of our looking for the process?

    That's what's missing in your paper. You talk a lot about parliamentary reform, particularly in the House of Commons--there's not much in the Senate--but what about voting reform?

    Hon. Jacques Saada: There are three points.

    Number one, this action plan was aimed at the work of Parliament, and I said it's a first stage of reform.

    Number two, if you refer to my letter to the chair of this committee on the issue of Figueroa and the consequences of this in terms of defining what are political parties in Canada and so on, I think I've been as broad as I could be in opening the floor to your discussions and recommendations.

Á  (1150)  

    The Chair: The letter will of course be part of our consideration at our next meeting.

    Hon. Jacques Saada: Third, at present, in all the provinces that are looking at the issue of reform--there are five of them--they're all looking at a number of options, including proportional representation.

    In this regard there are two points. First, am I prepared to listen to what people have to say on this? Yes. Second, is it going to be the solution to the problem? I don't know. Because there are some democracies in the world that are well established and do have proportional representation that are suffering from the same problem we're suffering from, which is a reduction of interest in the population as manifested when it comes time to vote.

    I cannot be more genuine than that. I cannot be more sincere than that and open-minded. But I will have to see the facts before we can make a decision on these things.

    Hon. Lorne Nystrom: I have a couple of minutes to go and I have questions in two more areas.

    In terms of the participation rate, there have been a lot of complaints around the country from all parties that we should reinstate house-to-house enumeration. Are you open to that, in terms of a democratic reform that really engages people? I'm thinking of young people, in particular, who move from university to university or move out of home to a new job and are more transient. I think this would help to remind people that indeed there is an election on, and find them in the first place. The turnout for young people in the last campaign, I think Peter said, was about 25%--people between 18 and 24 years old. Are you open to that?

    Second, in terms of young people, it may sound like a radical idea, but are you open to reducing the voting age to 16 instead of 18? In 1968 about four or five of us had a private member's bill to reduce the voting age from 21 to 18. I'm pretty well convinced we should look at reducing it now to 16. Are you open to that idea?

    I'll be able to ask my last question as well, and give the minister a chance to answer. I know Bill Blaikie's not here. He might have mentioned once or twice the McGrath report. In the McGrath report, among other things, it was recommended that parliamentary secretaries not be on committees--and this is not a slight against my old friend Roger--in terms of trying to make the committees much more independent and at arm's length from the government. Not only have you not done that, but you've also made parliamentary secretaries privy councillors, which gives them an elevated role. I know Roger doesn't have a chauffeur yet, but he does have an elevated role.

    I wonder why you've moved in the opposite direction. I think the MP from Burlington mentioned this in his comments yesterday.

    The Chair: If you want a reply, you're going to have to stop.

    Hon. Jacques Saada: First of all, there's one thing I hadn't finished, unfortunately, in my previous answer. I'll be very quick on that.

    Reform should mean that we're going to improve our system. Improving our system must take into account the fundamental need to improve women's representation in Parliament. It must improve minorities representation in Parliament. This is a must. Without those two ingredients, at least in our minds, we're going to actually lose sight of the ultimate objective, which is equal opportunity and representation.

    In terms of enumeration again, honestly, I don't know. I haven't thought about it, so I don't want to give you an answer I don't have. I have to think about it.

    As for reducing the voting age from 18 to 16, I've always been open-minded in terms of listening to the arguments, but from the outset I have a lot of reservations.

    As far as the PS role is concerned, the PS acts as a linkage between the committee, between membership, between members of Parliament and the minister. The role in this regard has been reinforced by the fact that he is sitting in cabinet, because the linkage is made even more official and more powerful now. I do not buy the argument according to which it's a weakening of the committees. I think it's a reinforcement of the message that the minister wants to be present in committee.

    The Chair: Judi Longfield, Dale Johnston, Claude Duplain, Michel Guimond, and then the chair.

    Mrs. Judi Longfield (Whitby—Ajax, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    Congratulations to you, Minister, on your new role.

    For the last number of years, by virtue of being chair of a committee, I've sat on the liaison committee, and I would report that I think I chair the committee with the longest name in the history of Parliament, the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills Development, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, so I'm going to ask for additional money for longer business cards. The liaison committee is the committee where all the chairs of all the various standing committees get together and in many cases plead for money to do what is arguably the most important work that can be done by parliamentarians.

    With this new thrust forward to give committees much more power and authority and expand their scope, I'm very concerned that if we don't make this contingent on increased resources, we really are asking committees to do more with less. What we're going to end up with is a lesser quality of work, expanded on more areas, so really nothing is going to get done. I think that's extremely important.

    The other area is that, given that we're all on a number of committees and we want to dedicate our time, we lack the expertise. It has been alluded to just in terms of estimates, but we also lack expertise on some very special issues. I can recall the defence committee, for example, coming back to the liaison committee time and time again saying the expertise they needed for a certain study was just not available at the library, and they had to hire out of their own budgets--which then diminishes the amount of money that can be spread among the other committees. So we need to address this.

    The other one is time, and now that bills are being referred to committee after first reading, there's just going to be that much more on our plate. I don't know how you create more time, because I don't think anyone is able to expand the day or the week, but perhaps we might want to look at committees being able to meet during intersession. Committees sort of shut down now when we're off in the winter or the summer, or whenever. There are some committees that I think would like the opportunity to be able to travel more to do that.

    The other thing is.... Well, maybe I'll just leave it at that, because I'm extremely concerned about time and resources.

    Actually, I'm going to mention one more. When the Board of Internal Economy is discussing that, I think there needs to be a very strong representation from the liaison committee to the Board of Internal Economy, the focus of that person being to fight for and to represent the concerns of all the various standing committees.

Á  (1155)  

    Hon. Jacques Saada: It is clear that the first part of your statement is quite accurate. If we are to put our money where our mouth is, we have to have more resources to committees. We simply cannot tap the same resources. It doesn't make sense. It would not work. We just simply would not be able to make it work, whether we're talking about legislative counsel, whether we're talking about studies....

    Also, the liaison committee is caught in a sandwich, because they have a certain amount fixed and then you have all the committees trying to have money for themselves. There are some statutory things that they have to do. For instance, the finance committee, by virtue of standing orders, has to go and consult pre-budget, and that eats up approximately half--

    Mrs. Judi Longfield: Three-quarters, sometimes.

    Hon. Jacques Saada: --of the budget. So obviously we are on the same wavelength, and that's the argument I will make before the board.

    In terms of committees meeting intersessionally, I would really like you to discuss it. I don't think it should be an initiative taken by government. It should be something coming from members of Parliament, if they see fit. I'm really not in position to answer yes or no.

    Mrs. Judi Longfield: But you're prepared to consider it.

    Hon. Jacques Saada: Sure, but members of Parliament will have some reservations about that, I suspect.

    Mrs. Judi Longfield: Oh, yes, I appreciate that.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    By the way, on this question of resources, if I just heard you refer to a study of all democratic systems in the world, or whatever you just said, I hope we get more resources very soon, because there are only three or four weeks to the election and we're going to need a fair amount of time.

    Hon. Jacques Saada: Mr. Chair, should I remind you that I've said this reform will take years?

    The Chair: That's okay.

    Next it's Dale Johnston, Claude Duplain, Michel Guimond, and then the chair.

    Mr. Dale Johnston: Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Mr. Minister, for your presentation.

    I notice that you touched on the issue of parliamentary secretaries in committee. Parliamentary secretaries now, of course, are sworn to the Privy Council, and as a result of that, it's just like having a minister on the committee.

    I wonder if, because of this change, you would be open to the suggestion that parliamentary secretaries could sit on a committee provided they were there more or less in an advisory role and didn't have voting power.

    Hon. Jacques Saada: There is something I don't understand in the question, which is the following.

    On the one hand, with this reform, with the free vote system that we are implementing for ourselves, and so on, what we are trying to do is to have ministers be more available to members of Parliament to have a better chance to actually not count on whipping to have the bills passed, and so on, and therefore have them be more present with members of Parliament in committees.

    The person who represents the minister, first rank, is the parliamentary secretary. We make sure that the connection is established very firmly between the two. You tend to view it as the minister coming down on you; the way we see it is that we're making cabinet more available to members. So if you want to remove the right to vote of these people, actually it's a very unfair thing to do, because you are asking them to be excluded from the rank of members of Parliament to become ministers. It's not the intent.

  (1200)  

    Mr. Dale Johnston: But when they're sworn to the Privy Council, they become nearly ministers. They are a direct conduit to.... Yes, maybe mini-ministers--except for Reg, of course.

    What you've done, actually, is you have a minister at the table at all times, or at least his proxy, and you have his or her influence on the entire government side of the table.

    I think the playing field wasn't all that level in the first place, and by putting parliamentary secretaries on the committee on the government side, the tables have been tipped unfairly. I can understand the government not wanting to go into a committee where they had a minority, but I really don't understand the necessity of having to have parliamentary secretaries with voting powers, particularly, on that committee as well.

    The Chair: Perhaps you could address the Privy Council part of that, because I understand our colleague Lorne Nystrom is a member of the Privy Council as well. It seems to me there's the parliamentary secretary aspect, and there's the Privy Council aspect.

    Hon. Jacques Saada: The spirit with which this change was initiated was to make sure, when we're discussing an issue in cabinet, that the PS who is sitting with the committee can actually reflect truly what is happening in committee first-hand, and to make sure that cabinet is appraised of what the committee is discussing, the positions in committee, and so on and so forth. It is not to have cabinet imposing on committees; it is to make sure that committees' views are known to cabinet. I mean, I respect your position, but I beg to differ on your interpretation of this.

    Privy councillors, by the way, can be anybody who has been sworn in as a privy councillor. For instance, if we create a committee on security--the one that we have been actually starting to talk about in our action plan--these people are going to be sworn in as privy councillors so that they can have access to information. Are you saying to me that these people will not be able to sit on committees, with full voting rights, because they are privy councillors? Are you saying to me that anybody around this table here who is a privy councillor, for instance ministers who are no longer ministers, should not have the right to vote around the table?

    An hon. member: Lorne Nystrom.

    Hon. Jacques Saada: Lorne Nystrom, yes, but more generally.

    I think we have to be very cautious.

    Mr. Dale Johnston: I think there's a huge difference there. There's a huge difference between Lorne Nystrom's PC appointment and somebody who is a direct extension of the minister.

    Hon. Jacques Saada: Well, I think I've made my point. I understand what you're saying, Dale. I wish you understood mine. We disagree, and we are going to agree to disagree on this. I think it's quite important for us to have a direct linkage with the committees, to have first-hand appreciation in cabinrt of what committees are doing and what members of Parliament are thinking.

    Mr. Dale Johnston: I have a very brief question, and if I have any time left I'd like to defer to Loyola.

    I notice in your letter that you ask that we report back by March 26. What's the significance of that date?

    Hon. Jacques Saada: It's not for everything, it's just for the first thing. March 26 is before a two-week break. So if we have to take some action in terms of preparing trips or whatever organization we need to do, I could have personally used this two weeks to initiate things. That's all.

    Mr. Dale Johnston: Okay.

    Loyola.

    The Chair: Okay, Loyola, about two minutes.

    Mr. Loyola Hearn (St. John's West, CPC): Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll be pretty brief.

    First of all, I wanted to congratulate the minister, as the others have done on his initiative. However, I think it's a top-down initiative. It's coming from the government as what they want rather than from general discussion of what is needed. So I hope the outline is pretty flexible and we can have a lot of input to change it. I don't know why it will take so long to change. I think a concentrated initiative could implement a lot of the suggested changes in a very short time.

    I do have some concerns about some of the things listed, such as the election of committee chairs, as if it's a big thing. It's being done now. And of course the government controls the numbers anyway, so they can elect whomever they want. It's like the parliamentary secretary coming--and I appreciate the minster's point of view and I can understand it to some degree, but the parliamentary secretary has a tremendous amount of influence at the committee level and does affect how the other people there vote and act.

    Supreme Court appointments--so often when we talk about it, we talk about input, consultation. Consultation doesn't mean any input, it means somebody will say “Well, we consulted”. That doesn't have any real effect.

    I believe the main thing is the estimates, talking about how we can educate people how to go after the ministers in relation to the estimates. I think we can do a pretty good job of that. The problem has always been getting the minister at the estimates committee so that you can really find out what is going on and getting him and her before the House, where they used to be and still should be.

    So I think that some of the general topics are good. It's the outlined approach as to how we will address that needs to change significantly if we're going to improve the democratic deficit.

  (1205)  

    The Chair: Briefly, Minister, please.

    Hon. Jacques Saada: First of all, your question of top-down, in all respect, Loyola, I don't understand where you're coming from with this, because the reform being proposed, at least my action plan for the first stage of reform, is a direct result of a number of committee works, which transcends party lines, by the way. Let me give you an example of what I mean. In the Building Trust document, which comes from the sources of your present party, you were asking for more free votes. By the way, I don't understand you've regularly adhered to that, but you were asking for that. Your members were asking for that.

    Mr. Loyola Hearn: I didn't mention that, but I'll play with that.

    Hon. Jacques Saada: You wanted to have all private members' business votable, we have implemented it; a code of ethics and ethics commissioner, we have implemented it; election of standing committee chairs by a secret ballot, we have implemented it; committees to have more say over estimates, we have implemented it.

    The Chair: Minister, very, very briefly.

    Hon. Jacques Saada: My point is that I really don't buy the top-down. I think it's worked, but the substance of it doesn't justify it.

    And the second thing, on the Supreme Court--

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Claude Duplain and then Michel Guimond.

[Translation]

    Mr. Claude Duplain (Portneuf, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You are being very strict this morning.

    Thank you, Minister, for being here today. I want to congratulate you on your appointment and I especially want to congratulate the Prime Minister for giving you responsibility for this file. Knowing you, I am sure that you are a minister who will be able to see this issue through to the end.

    I think that people can understand this issue. In any case, I personally have a clear idea of where this can lead. I would have two questions, and I will be brief because I would like you to be able to answer. In the implementation of the whole system—and we have just had an example from our colleague opposite, the member for the Bloc Québécois—what mechanisms have you decided on for the concrete implementation, monitoring, development, ongoing review and support of this initiative.

    When we hear examples of something that happened in committee, it is surely because someone is not aware of the direction that we are trying to go in. That is why such a thing happens. So while this new method, this new ethical approach, this new democracy is being implemented, how are we going to monitor exactly what is happening day to day? Has thought been given to the process?

    My second question comes back to the beginning when we were talking about ethics, accountability, responsibility, and the code of conduct. I would like to know how you see this working, since we know that everything can work on the ground if everyone contributes ideas.

    You were talking about young people earlier, including the number of young people who do not vote. They are no longer going out to the polls, you are right, it is partly our fault. I think that they are often disillusioned because of our behaviour, because of what they see. And it is not just young people: the general public is often disillusioned in many cases as well.

    What do people see? They see what happens on television. They can watch the debate and the quarrelling. In a democratic system, there is no doubt that the opposition scores points when it tells the government what it is doing wrong. That often gets people up in arms in the House. That is what the public sees.

    Keeping that in mind, then, could the code of conduct go further in dealing with how the House operates? Will we go that far? What is your view of this?

  (1210)  

    Hon. Jacques Saada: Thank you very much for your question, especially the introduction: I liked it a lot.

    Mr. Chairman, I believe that there are a number of principles that must be clearly set out here. Democratic reform has never meant, does not mean, and will never mean anarchy. Democratic reform does not mean that there are no teams, no political parties, no need to agree among ourselves so that we can work along certain lines that are in keeping with the mandate given to us by the public as elected officials or that any other government will have to assume.

    Second, regarding your question about whether what is being done will be evaluated, the answer is yes. In the action plan itself, I mention an annual report on progress of the reform, so that we can see, for example, where things are at, what has worked and what has not worked, what still needs to be done. So there are certainly mechanisms that will be used to monitor our progress.

    Mr. Chairman, I do not know whether I will have the opportunity to come back to this latter, so I will take 30 seconds now to highlight something that I personally feel is very important. I believe that reform must be both idealistic and pragmatic. The idealistic aspect involves the long term, what we are seeking to do in the long run, and the pragmatic aspect involves the successive steps that must be taken.

    That is why I said in my introduction that mistakes would be made, but if we are all working together... And I make my plea again today. I have said this a number of times, but I will formally say it again here: let us rise above political partisanship for this reform. This is not about reforming the Liberal Party or the government, it is about reforming the Parliament of Canada and Canadian democracy, where everyone has a place and a role to play. I want to issue that invitation formally and categorically to all my colleagues.

    The Chair: Claude, you have one minute left, if you want it.

    The Hon. Jacques Saada: I would just like to add something, Mr. Chairman...

[English]

    The Chair: You're taking Claude's time.

[Translation]

    Mr. Claude Duplain: He is welcome to it, because I would like the minister to have more time to answer.

    Hon. Jacques Saada: I just want to know whether I will have time to respond to the issues that Mr. Guimond raised in his first question.

[English]

    The Chair: Well, Mr. Guimond is next.

[Translation]

    Mr. Claude Duplain: I will give him my time so that he can answer.

    Hon. Jacques Saada: Thank you.

    I want to say hello to Estelle, Mélanie, Laurel and Theresa. I'm very pleased to see you here.

    To begin with, "Ethics and Integrity" was something that was introduced under the former Prime Minister. It seems to me that, when we deal with issues in our legislative work, what is important is not whether this was done before or whether it was good or not, but rather whether this is something that will serve the public. Will this be good for politics as a whole, beyond the political parties? If the answer is yes, I have no scruples about acknowledging that not only has it been done before—I was involved in that as well, as you know, Mr. Guimond—but also that I'm extremely proud that we made it the first bill to be reinstated.

    The second issue is the line votes. All MPs are free within their own caucus to decide how the votes will work. That is the reform that I see. MPs who vote on an issue and then go back to their riding on the weekend and tell people who do not like the result of the vote that MPs were forced to vote in a certain way and had no choice do not have the same level of accountability to their constituents as MPs who go back and say that they did have a choice, that this is why they voted the way they did, and that they are prepared to be judged.

    That is why free votes are so important, and that is why the various line votes are so important, and that is why I invited you here.

  (1215)  

    The Chair: Michel Guimond, you have the floor.

    Mr. Michel Guimond: You have not responded to what I said about the incident at the Finance Committee, but I want to raise another case with you.

    Along the lines of what my colleague Dale Johnston was asking, I want to say from the outset that my question is about the role of parliamentary secretaries. You answered him by saying that parliamentary secretaries act as a liaison or a communications channel. You said that they act as a link with ministers. In answer to a question asked by, I believe, the member for Cariboo—Chilcotin in connection with a point of order in the House, the speaker said that he had no choice, that parliamentary secretaries could be on committees. I want to say that I do not share Mr. Johnston's position, which is that parliamentary secretaries should not have the right to vote on committees. I do not agree with that. Parliamentary secretaries are elected members and they have the right to vote on committees.

    I do have a problem with something else, however. If you are serious about reforming the system to eliminate the democratic deficit, you should look seriously at the fact that parliamentary secretaries can be on subcommittees on agenda and procedure, which are also known as steering committees. Having parliamentary secretaries on steering committees shows once again that, as with what happened at the finance committee, the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing.

    Like your predecessors, you tell us over and over again that committees are masters of their procedures and that they can decide what they want to study. In that case, parliamentary secretaries, whose role it is to communicate decisions made by ministers, do not have to be on agenda and procedure subcommittees. That should be left up to MPs, and they will find out like the other members of the committee what the subcommittee has decided. If you are serious, you need to take that step. I would like to hear your comments on that and on what happened at the finance committee.

    I would also like to come back to the issue of cynicism and the fact that young people are not bothering to vote. To listen to Mr. Duplain, one would think that it was the opposition's fault that young people are no longer voting.

    Hon. Jacques Saada: Mr. Chairman, it is impossible to ask a question, give an answer at the same time and assume what my answer will be. I will explain. As Mr. Guimond has just said, committees are masters of their own decisions. It is not up to me to tell a committee that it has to split or not split a bill, give notice or not give notice. You know as well as I do that the procedural rules of committees are determined by the committees themselves. It is not the government that sets those rules, but rather the committees themselves.

    With respect to having parliamentary secretaries on...

    Mr. Michel Guimond: It was the same under Jean Chrétien. Things worked the same way.

    Hon. Jacques Saada: What I would say about the extremely rigorous, even rigid approach advocated by my colleague, is that he may still have a way to go before he grasps the very essence of the reform. But I accept that. One thing is clear, and that is that if there is something, a particular issue, a claim or a comment with respect to the presence of parliamentary secretaries in the steering committees, the subcommittees on agenda and procedure, I am prepared to listen, although I must confess that this was not at all what had come to my mind. I had no problems with that and I am prepared to listen, providing, of course, that there is a good reason to support this approach.

    Mr. Michel Guimond: But I was agreeing with you: if we say that the committees are the masters of their own procedures and that the parliamentary secretary is there to convey to us the decisions made by the minister, then...

    Hon. Jacques Saada: No. That is not what I said, Mr. Guimond. I did not say that the parliamentary secretary was there to convey the minister's decisions. I said that he was there as a liaison between the committees and parliamentarians and the minister. That is not the same thing. But that being said, I am still prepared to hear what you have to say on the issue and to take it into consideration. I have no biases about that.

    Finally...

[English]

    The Chair: We have less than a minute to go on this exchange.

    In this committee, by the way, the parliamentary secretary is not a member of the steering committee.

[Translation]

    Hon. Jacques Saada: Fine.

    I must tell you, by the way, that we must not forget that in the proposed reform, except for those files that pertain directly to their own department, parliamentary secretaries do not have to vote with cabinet. Consequently, when there is a two-line vote, this is a free vote for parliamentary secretaries as well. I don't want you to forget that.

  (1220)  

[English]

    The Chair: It's the chair's turn now, Michel, if that's okay.

    My questions, Minister, are sort of technical. You and your colleagues could perhaps respond later, as far as I'm concerned.

    One question has to do with the direction on review of appointments. It seems to me that's an area in which it's quite complicated for committees to report directly to the House, except for this committee, because it is in fact our responsibility. So our thought—we've given some thought to your action plan—in this case was to consult the other committees in some rapid way and then have a global report, if that's okay. If you have any advice to us on how we should move on that particular item, we'd be glad to do it.

    The second thing is similar. It has to do with Bill C-4, which deals with the ethics commissioner bill and the code, which, as you know, was the subject of our 51st report in the last Parliament. This concerns the code, the change to the Standing Orders. If you don't give us direction, we will decide ourselves, but the question arises whether, once Bill C-4 is in place, our former report 51 is deemed tabled or deemed whatever; or whether you would like us to proceed in some other way with all the work we did, as you well know, on changing the Standing Orders of the House of Commons.

    We think it's something that can be done very quickly—quite mechanically—by re-tabling that report, but we would need advice.

    The third thing is that we—our steering committee and the committee—have looked at and have developed some ideas on how we're moving. But if there are any thoughts you give us quite soon—I don't necessarily mean now, that's up to you—on actual priorities.... You mentioned the long-term vision and the short-term. There are things we can do very quickly, but there are things that will take us a little longer. Any thoughts you have we would be glad to incorporate in our discussion of how we go through this action plan.

    If he has no reply, we'll go to Lorne Nystrom; then it's Chuck Strahl.

    Hon. Lorne Nystrom: I have just one question to the minister. All parties have internal committees in their caucuses. I notice the Liberal Party has had many in the last few years: a task force on the cities, on rural affairs, a bank merger committee, an EI committee, and so on.

    What is your vision concerning more power to the parliamentary committees? Would you see fewer caucus committees? Would you encourage fewer caucus committees and have some of that work done by an all-party committee that's better funded and more independent?

    All too often, I think, a lot of work has been done in the Liberal caucus itself that maybe should have been done by all-party committees. Have you given that some thought? I know the caucus decides for itself what it does, but you are now the minister who would have a certain amount of influence in persuading them to do more of it in all-party committees, and less internally.

    Hon. Jacques Saada: You know, Lorne, I don't think there is a contradiction between having caucus committees and standing committees. They don't achieve the same purpose; they aren't concerned about the same things. Their priorities might not be the same, for all kinds of reasons. The kind of work they want to do might not be the same. I don't think one should be subject to the other.

    The point of the reform is not to reduce in any way or shape the powers of members of Parliament. If I were to say that because we have standing committees we should not have caucus committees, we would actually reduce the powers of members. I really don't see any contradiction between the two.

    Hon. Lorne Nystrom: Do I have time for one more question?

    Mr. Kingsley was saying this morning in the press that he believes there are probably millions of dollars in MPs' trust funds. Are you looking at trust funds as part of the code of conduct stuff you're talking about here, making sure information on the trust funds has to be made public and available concerning who contributes to them, or outlawing them, or registering them?

    Hon. Jacques Saada: It's a very important question. The answer could be extremely long. If I may, I'm going to try to give you just brief points on this.

    First, as you recall, we have passed Bill C-24. Bill C-24 was very specific. As of January 1 no entity, no organization, no one, no company, no union can give more than $1,000 for the entire country to any given political party. If foundations such as the one you are talking about existed before that and have not transferred the moneys to the political entities existing before January 1, they are going to be limited to $1,000 anyway.

    The other aspect of it, of course, is what if these foundations do something aimed at helping a political party? Here we're entering into a very complex field of third-party financing. You know about the Supreme Court decision with the issue of the Harper case, concerning limitation of third-party financing. I think we have to wait for the Supreme Court judgment, of course, but all of this emanates from our collective attempts to limit the influence of outside political bodies on the choice of Canadians as to who should be the political representative and political party. I think it's a very complex story.

    The only thing I want to say very categorically—and I believe your party also supported it at the time—is very simple. I remember Mr. Gauthier was sitting here also at the time we discussed it. The foundations existed. They had an obligation to choose either to stay out of the political picture, in which case they would be limited to only a contribution of $1,000 after January 1, or be put partially or totally into the riding association's or other political entity's funds and be declared as a first line on the balance sheet of each riding association or political party as of January 2004.

    If you feel and if it is the case that there is something that can be improved in this regard, that's part of the Elections Act now and is within your mandate on Bill C-3.

  (1225)  

    The Chair: It's Chuck Strahl, then Michel Guimond; then, colleagues, unless I see otherwise, my intention is to wind it up.

    Chuck.

    Mr. Chuck Strahl: Thank you.

    Mr. Minister, I must say it's nice to hear your passion for parliamentary reform. I think the reason you get these questions is that we all feel as though we're from Missouri a little bit: you know it's the “show me” state. It's like the case with things that were in the red book ten years ago. You have to understand we don't just say “Jeepers”; it's all changed today. We're not going to just accept it.

    I want to accept it, but it's going to take a little bit. When I hear you speak, I want to believe you. You seem passionate; you seem sincere. So be patient with us in return; accept that we want to see some evidence of this.

    For example, the parliamentary secretaries may be, as you say, a conduit from the committee to the cabinet. In times past it's always seemed as though it's come from the cabinet to the committee. That's why—we'll see, and I want to believe you—it will take a little bit of time.

    One of the things that has been in the paper and I think is going to be a bit of a litmus test on the issue of free votes—for example, today the supplementary estimates were tabled in the House.... People are going to go right to it and ask, “What about the supplementary estimates for the gun registry?” One person says, “This is a free vote.” You say maybe it's not a free vote. Someone else says, “Damn right it's a free vote.” Right away we Missouri folks are saying, “Well, this maybe is a test.”

    This is a test. When those estimates come before the House on the gun registry, will members of Parliament be given a free vote to vote it down if they think enough's enough and they want to stop spending money on the gun registry? Can they vote it down? Can we do that?

    Hon. Jacques Saada: On the concrete question about the firearms program, I understand that the supplementary estimates are being tabled this morning. I stand to be corrected, but I don't think there has been any request for supplementary estimates for the firearms program. So the question is purely theoretical.

    In terms of the theory, let me tell you what the position is. I am sorry that it has been played in a way that could have illustrated some contradiction. There was no contradiction at all. The position I have is very simple. If in the estimates you have an item on which Parliament believes money is not being spent properly and has to be reduced or corrected somehow, or increased, for that matter, I have no problem whatsoever with a free vote. If the vote on this line of the estimates is a backdoor manoeuvre to kill a program that was part of the Speech from the Throne or part of the fundamental policy of government in the past--I'm not talking about the future--then this is not a free vote, because it would be a free vote on something on which there was no free vote when the speech was delivered.

    All I am saying is if it is a matter of amending a line, yes, it can be a free vote, unless it is a backdoor way of killing a program, in which case it is a fundamental program of government, and this is not a free vote. In the same fashion, once the amendments have been brought to any line of the estimates, the bottom line of the estimates cannot be a free vote.

  (1230)  

    Mr. Chuck Strahl: Who determines that?

    Hon. Jacques Saada: Who determines what?

    Mr. Chuck Strahl: Who determines whether it is a fundamental thing for the government or just simply an effort by a committee or a member to ratchet back or somehow rein in what they think is freewheeling spending that is out of control?

    Hon. Jacques Saada: I think it is going to be pretty obvious in many cases. In many cases it's a grey area. It has to be worked on. If, for instance, you have $100,000 of expenses for this program and all of a sudden it is reduced to $5,000, it's clear that the program will not work. If instead it's reduced from $100,000 to $95,000, it's clear that it's not going to kill the program. It is a judgment call. But ultimately--and I think it's part of my responsibility as leader of the government in the House--it is to make sure that government can actually govern. That's its responsibility. If government can't govern, then I have a problem with a free vote.

    Mr. Chuck Strahl: I fear that this may be an area of real conflict, then. At one time it was the role of Parliament to ride herd on the government to make sure it didn't overspend or get carried away or spend money where Parliament was not satisfied it was being spent properly. Maybe it's a pie-in-the-sky dream, but the idea is that a committee can come together and look at a project--I used the gun registry because it has been controversial, but it might find another program, such as the advertising for the sponsorship program--and say “We don't think this is effective. We unanimously recommend that this program be reined in, cut in half, scaled back.” Without that power, you really have no power, because it all comes down to money. If the cabinet and the government say “My way or the highway on the money”, then MPs just have to salute the flag and say “Well, whatever. Yes, sir.”

    The Chair: Mr. Minister, you will have some time to wind up at the end, and then we're going to conclude.

    Next is Michel Guimond.

[Translation]

    Mr. Michel Guimond: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to talk briefly about young people voting. My comments are somewhat along the same lines as those made by Mr. Duplain. I have a 24-year-old son and a 21-year-old daughter. They are both very critical when it comes to politics and their father. I do not know where this tendency to be so critical comes from. Sometimes, I just do not see myself in them at all.

    I simply want to have your opinion. It is too easy to blame the government because it is doing a poor job of governing or to blame the opposition because it is pointing out the negative things. I think that, in a democracy, you have the government and an opposition, and each party must do its job. It is too easy to fingerpoint either of the parties. We need a neutral individual that everyone trusts.

    Mr. Minister, the Auditor General was running out of adjectives. She said that she was angry, enraged—she did not say that she was "mad as hell" because she does not swear— but she was so indignant that she was running out of adjectives.

    In your opinion, Mr. Minister, do you feel that the Auditor General's reports, particularly the last one, are of the type that would encourage young people to have confidence in politics and politicians?

    Hon. Jacques Saada: Mr. Guimond, do you believe that gratuitous attacks and allegations made without one iota of proof against people sitting in the House will encourage young people to have faith in the political system? Do you sincerely believe that the type of political games whereby people sniff around in the hope of catching wind of anything whatsoever will result in young people having confidence in the world of politics? Personally, Mr. Guimond, I think that the problem with respect to the young people is much more complicated than this very simplistic vision of things. I think that...

  (1235)  

    Mr. Michel Guimond: I asked you a specific question about the Auditor General's report.

    Hon. Jacques Saada: Am I not in the process of answering it?

    Mr. Michel Guimond: No, you are not answering the question: you are doing exactly what I said I didn't want to do, namely, resorting to partisanship. I did not want to accuse the government of doing such and such a thing and I especially had no intention of holding a question period here. Question period, that is another matter entirely.

    My question is simple: Do you think, yes or no, that the Auditor General's report encourages young people to have confidence in politics? Do not talk to me about question period, accusations and fishing expeditions, unless the Auditor General has done this type of thing.

    Hon. Jacques Saada: Mr. Chairman, may I ask a procedural question? Would it be possible to agree that when I am asked a question, I will have an opportunity to answer it fully before I am asked a second question? Otherwise, it is extremely frustrating: I do not have enough time to complete my explanations.

    I was going to say to Mr. Guimond, to complete my answer, that regardless of the political party...

[English]

    The Chair: May I reply to that?

    My reply to that is that it's the member's time, and when the clock runs out it's the member's fault, in my view. So if the member asks a very long question, he gets a very short answer. That's the way I interpret it. On the other hand, you are going to have time to summarize now, so you can deal with it as well as you can. But it is the member's time, and the clock is ticking.

[Translation]

    Hon. Jacques Saada: Mr. Chairman, I referred to question period for a very simple reason: in my opinion, everything about the way we behave has an impact. So every time we challenge the integrity or the dignity of Parliament, we do not improve the situation. Regardless of who may be asking the questions or answering, whether you're talking about reports that are produced or the shouting that we hear throughout the Chamber, none of that incites young people to have any confidence in our institution.

    There are two ways of looking at things: either we look back and criticize everything that did not work or we sit down together and look at the whole institution to see how we can ensure that these things do not reoccur. We know that the problems like those denounced by the Auditor General occur. Unfortunately, this occurs at the provincial, municipal and federal level. These issues need to be resolved. In my opinion, the reform that I am proposing goes well beyond a simple reaction to a specific incident in our history.

    In my opinion, what is important to understand here is that we have a choice of either looking in the rearview mirror or through the windshield. I am suggesting to my colleagues that we take the second option, because if you look in the rearview mirror, we will have a hard time getting further ahead.

[English]

    The Chair: On the matter of youth voting, I would like to thank all the members of this committee who participated in the debate on motion 398 the other day dealing with this. That debate, with a reference list for young people about democracy and voting, is available already in the record of the House, and will be on www.peteradams.org very soon. Four members of this committee participated in that debate, Minister, as you know, and we've been dealing with it.

    Minister, would you take some time to summarize? And feel free to return to the questions you felt you didn't answer before.

    Hon. Jacques Saada: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to say words that are usually used very lightly, but I would like to give them the full meaning. I am truly honoured and humbled to be here today, not simply because I'm here but because I've felt throughout the questions, throughout the debates, that there is a light. I saw a light coming from all directions--with reservations, with doubts, and of course in the political field it's normal to have some political agendas and positioning. But I have seen--and it's the first time, and I really appreciate it--the possibility that we could one day elevate ourselves beyond party lines to work on this report.

[Translation]

    This reform is my first mandate as a minister. Its success is a high priority for me. Why? Because, like Mr. Guimond and many of us, I too have children, and if only one quarter of today's youths vote in an election, that means that, if we do not do anything, in 20 or 25 years time, only 25 per cent of the biggest segment of the population will vote. If that is the case, it is not a democracy.

    I will conclude on a very personal note, Mr. Chairman. I had an opportunity to come to a country, which was not my country of birth, and I found in this country an absolutely phenomenal and deep concern for democracy. This concern for democracy did not occur because of divine intervention. It occurred because there were people who ensured that this love of democracy was cultivated, and we owe it to these people to ensure that it survives.

    I did not agree to this undertaking simply out of ministerial duty, I did not agree to it simply because I have a mandate to fulfill. I am happy to take on this mission, because it gives me an opportunity to give back to this country a little bit of what it gave me. This is why I am here today.

    Thank you.

  (1240)  

[English]

    The Chair: Minister, thank you. And I want to thank your colleagues, Anita, Matthew, and the other colleagues who are here, for taking the time today.

    As a former member of this committee, you know that members on all sides here are passionate about this matter. You could tell that from the questions today. So we look forward to working with you. You have those small questions, and I hope you'll reply to those.

    Colleagues, I want to say to you all that we will be dealing with Bill C-3 on Tuesday. The minister will be with us again. Then it is my intention to return to this action plan on the following Thursday. We hope to have a draft of our work plan on the question of members' privileges also by Tuesday. If we get a request on private members' business, we will try to deal with that on Tuesday as well.

    The committee is adjourned until Tuesday, at 11 o'clock, in this same place.