HAFF Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Thursday, October 24, 2002

Á

1110

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

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga Centre, Lib.)

The Chair

Á

1115

Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Canadian Alliance)

The Chair

Mr. Dale Johnston

The Chair

Ms. Marlene Catterall

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP)

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

The Chair

The Clerk of the Committee

The Chair

Á

1120

Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Canadian Alliance)

The Chair

Mr. John Reynolds

The Chair

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish

The Chair

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish

Á

1125

The Chair

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish

The Chair

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish

Mr. Rick Borotsik

The Chair

Mr. John Reynolds

The Chair

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

Á

1130

The Chair

Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ)

Mr. Yvon Godin

The Chair

Mr. Dale Johnston

The Chair

Mr. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.)

Á

1135

The Chair

Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib.)

Á

1140

The Chair

Mr. Jacques Saada

The Chair

Mr. Jacques Saada

The Chair

Mr. Jacques Saada

The Chair

Mr. Rick Borotsik

The Chair

Mr. Rick Borotsik

The Chair

Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.)

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish

Mr. Steve Mahoney

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish

Mr. Steve Mahoney

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish

Mr. Steve Mahoney

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Steve Mahoney

Á

1145

The Chair

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish

The Chair

Mr. Steve Mahoney

Á

1150

The Chair

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish

The Chair

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

Á

1155

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib.))

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jacques Saada)

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jacques Saada)

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish

The Clerk

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish

The Clerk

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish

Â

1200

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jacques Saada)

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish

Mr. Steve Mahoney

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jacques Saada)

Ms. Marlene Catterall

Â

1205

The Chair

Mr. Geoff Regan

Â

1210

Mr. Yvon Godin

The Chair

Mr. Geoff Regan

The Chair

Mr. Geoff Regan

The Chair

Mr. John Harvard

Â

1215

The Chair

Mr. Jacques Saada

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

The Chair

Mr. Geoff Regan

The Chair

Mr. Geoff Regan

Mr. Rick Borotsik

The Chair

Mr. Geoff Regan

The Chair

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish

The Chair

Ms. Marlene Catterall

The Chair

Â

1220

Ms. Marlene Catterall

The Chair

Ms. Marlene Catterall

The Chair

Mr. John Reynolds

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

The Chair

Mr. Jacques Saada

Â

1225

The Chair

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish

Â

1230

The Chair

Mr. Steve Mahoney

The Chair

Â

1235

Mr. Steve Mahoney

Â

1240

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

The Chair

Mr. Rick Borotsik

The Chair

Mr. Jacques Saada

Mr. John Harvard

The Chair

Ms. Marlene Catterall

Â

1245

The Chair

Ms. Marlene Catterall

The Chair

Ms. Marlene Catterall

The Chair

Mr. Geoff Regan

The Chair

Mr. Geoff Regan

The Chair

Mr. Geoff Regan

The Chair

Mr. Geoff Regan

Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, Lib.)

Â

1250

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

The Chair

Ms. Marlene Catterall

Â

1255

The Chair

Ms. Marlene Catterall

The Chair

Ms. Marlene Catterall

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

---

NUMBER 002

l

2nd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Thursday, October 24, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Á  (1110)  

[English]

    The Chair (Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.)): Colleagues, we may begin. The clerk is circulating the material.

    The first item of business is the report of the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure, which is our steering committee. It is essentially a report that we met; it's a report dealing with future business. It's not something that's set in stone, although there were certain agreements around it when it was phrased. So if I could, I'd like to take you through the report of the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure. I doubt we need to spend a great deal of time on this, but I'd like to just tell you my interpretation of what the steering committee agreed to.

    On the first item, televising and broadcasting of committee proceedings, you will know we are in the middle of an experiment under which any committee can be televised. At the moment the deadline for that is some sort of review in December. The suggestion here is that we extend that experiment so that it encompasses the full parliamentary year, right through until July, because that's better. At the same time as we suggest to the House that it be extended, we should appraise the new committee chairs of the new regulations, so they will take advantage of it, and advise the media of the new regulations, so they will take advantage of it. That's what that item is, and at some point, perhaps not today, but at the next meeting, we'll introduce a motion to that effect.

    Carolyn Parrish.

    Mrs. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga Centre, Lib.): Then could we have Steve Mahoney advise all the gentlemen on where he gets his clothes, so we'll all look better on television?

    The Chair: Thank you very much. That is a point of disorder.

    On the performance reports, as soon as they appear, the committee's agreed that we're supposed to show an example to other committees. When the Speaker reports, the Chief Electoral Officer will get the performance reports, and we will deal with that.

    With regard to security on the Hill, we had great concern about this following the problems with terrorism and so on, but we had particular concerns about student and other groups coming to the Hill, groups that were deciding not to come, groups that decided to come, but were turned away, and so on. There's also, from Yvon, a concern about costs. The suggestion of the steering committee is that we ask for more information on those things, and we will then reconsider them. We will also--and we've started this already--deal with the Senate, as we said, who have also been looking at security. The security of the Centre Block involves both Houses, and we should deal with that. So, colleagues, we're getting the extra information I am making contact with the Senate, and we will then at some point proceed with our consideration of security.

    On electoral redistribution, the agreement was--some of the new members may not know--that when the boundary commissions have completed their reports, they will submit them to us. I want to stress that they don't submit them to us for approval, they submit them to us so that members of Parliament can come to us and make their final arguments. We can then--and there will be a briefing on this--return them to the commissions, but the final decision is in the hands of the commissions. I have to stress that to you. The steering committee said I will circulate a letter--you have a copy of it--with some information about this process; when the time comes, if MPs want to appear here, they have to get 10 other MPs to endorse their application. I will circulate that information as the commissions start to report. We, the committee, will decide how we deal with it, but it may well be through a permanent subcommittee, so that it can process the appeals that come through. But we'll come back to that also. By the way, the first reports will come late November-December, not earlier.

    On private members' business, it's said here that the committee should appoint interim members of the Subcommittee on Private Members' Business, subject to the House's concurrence in the list of associate members of the committee. You now know the House has concurred in the list of committees; the associate members now exist. My suggestion is, with your permission, that we deal with that immediately following this presentation. We will just do it, then, as the draw has taken place; private members' business can proceed.

    The second part of that is that the committee consider presenting a report reproducing the recommendations contained in the 66th report, our report on changes to private members' business. The committee gives this high priority--I'll tell you in a moment what it gives highest priority to--and we will be proceeding with the debate on that matter as soon as we can.

    The next item is committee elections by secret ballot. There is a proposal, and although in this committee we do not need notice of motion, we have received very clearly a notice of motion and a motion. That motion was considered and revised a little by the steering committee, and it is agreed that today we will proceed with that motion as the first item of business.

    On code of conduct--and you now know this item was tabled in the House of Commons yesterday--we did agree, though we don't have to agree on this, that when the House of Commons passes something to us, we have to give it high priority. My suggestion there is that the steering committee meet again, perhaps a special meeting early next week, and consider how we proceed with this matter. My assumption is that we now have to give this matter also priority attention.

    Are there any questions on this report of the steering committee?

Á  (1115)  

    As is indicated there under item B, will someone move that the report of the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be concurred with? I see John Reynolds. Any discussion?

    (Motion agreed to)

    The Chair: Now, colleagues, going back to what I said, and despite the fact that under C you will see item 1 is “Committee Elections by Secret Ballot”, I would now, subject to your approval, go to item 3, which is “Subcommittee on Private Members' Business”. Will someone move a chair for the Subcommittee on Private Members' Business?

    Marlene Catterall.

    Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): I'd like to nominate Marcel Proulx as chair.

    The Chair: I'm sorry, Dale.

    Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Canadian Alliance): On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I'm wondering how you're going to appoint a chair when you don't have the members.

    The Chair: Your logic is inescapable. I should call for the members first, and then the chair second? Have the parties got names?

    Dale.

    Mr. Dale Johnston: I would submit the name of Chuck Strahl, Mr. Chairman.

[Translation]

    The Chair: Chuck Strahl.

    Would the Bloc Québécois like to nominate someone for the sub-committee? Yes? It's Michel Guimond.

    Yvon, are you your party's nominee? Yes?

[English]

    Okay. And then there's Rick.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): C'est moi.

    The Chair: Can I have the Liberal names, please? Marcel Proulx is one.

    Ms. Marlene Catterall: Tony Tirabassi.

    The Chair: One person can move the whole thing, so we're looking now for the chair, and I heard before Marcel Proulx.

    Yvon Godin.

[Translation]

    Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): I'd like you to clarify something for me, Mr. Chairman. In C, Business Arising From The Report, mention is made of committee elections by secret ballot. How can we nominate a committee chair before we have dealt with this issue?

[English]

    The Chair: The pecking orders provide for such a subcommittee. We are doing that. Unless the House advises us otherwise, we put this subcommittee into place so that private members' business proceeds as usual.

    Yvon, have I missed your point?

    Mr. Yvon Godin: My point is how the chair's going to be elected. If we don't deal with Mr. Reynolds' motion, I don't know how this will be.

    The Chair: I was trying to make this point. This committee exists, I exist, I've been elected. This is our subcommittee. The chairs of subcommittees are not elected by the subcommittee, they are nominated by the main committee.

    Mr. Yvon Godin: Okay.

    The Chair: Thomas is going to tell me how we're doing this. I'm sorry to confuse the issue. We now have the members of the committee, which Dale suggested is very logical. We're going to need a chair. I'm just asking Thomas out loud how we do this.

    The Clerk of the Committee: We're filling in the blanks on your agenda. Once we've filled in the blanks with the names from each of the parties, someone can move the motion that will encapsulate the entire thing.

    The Chair: The motion is that the subcommittee consist of: Strahl, Guimond, Godin, Borotsik, Tirabassi, and Proulx. That's a motion. Do I have that?

Á  (1120)  

    Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Canadian Alliance): Yes, Mr. Chairman.

    Mr. Proulx is nominated as chair.

    The Chair: And Mr. Proulx is nominated as chair. The motion is, these are the members, Proulx is the chair. It's moved by John Reynolds.

    (Motion agreed to)

    The Chair: The subcommittee is established. Colleagues, thank you very much.

    We now proceed to C item 1, as agreed by the committee. We're dealing with the motion that was put before us by John Reynolds on the question of committee elections by secret ballot. We're working with the edited version. John, is that right?

    Mr. John Reynolds: Yes.

    The Chair: Okay. John Reynolds.

    Mr. John Reynolds: Mr. Chairman, I don't think I need to read it. Everybody has a copy of it. We discussed it the last time.

    Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: I want you to read the French part.

    Mr. John Reynolds: I could do that, and quite well.

    The Chair: No, let us proceed.

    Mr. John Reynolds: Unless someone wants me to read it, I think we can just accept it as read.

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    Mr. John Reynolds: And I move it.

    The Chair: So we have the motion.

    Carolyn Parrish and then Yvon Godin.

    Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: First of all, Mr. Chairman, I'd like us to move into the 21st century and have this edited so that it's “chair” instead of “chairman”. I thought we'd left that long ago.

    Secondly, I have an amendment that I'd like to propose before I get into a debate on the motion. With your permission, my staff will give it to the clerk in English and French.

    The Chair: It seems to me, colleagues, to be in order.

    Carolyn, would you speak to it, and in particular speak to the changes it would make to the original motion.

    Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: I'm not going to speak to the motion at all until it's time to--

Á  (1125)  

    The Chair: We're considering your amendment now.

    Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: Yes, but I'd like to reserve the right to speak to the full motion only after the amendment is discussed.

    I've had some very good discussions with my colleagues, and out of those came this amendment. I think this is a very bold step for us to be taking, and I firmly believe it's an interim step. Just as we elect a Speaker in the House of Commons, and the Speaker actually can be a member of any party in the House, I believe, as an interim step, that the chair of a House standing committee should be a member of the government. If it works well, or if there are any problems with it, it can be reviewed in a year, because I have a termination on this; it lasts only until the next session of chair selections.

    There are two reasons for doing that. I think we have to see how it works. I think we have to see if actually we could be bold enough to elect anybody on the committee as chair without specifying they're a government member.

    I've had a lot of people bring concerns to me...and I have a lot of faith in the opposition, particularly the....

    I'm trying to speak, Mr. Chair.

    I have a lot of faith that this won't be turned into a three-ring circus, and we all know what I'm thinking of. There are members of all parties who would not be good chairs. To elect them all as chairs of committees would cause total chaos in the whole system. If that were the objective, then it should be reviewed before the termination that I've put in this. And I have faith that we all got elected....

    I watched CPAC last night and I saw three members of three parties talking about ethics. I was saddened by the fact that the TV station polls showed that 79% of people don't trust politicians.

    We have to trust each other, so I've put in the fail-safe program that it be done once, just to inspire that trust to be carried out. I think for the first round the chair should be a member of the government, because they liaise with ministers and they set agendas. Plus, I'd like to see how it works. I'd like to take a small step before I take a large step.

    I would inspire the opposition to vote for my amendment, in which case I will vote for the motion.

    Thank you.

    The Chair: Yvon, I had you on my list originally, but we're now discussing the amendment. Do you want to wait until we get back to the motion?

    Mr. Yvon Godin: I'm just going to wait.

    The Chair: So it's Rick Borotsik and then John Reynolds.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    I appreciate the amendment coming forward from the government side, and I appreciate Carolyn for bringing it forward. Personally, I would like to see the option available to have any member elected by secret ballot, as the chair, but as I understand it--correct me if I'm wrong--if this amendment is defeated, then you would not be in support of the amendment as it stands. Is that correct?

    Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: Mr. Borotsik, if this amendment is defeated, I'll have to listen to the arguments and make a decision. I have not made a decision at this point.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: That's fair ball. I'm just trying to read between the lines of your presentation, Mrs. Parrish.

    Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: And I wouldn't want to threaten you, Mr. Borotsik.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: By the way, it's not meant to be that way. What I'm trying to do is achieve, as you said, something different, something bold, something different from what we currently have, which I'm not happy with. Certainly the secret ballot would be a step in the right direction.

    I'm trying to figure out, from the arguments, where I'm going here. If I support the amendment, then obviously I would like to take it to the next step. I agree that there have to be some changes, and I do thank you for your comments on this side of it. I still have to listen to the arguments from the others to see whether the amendment in fact should go.

    Again, you're suggesting a one-year trial period and then come back...?

    Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: No, it's not one year, it's one term. So if it's two years, it's two years.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: So it's a one-term trial period, and then we'd come back at that point in time, when in fact there may even be a different makeup of government.

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    The Chair: John Reynolds, and then John Harvard.

    Mr. John Reynolds: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    I have looked at the amendment, and I would be quite happy to accept it as a friendly amendment. I think sometimes we want the ultimate all the time in politics, but compromise is a very good thing. As a former Speaker, I understand what compromise is all about. I think it's a good step to take. It allows us in the next session of Parliament to review how it worked through the session and so forth. That would be beneficial to us all.

    So I'd be quite happy to accept it as a friendly amendment.

    The Chair: John Harvard, and then Pierre.

    Mr. John Harvard (Charleswood —St. James—Assiniboia, Lib.): Mr. Reynolds says that compromise is a good thing, and I certainly agree with that. However, I think what we should be doing is compromising on a far wider range of ideas.

    In other words, what we're doing here today, members, is taking a piecemeal approach to one particular issue. If we want committee reform, House reform, rules of the House reform, I think we should be putting a lot of things into the barrel and discussing them all so that perhaps we're in a situation where we can do some give and take. This kind of a debate, around a very narrow issue...and I'm not trying to take away its merits, but I think it's very limiting to us. That's why this type of amendment leaves me with a lot of discomfort.

    But the other thing, and perhaps this is central to my concern with respect to the amendment, is that I am somewhat confused about its timing, you might say. I understand that my colleague from Mississauga is in favour of a secret ballot. I can make it clear that I am not. But if we were to pass this amendment, which in effect would tie our hands, I would have to vote for a Liberal member, a member of the governing party, for the chair. And yet at the same time, I am supposed to, within the spirit of casting a secret ballot, exercise my free choice, I guess. But the amendment, if it passes, has already tied my hands. It's already tied my hands.

    Now, I might be very happy to vote for a Liberal member, but to me, the amendment, if passed, is not in the spirit of the main motion. I would like to think...and I would even ask my colleague from Mississauga whether she would just table or set aside the amendment for now. Because the timing of it is extremely unusual. It does not make any sense. We know that the main motion is going to ask us to vote secretly, to take part in a secret ballot. It doesn't make any sense.

    I would like to know, Mr. Chairman, whether my colleague from Mississippi, or Mississauga, rather--it sounds like something from Mississippi--would consider.... I'm not asking her to withdraw it completely, but I just don't think it makes sense right now.

Á  (1130)  

    The Chair: Pierre Brien, and then Yvon Godin.

[Translation]

    Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Chairman, I can appreciate that from a practical standpoint, the amendment is an improvement over the current practice, but I would point out to Ms. Parrish and to other committee members that in the Quebec National Assembly -- I can't speak for the other provinces --which is a British-style parliament like this one, nearly half of all committees are chaired by opposition members. Therefore, there are some precedents and places where the system does work. I would hope that in future, a few more committees are chaired by opposition members, even if this means having to make arrangements and negotiate this in advance. However, before we get to that point, we need to take a small step forward. This amendment moves us in the right direction.

    I for one intend to vote in favour of the amendment -- and I believe my colleague intends to do likewise -- as I think it will bring about improvements in the process.

    I listened to Mr. Harvard argue that overall reform was needed. The problem, however, is that such discussions often prove counter-productive. Let's take a first small step forward. We have a concrete proposal on the table. Let's go with it and consider other initiatives later.

    Mr. Yvon Godin: Given my experience as a negotiator, I've learned that gains are made slowly, that is one step at a time. It's similar to Parliament where one piece of legislation is passed at a time. If we adopted everything all at once, we could go back to our ridings. The wheels of Parliament turn slowly and I think we would be taking a step in the right direction by adopting this amendment. I congratulate Ms. Parrish on taking the initiative.

    Mr. Harvard maintained that this practice would deny some people their right to vote. Under the current system, you don't have this privilege in that you're told who the chair is going to be. At the very least, if this amendment passes, members will be able to choose between seven or eight individuals. This would certainly improve your voting and democratic rights. I think it's important for us to move in this direction.

[English]

    Parliament already has accepted, Mr. Chair, that we do vote for the Speaker of the House with a secret ballot, and I think that's worked very well so far. I think we're pretty satisfied with it. So this is a good attempt to go forward in a democracy, and open it up.

    I have to agree with Mr. Brien when he says that if we wait to do everything globally, we won't do anything. That's what happens. I've been here for five years, and we've never moved anywhere with it. This would open a door. As I said, it's like negotiations, where it's one step at a time, one article at a time, and it's like Parliament, where it's one bill at a time in the House of Commons.

    Those are the comments I want to make, Mr. Chair.

    The Chair: Dale Johnston, then Geoff Regan.

    Mr. Dale Johnston: Mr. Chairman, I find myself in the unusual position of agreeing with Mr. Harvard. I don't think this amendment allows members to choose, except amongst only two or three candidates from the government side. And since the government has a majority on all committees, then I really don't see the need for....

    I don't have a whole lot of problem with the amendment, but I do think that it does restrict who the government members can vote for, or who all members can vote for, for that matter. According to this amendment, the chair and the one vice-chair shall be selected from the government. They have a majority, let me remind you, and they can select anybody they like.

    So in some ways, I don't see a big problem with this; on the other hand, I really don't see a need for it. By leaving this motion out and leaving the motion the way Mr. Reynolds originally wrote it, you can choose the best candidate in the wisdom of the entire committee. And I really don't see any problem with it.

    The Chair: Geoff Regan, Jacques Saada, and then Rick Borotsik, briefly.

    Mr. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    My honourable colleague, monsieur Brien, has suggested that in fact the process of having a committee look at the rules, and work out, and propose a variety of changes hasn't worked very well, hasn't produced very much, and it's all been step by step. But I would suggest to you that, for example, the fact that we now have the Speaker of the House elected by secret ballot is a result of exactly that kind of process. It thus makes eminent sense to have a process of that kind, whereby you go through a situation, you have a discussion of it, and you move forward and make changes rather than have this kind of adhocery.

Á  (1135)  

    The Chair: Jacques Saada, then Rick Borotsik, briefly, then Steve Mahoney, and then Michel Guimond.

[Translation]

    Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I suggest you put the main motion as well as the proposed amendment in their proper context. The issue here is the power that backbenchers actually wield.

    It would be easy to review the initiatives that have been taken over the past year or so to give backbenchers a higher profile. Perhaps it's worthwhile recalling very briefly the work that we have done collectively - and I must give credit for this to all of my colleagues - on the matter of voting on private member's bills. I think we took a constructive approach to this issue. Why? Because we tabled a motion that had been thoroughly debated by a sub-committee. We agreed on some points, and disagreed on others, but sufficient flexibility was shown to refer the matter back to the House for a broader ruling on the matter. That is the spirit in which we will be tabling, or re-tabling, this report that was withdrawn when Parliament was prorogued.

    As for giving members a higher profile, I have no problem with that. However, as everyone well knows--no one talks about it, but the truth is staring us in the face--the aim here is not to give members in general a higher profile, but specifically opposition members. The goal is to give the opposition more power than it has at the present time.

    Whether or not we should have a secret ballot or whether the chair should or should not be a member of the government party are issues that we can debate openly. However, to do so at this time, when committee members have just be officially appointed and will be called upon to elect their respective chairs, would merely serve to precipitate matters, assuming we could get to this before next week. I'm not quite certain that this is a good way to go about dealing with the election of committee chairs and with fundamental changes to the structure, operation and role of committees as such. I think we need to give the matter more thought.

    Obviously, if I'm told specifically that the committee chair must be a member of the government party, then I would feel a certain amount of empathy as far as principles go. Unlike Mr. Johnston, whom I respect a great deal, I believe the process of democracy plays out first and foremost through the election of a political party that receives a mandate from citizens to oversee the nation's business. We can argue the merits of our system, but that's how things work. The process ultimately translates into parliamentary tools available to the government to help it carry out its mandate from the people.

    I'd like to come back to one very important point that was raised. I think that under the circumstances, we would be making a fundamental mistake if we were to decide that since the Speaker of the House is elected by secret ballot, this is arguably the best approach to take for committees. We need to get one thing clear. I'm not saying that I agree or disagree with a secret ballot. I'm saying that invoking this argument is not very logical. The Speaker of the House has a mandate to run the House. By definition, he must rise above political partisanship. He must serve as a mediator of sorts, adhering to rules of procedure established by consensus, not by a vote. His duties can also be amended by consensus of opinion.

    Mr. Chairman, I apologize but this is an important question, my time is limited and I'm having a problem here.

    This is not the role of a committee chair. The proof is that a committee chair is responsible for ensuring that bills, in particular government bills, make it through the committee stage. His role is different from that of the Speaker of the House. To want to combine the two roles may seem admirable a priori, but from the standpoint of logic and coherence, it doesn't quite work.

    Mr. Brien raised an issue that I find quite interesting. He mentioned the approach used at the Quebec National Assembly where a significant number of committees are chaired by an opposition member. That may be worth looking into further. However, can he say here and now which committee he thinks should be chaired by opposition members and which should not? I suppose he can't, for one very simple reason: the matter warrants further consideration. We need to discuss the very idea to determine if it has any merit, aside from the obvious political merit. Obviously, we're here to champion our political views, but we do need to give the matter more thought.

    If I run out of time to wrap up, Mr. Chairman, I would like to revisit the subject later, perhaps even during debate on the main motion, because I have a lengthy list of arguments that I'm prepared to raise.

Á  (1140)  

[English]

    The Chair: We don't have fixed times, but your intervention has been much longer than those of other colleagues. I am already in a difficult position, in that Rick wanted to come back in just for a very short statement and I have colleagues who have yet to speak. We can go on for many days if you wish—

[Translation]

    Mr. Jacques Saada: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

    The Chair: Okay, go ahead.

[Translation]

    Mr. Jacques Saada: We are now debating the amendment and I reserve the right to speak again to the main motion.

[English]

    The Chair: Oh, no. Absolutely, colleagues.

    We're dealing with the amendment, Jacques, if you would like to wind up now. But I simply think that if every member has 10 or 15 minutes...I doubt it's the intention of the committee that we proceed in that fashion. That's all.

    Do you want to continue for a little bit now? You certainly can go back on the list.

[Translation]

    Mr. Jacques Saada: I'll go back on the list then when...

    The Chair: Certainly. That's not a problem.

[English]

    Rick, extremely briefly.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: I'll do it very briefly, in 30 seconds.

    I would just like to say that I would speak in favour of this amendment, Mr. Chairman. I think what we're dealing with right now is a small step for humankind. The secret ballot is a very positive step, as I see it. The status quo is the only other option, so I think it's very important that we certainly—

    The Chair: I got that idea from your first intervention.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: Well, I'd like to say that now because—

    The Chair: Very good. Excellent.

    Steve Mahoney, followed by Michel Guimond.

    Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, if I might, you have a couple of other concerns on the table.

    By having a system in which you determine that only a government member—whatever government of the day happens to be in office—is eligible to be the chair, I think what you do is run the risk of turning the difficulty inward within the caucus. Speaking as someone who has had some experience running for caucus chair—

    Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: So have I.

    Mr. Steve Mahoney: So has Carolyn.

    Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: I won, you lost.

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

    Mr. Steve Mahoney: I won one, and you knew well enough and good enough not to run again.

    An hon. member: Oh, oh!

    Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: You're right.

    Mr. Steve Mahoney: In any event, when you go into a secret ballot within a caucus when you're dealing with a substantial number of members, I guess you then come down to this issue of trust. I have a philosophy in politics that John Reynolds would probably agree with, and that is that I trust me and thee and I'm not too sure about thee. So I'm just concerned that the games that would evolve from this kind of scenario would take us to a new level of small-p politics.

    Let me give you another outcome of doing this—as Mr. Borotsik shakes his head. This could in effect determine the committee membership from the government side. If I'm the government whip—and I was one for five years in Ontario—I'm going to take a look at things and say, “Do I want to take a risk of having this person...?” The person may have a lot of interest in immigration, for example, but I wouldn't want that person as the chair of the immigration committee because I'm not sure of the stability of their views.

    As a whip, I have to be concerned about how the committee is going to function. Do I want to run the risk of having the opposition determine that this individual could ultimately become the chair of that committee and drive the agenda in a direction that's totally opposite to the direction in which I want the agenda to go? After all, if the opposition wants more power, the way you get that in this wonderful country is at the polls. You elect more members, and that gives you more power.

    Mr. Yvon Godin: Paul Martin.

    Mr. Steve Mahoney: Do you want him as your leader?

    It's a pretty fundamental thing that if you elect more people, you will have more influence around this place.

    I think you are really flirting with the fact that you could have the opposite effect. Assuming that opposition members are not being disingenuous when they put forward these concepts of secret ballots, the best person for the job, etc., and assuming and believing—at least with these members of the opposition—that there is no hidden agenda, then I'm assuming and trusting that everything being put forward is being put forward in sincerity to try to improve the committee system. So let's leave that as a given.

    But you're running the risk that some future whip—because we all know our whip wouldn't do this—might determine that certain individuals are not going to be put on a committee because we don't want to run the risk of them becoming chair or even vice-chair. So you could make it worse instead of making it better by going this route. That's one point.

    Another point is that, in addition to potentially turning the fighting inward.... And forget our caucus. I remember the days of the Conservative caucus of Brian Mulroney, and all of the infighting that went on in the Conservative Party. It happens in any large group of humankind, Mr. Borotsik. People will tend to be ambitious. They will tend to want certain things and certain interests. All of a sudden, all of the politics then slide into the caucus level, into the back rooms, instead of being dealt with out here.

    The other point is this: Why are people afraid to stand up and say, “I support Peter Adams to be chair of that committee, and I say so publicly”? I was not sent here to hide under the veil of a secret ballot. I was sent here to stand—

    An hon. member: Oh, come on, Steve!

Á  (1145)  

    Mr. Steve Mahoney: We all vote in the House of Commons. I can play the game as well as any of you, I want you to know that. When you stand on your heels and say you want to do this for the good of democracy, I'm accepting that you're really genuine about that. Why would I doubt that? I don't believe you have any interest in harming the government. I don't believe you have any interest in somehow promoting your own party. You're only interested in the betterment of human kind, Mr. Borotsik, and the democratic way.

    You call it a charade, the way we do it now. Talk about a charade. We all know the object of the opposition members when they walk into question period every day is to put some marks on the Prime Minister or the cabinet and build up some kind of repertoire with which they can then go out to the people across the land and say, aren't they awful? The leader of the opposition can stand up and call them all criminals. I've heard that. I'm not suggesting that those kinds of motives would exist on this particular issue.

    Let me give you one other example--

    The Chair: Colleagues, I can say I'm into a second round here. There are members who indicated to me they wanted to speak again. The same thing to you, Steve. It's just for the sake of debate.

    Carolyn, I'm assuming you wanted to be the sweeper.

    Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: I would like you to put me on when my hand is indicating. When I speak, it closes the second round.

    The Chair: Carolyn, I assumed you wanted to be the sweeper. No? Okay.

    Steve Mahoney.

    Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Chairman, I want to give you one example of the potential abuse on committees. Prior to the last election, you will all recall, the Auditor General had a report that was supposed to go to the public accounts committee. This was just prior to the dropping of the writ, and the opposition were somewhat eager obviously--I would have been if I had been them. What happened? The chair of the public accounts committee happens to be a fine gentleman who is a member of the opposition. Liberal members on the committee had a notice sent to their offices after 7 o'clock in the evening that there was a room change for the committee meeting to be held the next day. Guess what? They didn't get the notice, so the next day Liberal members of the committee went to the wrong room. The chair of the public accounts committee, an opposition member, called the meeting to order and immediately declared that there could be no meeting because Liberal members were not interested in the Auditor General's report. The committee disbanded, everyone was in a flap, and the national media were going on about Liberal members not caring about the Auditor General's report.

    The fact that the room was changed without proper due notice to committee members clearly shows the potential for a member of the opposition who has a different agenda, a different goal, and a different raison d'être in the work he or she is doing to embarrass the government. They did embarrass the government. I remember knocking on doors during the election and people saying, why didn't you go to that committee meeting? It had an impact.

    An hon. member: You still got back.

    Mr. Steve Mahoney: Play all the games you want. My advice is that if you want more influence and more power, try getting more members elected.

Á  (1150)  

    The Chair: Michel, I misunderstood Carolyn. I thought she had said she wanted to be on the list last. She now says that's not so. She was on much earlier. Could she--

    Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: If Michel is the only one ahead of me, let him go on.

    The Chair: Okay, it's Michel Guimond, Carolyn Parrish, and then Marlene Catterall. Then we're into the second round.

[Translation]

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

    I don't wish to discuss everything or even some of what Mr. Mahoney has just said, but I'm truly astonished. I'd simply like him to reread the definition of the word “democracy” in the dictionary.

    In a democracy, the government is democratically elected by the people. However, the people also democratically elect opposition members. When opposition members try to do their job during Question Period and when the government calls into question their efforts to focus attention on certain issues, I think this is a good illustration of Mr. Mahoney's take on “democracy”. In any event, he is merely being true to himself. We are accustomed to listening to his diatribes in the House of Commons and his long-winded responses to opposition member statements. He's simply being true to form. That's all I wanted to say on the subject, because I have no desire to revisit the report of the Public Accounts Committee. This only serves to detract from the purpose of Ms. Parrish's amendment.

    I want to take this opportunity to congratulate Ms. Parrish for introducing her amendment. I'd also like to congratulate Mr. Reynolds for tabling the main motion. It took a certain amount of courage on her part to bring this proposal to committee. There's nothing clear-cut about this process, or about the consequences of her initiative. I hope we will continue to enjoy her presence on the Procedure and House Affairs Committee.

    What convinced me in her presentation to vote in favour of her amendment was the reference to the election of the Speaker of the House by secret ballot. There's no denying that Speakers Parent and Milliken, both Liberal Party members, were elected as Liberals, but since I consider myself to be a democrat, I don't feel that Speaker Milliken behaves like a Liberal when he's seated in the Speaker's chair. He behaves first and foremost as the guardian of democracy and of the democratic rules of our nation.

    Members like to cite Marleau-Montpetit, and I will do so quickly. A definition is provided on page 251 of the mandate of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. It's clearly that “some of the duties of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs deal with the administration of the House”. Specifically, the Committee's mandate includes... I'll read on and you'll see that the committees' mandate is not partisan in nature. I served on the Transport Committee for eight years and I admit that I acted in a partisan manner and that I crossed swords with my Liberal colleagues opposite. They too behaved in a partisan manner, but I will admit that within the confines of the Procedure and House Affairs Committee, we try to rise above political partisanship. Admittedly, we sometimes vote along party lines, but occasionally, government members side with the opposition, or opposition members vote with the government, transcending party lines in the process.

Á  (1155)  

    Continuing on with the examples listed in Marleau-Montpetit, I quote:

The Committee's mandate includes, among other things, reviewing and reporting to the House and to the Board of Internal Economy on:

. issues concerning the management of the House and the provision of services and facilities to Members;

. the effectiveness and management of operations under the joint control of the House of Commons and the Senate;

. radio and television broadcasting of proceedings of the House and its committees; and

. matters relating to the election of Members.

    That's why Jean-Pierre Kingsley testifies before the committee on a regular basis. He's matched with this committee. Why doesn't Mr. Kingsley testify before the Industry Committee or before the Justice Committee? No one questions Mr. Kingsley's impartiality, either as a person or as Chief Electoral Officer, and that's why he is matched with this committee.

    For all of these reasons, Mr. Chairman, I intend to support Ms. Parrish's amendment which aims to have members transcend partisanship when electing someone to chair this committee.

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib.)): Thank you. Carolyn Parrish.

[English]

    Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: I'd like a clarification. As the mover of the amendment, when I speak a second time, does that close debate?

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jacques Saada): No, unless I am advised otherwise.

    Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: Whose rules are we following?

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jacques Saada): I'm not following a rule. I'm just listing the people who have asked to speak on this report.

    Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: I would like to ask the clerk or Jamie.

    In the rules of order that we function under, when I speak again, does it close debate?

    The Clerk: It does in the House, on a substantive motion.

    Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: It's not substantive?

    The Clerk: This is an amendment, not a substantive motion.

    Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: Oh. All right.

    The reason I am asking is that I would not want to close debate while this side was short one man because you're in the chair. I do not want to do anything untoward.

  (1200)  

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jacques Saada): Just to clarify that, if I may, Mrs. Parrish, you understand that you speak but that someone else will be speaking after you on the same topic.

    Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: Yes, that's fine.

    I would like to address a couple of the comments made here today.

    Mr. Guimond, I thank you very much for your concern for my well-being. First of all, I believe that, in this committee, I'm allowed to speak according to my principles. I think we have the finest whip—and I'm not trying to brown around her; she's an incredibly fine woman. I will also tell you that if I were to be punished for what happens here today, I would have to seriously consider resigning as a member of Parliament. I don't think it's going to happen, and if it does, it'll be very exciting. But I thank you for your concern

    I'm also very concerned about Mr. Mahoney's comment about the whip loading the committees. I think the committees are pretty well assigned according to interest. We're usually given our first choice or our second choice. If it were to happen that someone got on a committee and that it could cause chaos in the ranks and in the committee, I have faith in the opposition that they wouldn't choose that person.

    So, sorry about that one, Steve.

    Mr. Steve Mahoney: No problem.

    Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: I am at a difficult position, Mr. Johnston, because I have two warring principles at work here within me. I have a very strong belief in secret ballots. I monitor elections all over the world in new democracies. People are not intimidated into stating publicly how they are going to vote, and I don't think we should be. So that is one principle that I'm working on.

    The second is my team spirit. I don't like letting my side down. If the amendment doesn't pass, I would have great difficulty voting for the motion of Mr. Reynolds. Just so that everybody is very clear what the rules of the game are—I was going to avoid saying that. There are only two things that guide me in my life, other than family. One is my principles, which we don't get to use a lot around here.

    An hon. member: [Editor's Note: Inaudible]

    Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: Well, come on. It's a team sport here.

    The second is my team spirit, which is very strong. Don't ever mistake that. I'm not helping the opposition. I'm supporting my principles, okay?

[Translation]

    The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jacques Saada): Thank you, Ms. Parrish.

    Ms. Catterall.

[English]

    Ms. Marlene Catterall: I want to thank monsieur Guimond for taking us back to the purpose of this committee. Since I've sat on this committee, it has always operated by consensus. We've dealt with rules, we've dealt with election laws, and we've pretty well managed, I think, to reflect the diversity of opinions within the House and among the parties and come up with some pretty good solutions. I think that's what my colleague, who's now occupying the chair, was referring to earlier. The Standing Orders of the House are a serious responsibility, not something to tinker around with a little bit at a time. That's never the way we have approached these things. That's why I'm reluctant to do this kind of dealing with one matter.

    I think there's a great deal to be done to democratize this place, but I don't think it goes to having to deal with little bits and pieces at a time. I think we all have to put our heads together. The House leaders have already agreed to do that, with the involvement of backbenchers, on a number of outstanding issues. One rule I'd love to get rid of is that you have to strike committees anew every September. It's a pain in the neck.

    I do want to comment on a couple of things Caroline just said. I don't think I've ever seen any of my colleagues wearing bandages or black eyes because of my treatment of them. Punishment is not something that is in my arsenal, frankly. I also have my principles. Those of you who've sat with me on this committee know how strongly I feel about public business being done in public and openly and accountably, and I will get to that when we address the main motion.

    But on this particular amendment and this particular point, I want to talk about Parliament and the role of government. The first and most democratic element is election by the people. The result of that election by the people is that one party or a combination of parties gets to be the government, another combination of parties get to be the opposition. It's a fundamental principle of Parliament that the government has the right to govern, the opposition has the right to oppose, to propose alternatives. That's why we have question period every day. I agree entirely with the comment that nobody has the right to question what questions the opposition raises. That's your obligation. There's a reason it's called--forgive me, Mr. Brien--Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, because that is their obligation in Parliament, to hold the government accountable. But ultimately, after all the debate and after all the consideration of options and alternatives, the government has the right to govern. It's a right that derives from the people of the country. That's why we have a number of the rules we have, to ensure that eventually, the government gets the right to govern, as long as it maintains the confidence of a majority in the House.

    The same thing applies to our committee work. This, more than any, is a place for debate, a place for exchange of ideas, and perhaps this committee more than many others. But ultimately, the government has a right to govern and to have its legislation dealt with. Often, and usually, I think, it comes out of committee better than it went into committee. I'm all in favour of things that give the committees more flexibility to do that referral before first reading, even development of draft legislation. I think we should be looking at many of those possibilities. But our committees are structured so that there is a majority of government members, so that in the end, the committees reflect the House, they reflect the will of the people expressed in an election, and they reflect the right of the government to govern in the end. For that reason, the committees do have a majority of government members and a mix of opposition members.

  (1205)  

    For that reason as well, the chair, who is chosen as a government member, is part of the government team. That is the difference between a committee and the House, frankly. The chair of a committee does not cease to be a member of the government caucus. His or her obligations as chair of a committee are different from the obligations of the Speaker of the House. They are there as representatives of their party. Yes, they're there to be fair to everybody, and I think virtually all our chairs do that extremely well, including the one who's chosen by the opposition, notwithstanding the comments of my friend from one of the Mississauga ridings. If, in fact, the chair is there as the government member and still is ultimately a member of the government caucus, and therefore a representative of the government, should all members, including opposition members, be deciding who the government representative sitting in the chair is? That's another issue, one on which I may propose a further amendment.

    Committee chairs are not the same as Speakers, and therefore, again, I would argue against secret ballots, but I'll do that in a separate motion perhaps. I think we can't look at it in the same way as with the House.

    I just want to say one final thing. I've been here for 13 years. If I ever have to go through a day, Carolyn, where I can't express my principles and live by them, then I won't be here the next day.

    Thank you.

    The Chair: I do want to say I apologize for being a bit lax today. In future I'll go back to our more systematic thing.

    It's been a very interesting debate, but I want to proceed. I don't know how many more people want to speak. I have Geoff Regan, John Harvard, Jacques Saada, Yvon Godin. I'm in your hands, because as I mentioned, we're on the second round.

    Geoff, you're next.

    Mr. Geoff Regan: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First I want to say that I don't think you'd ever be described as a lax chairman. We all admire the work you do, and we appreciate it. You show great leadership on this committee, outstanding leadership, nor do you lack any of the skills of a chairman.

    The Chair: Let's get on with it--we're in the second round now.

    Mr. Geoff Regan: Mr. Chairman, it strikes me that one of the things this proposed amendment would preclude is the situation where you have a distinguished member of Parliament who members in all parties have great respect and admiration for, who has particular skills in relation to a subject matter, and the person might be an independent member, not be a member of a particular party. That person would be precluded from being the chair of a committee on the basis of this amendment. I think we can all see that's certainly a possibility, and we're precluding that possibility.

  (1210)  

    Mr. Yvon Godin: I just want to have on the record that independent members of Parliament are not members of any committee.

    The Chair: Okay, thank you.

    Geoff.

    Mr. Geoff Regan: At some point in the future there may be in fact, and it's up to the committees. In fact, this committee could invite a member who is independent to join. There's no reason to think that couldn't happen in the future, and this would exclude that person from being chair.

    But I think the point we've heard already about caucus in-fighting from my colleague Mr. Mahoney is quite pertinent. I think all parties have had enough experience of that over the past couple of years. They might appreciate the kinds of concerns Mr. Mahoney has expressed.

    Normally speaking, when you have a secret ballot in an election, not only does no one else see it, but you aren't even allowed to show it to someone else. You're not allowed to disclose to anyone else what your ballot is. That's a very important principle in an election. In this case, of course, I don't know if that would be applicable. I think it would be up to us individually. It seems to me that if we're elected here to Parliament, we ought to be prepared to say how we're going to vote. And I'm prepared to do that, Mr. Chairman.

    I think there's a question of process, as was mentioned before. We clearly have in Parliament an adversarial process. The history of the Westminster system, of our democratic system, is one that involves a process wherein the opposition has the right to oppose, and it does, and the government has the right to govern. That right has some fetters on it, fetters that give the opposition a variety of levers and a variety of means of slowing things down, of objecting, of ensuring that there's full discussion. But in the end, the government has the right to proceed and to govern, and the committee work is part of that process. We know, when members are in the House, when they're in question period today, we'll see them acting in adversarial roles. Fortunately, we have the pleasure in this committee--

    The Chair: Geoff, this is the second round and I'm going to start limiting the interventions. Can you conclude, please?

    Mr. Geoff Regan: Well, Mr. Chairman, if my party, within itself, decides to proceed with secret ballots, then I will be happy to support that process. I think it's a process that we ought to have internally and discuss and work out. In terms of the House itself, that could be a process of discussion on a variety of things, not just one issue. It's an ad hoc process.

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    I'll go to John Harvard, briefly—and John, this is the second round, so I'm going to impose some times. I'm going to keep the remarks short, and then I'll call the question.

    Mr. John Harvard: I'll try to keep it short.

    I don't think Carolyn has to worry about not embracing her own principles. I think we all hold dearly to our own principles, and I've never seen any danger of our principles being driven into the ground around here. I also don't think she has to worry about punishment. She won't be punished for any particular stand she takes.

    On the business of secret ballots—and if we get to the main motion, I'll talk about this further—if we're going to have secret votes in committees, why don't we go into the House? I don't think anybody around here would want secret ballots in the House.

    Let's go to the substance of the amendment. We have a practice now, members, that basically leaves it to the prerogative of the Prime Minister to choose a chairman. We—the Liberals and others—have been slammed for that kind of a practice. In the United States Congress, in the Senate over there, they have a practice based on seniority, while we have a system based on the prerogative of the Prime Minister.

    If I understand Carolyn's amendment, what she wants to do is take a practice that has been vilified and turn it into a firm rule. I ask myself what the Canadian people would think of that. A lot of Canadians, for some reason or another, don't like the current practice of basing it on the prerogative of the Prime Minister. If we turn that into a hard rule, what are they going to say? And then, when they see some opposition members complicit in that by their support of this motion, what are Canadians going to say? What are they going to say about the opposition? So I see this kind of amendment as a loser for all parties.

    The other thing is that if some opposition members vote for this amendment—and it seems they will—what sort of a message would I be taking from that? It would seem to me that the message would be that, on one hand, the opposition will be forced to accept a Liberal chairperson. But, do you know what? There may be more than one Liberal candidate, so perhaps we can weed out a soft Liberal and pick the Liberal of our choice.

    Do you know what will happen, members of the opposition, if you do that? If you get the choice of picking from Liberals, then what we will do is select one. You will get one choice, and nothing more than one choice, and then that will take us right back to where we are now.

    An hon. member: And you're proud of that?

    Mr. John Harvard: What do we have around the committee right now? You get one Liberal choice and you have no choice, so what have you gained with the amendment? You have gained absolutely zero. So if you vote for this amendment, I find it passing strange, because you've gained nothing.

  (1215)  

    The Chair: Thank you.

    It's the same thing for you on this, Jacques. You are on the list for discussing the main motion, briefly.

    Mr. Jacques Saada: Are we discussing the main motion?

    The Chair: No, so are you out? Yes? Okay.

    Yvon Godin.

    Mr. Yvon Godin: I don't have anything, Mr. Chair.

    Some hon. members: Call the question.

    The Chair: Colleagues—

    Mr. Geoff Regan: Wait a minute. I have a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

    The Chair: What do you have? We're dealing with the motion on the amendment, right? That's what we're supposed to deal with.

    Mr. Geoff Regan: I propose a subamendment, Mr. Chairman. I propose that the motion be amended by adding the following to subsection (2):

provided that the Chair and Government Vice-Chair shall be elected by the Government Members and the opposition Vice-Chair shall be elected by the opposition members of the committee.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: That's out of order. It changes the total intent of the motion, Mr. Chair.

    An hon. member: You can call it out of order.

    The Chair: Geoff, is this an addition at the end of the paragraph? Where does it go?

    Mr. Geoff Regan: Yes, at the end of the subsection (2) of the amendment.

    The Chair: Colleagues, you all have the paragraph of the amendment before you, and this goes before the sentence dealing with the review. It says “and one Vice-Chair shall be Members of the Government party.” It would then proceed “provided that the Chair and Government Vice-Chair shall be elected by the Government Members and the opposition Vice-Chair shall be elected by the opposition members of the committee.”

    Go ahead, Carolyn.

    Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that this changes the intent of the motion. It's out of order.

    The Chair: The advice I have received is that it's simply narrowing the intent. We're still dealing with the secret ballot; it's simply narrowing the choice.

    If I may, members, I'm going to call the subamendment, Geoff Regan's subamendment.

    (Subamendment negatived)

    The Chair: Marlene on a point of order.

    Ms. Marlene Catterall: We're having a debate here today that is characterized as trying to democratize the institution. Frankly, not even being able to discuss the subamendment before the vote is called--I find it objectionable.

    Thank you.

    The Chair: Colleagues, I was using my best judgment, and I did it as well as I could.

    We now are calling the amendment.

    (Amendment agreed to)

    The Chair: We are now returning to consider the amended motion of John Reynolds. On the list, I have Yvon Godin first, Jacques Saada second, and Carolyn Parrish.

    Ms. Catterall on a point of order.

  (1220)  

    Ms. Marlene Catterall: Can I clarify something: what exactly is before us? I have the motion originally tabled by Mr. Reynolds at the meeting before the break. I have an amendment to that, and then I have an actual draft of the changes to the Standing Orders. I'm not too sure what we're dealing with.

    The Chair: As I said at the beginning, we're dealing with the sheet entitled “Edited Version of Motion by Mr. Reynolds with change”.

    Ms. Marlene Catterall: In other words, we have an amendment to the Standing Orders actually drafted in front of us as opposed to the motion that was originally--

    The Chair: No, Marlene, it was agreed by the steering committee that we would do this. So what we're looking at is the paper entitled “Edited Version of Motion by Mr. Reynolds with change”, as I said. However, section (2) has been replaced by Carolyn Parrish's amendment.

    John, are you comfortable with that?

    Mr. John Reynolds: Yes.

    The Chair: Okay. Discussion of the main motion as amended.

    Yvon Godin is first on the list, Jack Saada is second, and Carolyn Parrish is third.

[Translation]

    Mr. Yvon Godin: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll be very brief.

    I do believe the government has the right and the authority to lead the country, but the issue here is determining who will be chair. Let me use the House of Commons as an example. Just because the Speaker of the House is elected by secret ballot doesn't prevent the government from assuming its responsibilities. That's a very poor argument indeed, one that doesn't hold much water.

    The role of our committees is different from that of Parliament. Parliament's purpose is to pass legislation and govern the country. Committees have a mandate to make recommendations to Parliament. To my mind, members serving on committees have a great deal in common, even though they act independently when examining issues that will be the focus of future recommendations to Parliament.

    In the case of one committee, I observed that fully all members from all parties agreed that changes to employment insurance were warranted. Four particular changes were being discussed. Everyone was in agreement, but Parliament opted for another course of action since the Liberals were in a majority in the House of Commons. So, we shouldn't start comparing Parliament with committees as if there was no difference between the two. The government can do as it pleases and appointments are the domain of the Prime Minister of Canada. That's terrible. This at least opens the door, if ever so slightly, to democracy.

    My colleague Mr. Mahoney who hails from Mississauga believes that once a government is elected, every one else should just go home so that there's no opposition in the House of Commons. I think that's a terrible thing to say.

    I remember an incident when the Liberals were in Opposition where Sheila Copps jumped up on the table. Now, the Liberals are saying that this kind of behaviour is unacceptable and that the opposition shouldn't be heard at all. What a terrible thing to say in a democracy. If ever the Liberals were in opposition, I'd like to see what Mr. Mahoney would do. I'd like to see if he chose to be silent or if he felt that there was no point in saying anything because a government had been elected. He would never, ever do that!

    For democracy's sake, I think we're moving in the right direction by contemplating this approach, particularly in committee. The practice is now accepted in Parliament, but we're not quite there yet as far as committees are concerned. That's why I support the motion. Thank you.

    The Chair: Thank you, Yvon.

    Jacques Saada.

    Mr. Jacques Saada: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    When I spoke to the amendment, I mentioned the committee that every two years or so, considers changes to the Standing Orders. These changes are adopted not as a result of a vote, but as a result of a consensus among parties.

    I feel compelled to say something that I would otherwise not have said. Let me explain myself. I'm not completely averse to the idea of a secret ballot. I even feel a certain amount of affinity for the amendment that was moved, and voted down, which would have resulted in a Liberal member, or member of the government, being automatically the only possible candidate for consideration for the chair's position. I find that option especially attractive. However, before I speak to that subject, I need to do two things.

    First, I need to give this issue more thought. Other members may have been more involved than me and I'm not completely comfortable yet with this option. I need to give the matter more thought.

    The second thing that's missing is this spirit of consensus. As we speak, there is no consensus as far as this matter is concerned. How do we go about achieving one? The leaders of all parties are currently holding talks on whether to strike a new reform committee. They all realize that traditionally, the main concern expressed about the work of this committee was the fact that any measures taken were in fact top-down measures, so to speak.

    Since I have a big problem with accepting a top-down process, I've been looking to enhance the role of backbenchers ever since being appointed to this committee. Therein lies the fundamental contradiction. I don't think anyone seated at this table could deny my dogged determination to promote the role of backbenchers.

    I'd like to make a suggestion, Mr. Chairman. Politically speaking, it might suit some people, and others not, but I feel it would a reasonable step to take.

    But first of all, I'd like us to give some serious thought to striking a reform committee in support of the initiatives already undertaken by the leaders of all parties.

    Secondly, I would suggest that instead of these leaders acting unilaterally, the committee be expanded to rightfully include backbenchers.

    Thirdly, I would call upon the members of this committee to hold public meetings at least some of the time so that Canadians can get a real sense of what the important issues are. Right now, we tend to be focused inward but the truth of the matter is that we are not the centre of the universe. Canadians who take a genuine interest in such matters could get a real sense of how we arrive at decisions and the approach we take.

    Fourthly, this approach would lead to solutions of a more global nature, proving in the process that cherry picking doesn't work. One example was the McGrath report produced in either 1988 or 1987 under the Mulroney Conservatives. It would provide an overall view of the situation and give us an opportunity to achieve a consensus, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to focus on issues such as secret ballots, the chair's office, procedure and the Standing Orders of the House with a view to achieving eventually an all-party consensus on these matters. That's the suggestion I wish to make to my colleagues at this time.

  (1225)  

[English]

    The Chair: Carolyn Parrish, Steve Mahoney, and Geoff Regan.

    Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: I think I made a brief reference to this, but I've monitored elections in three countries where there are emerging democracies. They go to great, elaborate lengths to make sure no one intimidates voters, no one sees how the voter votes, no one can guess how the voter votes. It's a fundamental right that people have. We get here by people voting for us on secret ballots.

    On the concept of intimidation, I want to make this very clear: I do not feel intimidated by having trips lost because I don't vote the way I'm supposed to. I don't feel intimidated by future considerations. When I feel intimidated it's when I've had friends on my own team who want to cause an insurrection, and they want us to vote for them as opposed to the one who's been chosen by the powers that be. I feel damned intimidated when I can't vote for my friend because (a) I don't think that friend is going to do a good job or (b) that's not the person the powers that be wanted, and I'm in a position, like all these parliamentary secretaries, to pretty well have to toe the line. My intimidation in that case comes from sticking with what I'm supposed to do, and having to go against a friend, or a friend in the opposition who has asked me to help them.

    So intimidation comes from many places. I don't want you all to think it comes from the whip. She's the least intimidating person in my life. She's a sweetheart.

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

    Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: That's probably not good, either. She's a wonderful lady.

    So that is not where it comes from. It may not be where it comes from for Mr. Guimond, and it may not be where it comes from for Mr. Schmidt. And I don't want that concept in our committees. Committees are separate and apart from the House of Commons. I don't think the Canadian public gives a flying hoot about how we elect our chairmen--or chairpersons--

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

    Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: --but they care if we all, both opposition and government, feel that we're accomplishing something, that we're productive, and are therefore happy members of Parliament serving our public better.

    Isn't that a wonderful thought?

    By the way, if this motion should happen to fail, and one of the opposition leaves the room, the mock elections we run are ridiculous. We look like fools. That the Canadian public notices. So I would move a subsequent motion that we stop those. If this motion fails, just give the whips the power to appoint the chairs and let's get on with being honest with ourselves and with the public.

    And I don't want--

    A voice: Is that a motion?

    Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: It will be.

    We've heard the package argument. It's a good argument. They've used it on us for seven years on votability on private members' bills. We've had package arguments on all kinds of things. I've been packaged by my parents since I was a kid: “Don't eat that cookie, because you're going to spoil your dinner, and the dinner's wonderful.” So don't tell me to wait for the package.

    What you want to do is show that the package is going to be worked on sincerely by giving this one piece now. You should break ranks on this side, and all the parliamentary secretaries should vote for this, as a sign of faith that when you put that committee together it's actually going to do something, it's actually going to make changes.

    We don't have to wait for the great white hope called Paul Martin to come in. When I watched that initial speech of his on television, I thought, “Well, that was boring and stupid.” Nobody out there cares; we care here, because it's the way we function.

    If all these guys on this side of the table really want you to believe that this package and this committee's going to work, then they'll vote for this one little tidbit, this one little appetizer.

    Final comment. I've been on this committee for eight of my nine years here. Even when I was the public works parliamentary secretary, I came to this committee all the time. A lot of people change around the table because of the nature of this committee, but we have committees in the House where the same people have been there for eight or nine years. We all know who the good guys are. The good guys are people who can run a meeting, who are not partisan every time they open their mouth, who know the subject, who care about the subject.

    I have faith that you guys on that side of the table are not going to elect a bunch of dim-bulb Liberals to run committees just to cause trouble. You're going to pick the best people you can pick, because you care. This is your opportunity in committee to actually accomplish something up here, so you're not going to blow it.

    And that is my honest belief.

    Some hon. members: Hear, hear!

  (1230)  

    The Chair: Thank you, Carolyn. Perhaps the next time you can tell us how you really feel.

    Steve Mahoney, then Geoff Regan, then André Harvey.

    Mr. Steve Mahoney: Let's see if they clap for me.

    This is actually interesting. There's a presumption that because you're a parliamentary secretary, you're somehow.... Am I interrupting you, Mr. Chairman?

    The Chair: Is that a point of order?

    Mr. Steve Mahoney: No. It could be. I was curious.

    The Chair: No, you're not interrupting me. I'll carry on with my conversation, Steve. Is that okay?

  (1235)  

    Mr. Steve Mahoney: And I'll carry on speaking.

    Anyway, there's this presumption that the only way you can have integrity around here is if you don't have the specific job or you sit in obscurity on the backbench, and you don't necessarily have principles because you're part of the government team. You hear this kind of thing all the time, and sorry, I just don't buy it.

    I want to share something with the committee that I think Mr. Godin will appreciate, and it has to do with the issue of secret ballot in the union movement. A lot of people find it hard to understand why in organized labour they object to secret ballots when it comes to strike votes. Yet when you think about it, the issue is that they're trying to keep their team together, they have a goal, the executive of that union have been elected by the membership to represent them and to take into account their best interests. If every time there is a point of dispute, when you have a large membership, it is all forced to go, as it is now in Ontario, thanks to Mike Harris, to a secret ballot, then the duly elected executive of that union basically loses control. The corporations have the ability to go and talk to the spouses, they have the ability to try to influence the outcome, whereas when you're standing shoulder to shoulder and arm in arm with your compatriot on the picket line, some kind of public break in not supporting the overall good would probably not be a wise move on your part. If you knew you had the opportunity to have a secret ballot, and your spouse and your kids at home were bugging you because they want you to get back to work so you can earn more money, maybe you would cave in to that kind of pressure.

    One of the interesting things about the issue of secret versus public voting in favour of something is that it goes around the issue of intimidation and to the protection of someone's rights to make a decision. Where I differ strongly in respect of the parliamentary system is that as parliamentarians.... And I know there are exceptions. In fact, every rule around this place you can find an exception to, and the exception to not having a secret ballot is the Speaker's election. But if we're to adopt that as a standard modus operandi, I would suggest the concept of team. Where does it start? Is the opposition going to simply say, okay, that's enough, we don't want any more, we're happy because we can now elect the chair or vice-chairs in a secret ballot? Or is there perhaps a next step? I suspect there is. I suspect there are several. So if that's the case, everything should be put on the table and not voted in isolation. Everybody put out exactly how it is you want to reform the system.

    As one example, we do have a committee in parliamentary democracy that must be chaired by a member of the opposition, the public accounts committee. Notwithstanding my comments about Mr. Williams changing the room, etc., he, by and large, does a very effective, credible job. I served on that committee with him, and I also served on it provincially, and I think it's an important function. Maybe it would make more sense for us to look for another committee that perhaps should be chaired by the opposition, rather than just playing what is clearly the political game of saying, okay, you voted against a secret ballot, that means you're against democracy, that means you support all power resting at the centre, that means the Prime Minister is a dictator. All those things, of course, will come forward in press releases, speeches in the House, and statements back home. Let's face it, it's fine that my colleague and friend trusts the opposition, but as Mr. Godin said, this is not about the opposition.

    The Chair: Ten seconds, Steve.

    Mr. Steve Mahoney: Ten seconds! I can't clear my throat.

    Mr. Chair, this is not about what you would do in opposition or what you would do in government. They are different jobs. I openly admit that. I spent five years in opposition, and it's a different job. You're irresponsible not to go after the government on issues the way you do. I, as a government elected member, a member of the Liberal majority team here in Ottawa, would be irresponsible if I were just to lie down because the opposition and the media are creating a fuss about the fact that we don't like secret ballots.

  (1240)  

    The Chair: What I'd like to say is this--

    Mr. Steve Mahoney: I don't get any applause--what is this?

    The Chair: Particularly because we have the whips and people who operate in the House of Commons here, we would typically not go beyond one o'clock. Also, we have the room technically until one o'clock. It is now twenty to one. I'm in the hands of the committee. I have three speakers on the list, Geoff Regan, André Harvey, John Harvard. If we keep to the five minutes I've been allowing, which is a reasonable thing, we will finish before one. I want some advice from the committee.

    Yvon Godin, some advice.

    Mr. Yvon Godin: I want to be on the list, and I will probably do it within thirty seconds. But just to clarify the point--

    The Chair: I'm not stopping members from being on the list, I'm just explaining to you the situation I am now in. Yvon Godin, you are on the list.

    Mr. Yvon Godin: Can I do it through a point of order?

    The Chair: No, you can't. You will go after John Harvard. We also have Marlene Catterall and Jacques Saada on the list.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, are we going to go beyond the one o'clock meeting time?

    The Chair: I'm in the hands of the committee. We don't know about the room, but typically, we would not go beyond one o'clock, because of the nature of the committee.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: On a point of order, then, Mr. Chairman, make sure that time limit is dealt with and that the final vote is taken prior to one o'clock. Then that's fair ball.

    The Chair: I'm going to proceed with the list; I'm going to keep to the time.

[Translation]

    Mr. Jacques Saada: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I'd like your assurances that everyone is entitled to an equal amount of time. That's an entirely legitimate request. Imposing a limit on the amount of time members are allowed to speak in committee is contrary to the Standing Orders of the House. I simply wanted to bring that fact to your attention.

[English]

    Mr. John Harvard: Mr. Chairman, I want to speak to this point of order as well. I respect your work and I wouldn't question it, but I don't think you have the prerogative, Mr. Chairman, to set rules relating to time or anything else on the fly. That's the first point.

    The other thing, Mr. Chairman, is that we on the government side have as much right to use rules with respect to time to our advantage as do members of the opposition. If it's to our advantage to use the time limit, which is one o'clock, that is our right, unless the rules are changed.

    The Chair: John, let me say this to you, and I will say the same to Jacques. First, you are not a regular member of this committee. In addition to the rules, the committee has its normal practices. As I said earlier, I was a bit lax on the first round, because the amounts were uneven, but typically on this committee, we have four or five minutes each. I brought us back to that particularly for the second round.

    Mr. John Harvard: On a point of order--

    The Chair: No, you listen to me for a minute.

    Mr. John Harvard: I want to answer that, because you wouldn't object to this from a regular member.

    The Chair: You listen to me for a minute. One of the reasons for that is what I explained. We have officers of the parties on both sides of this committee, and traditionally, we have tried to keep within reasonable bounds. You are right, I can't close the committee down or cut people off, but I'm going to keep to the four or five minutes, I'm going to keep to the list I have here. When we get to one o'clock, we're going to see where the committee is at, because I'm in the hands of the committee when we finally get down to it.

    I'm going to go to Geoff Regan, André Harvey, John Harvard, and then Yvon Godin.

    Ms. Marlene Catterall: Can I just ask for a clarification?

  (1245)  

    The Chair: Is it the same point of order or not?

    Ms. Marlene Catterall: Yes, it arises from the same point of order.

    The same opposition member who earlier proposed a vote on a motion subamendment with no debate is now proposing that, whatever the wish of members to express their views—

    The Chair: Marlene, I didn't hear a formal proposal to that effect. I heard some commentary here, and so on. I'm not operating on the basis of any proposal of that type.

    I've explained to you what I'm going to try to do, and I've explained to John why I'm doing it. I understand the rules, but in this committee we've had a normal practice of reasonably limited interventions.

    The next intervention that's reasonably limited is from Geoff Regan.

    Ms. Marlene Catterall: I'm just asking for clarification. Is it your intention to call a vote before one o'clock, before—

    The Chair: When we get to one o'clock I'm going to ask the committee what it intends to do, depending where we are on the speaking list. That's what I'm going to do, okay?

    Geoff Regan, André Harvey, and John Harvard, and then Yvon Godin.

    Mr. Geoff Regan: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that if members on this side...if it was a government motion we were dealing with here, or if we were dealing with a matter that the government was proposing and we were suggesting that members be cut off in speaking, the howls from our friends across the way, Mr. Chairman—and Mr. Godin is smiling because he recognizes that this is true—would be loud and long. They would object vociferously and strongly, and they'd be using the rules and saying you shouldn't be doing that.

    Mr. Chairman, what we have here is a party process. In fact, you've pointed out that there are officers of the parties on each of these committees. In fact, one could argue that this is the most political of all the committees because it includes all the whips. Some of the House leaders are also on this committee, Mr. Chairman.

    The Chair: I'm sorry. Pardon?

    Mr. Geoff Regan: Mr. Chairman, I was saying that this is a very partisan process in this committee. As you mentioned, we have officers of each of the parties. We have the whips from each party, and we have some of the House leaders of the various parties.

    There are those who say politics shouldn't be partisan, that none of us, as members of Parliament, should be partisan but should all be totally free actors. I think that's contrary to the history of Parliament and contrary to the history of this institution and of our democratic traditions, Mr. Chairman. But if you're talking about how partisan this is, I noticed how gleeful our friends across the way were when one of our members was making negative comments regarding another member on our side. We saw a display here—

    An hon. member: What negative comments? There were no negative comments.

    Mr. Geoff Regan: There was a negative comment about a speech. You used the word “stupid” at the time, I think.

    An hon. member: Check the blues.

    Mr. Geoff Regan: At any rate, there were negative comments about another member of our party who isn't in this committee at the moment, and the opposition reaction was one of absolute glee, Mr. Chairman. That demonstrates the kind of partisanship that exists here, and that's normal. That's not necessarily a bad thing. The way our democracy has developed has been on the basis of party politics, and many positive developments have resulted from that.

    In fact, Mr. Chairman, we were talking about developing democracies. I had the experience once of being at a conference with new parliamentarians in Haiti shortly after they were elected. It isn't exactly one of those ideal trips that people are looking for, but it was an interesting one. We talked about the importance of having both government and opposition members. You need to have parties. You need to have that opposition. That's a very important function. In fact, they weren't keen on the idea in Haiti, because they all wanted to support the same side. They all wanted to support the government and they didn't want to be accused of being macoutistes, as they are called.

    So what we have here are colleagues—my colleagues across the way, in my view—who are pursuing the interests of their parties. That's why we have the whips here. It's a political approach.

    Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that, as a committee, we are charged annually with reviewing the Standing Orders. That would be the time to deal with a review of the Standing Orders and to deal with the examination of those that we feel should be amended. We should not do it on this kind of an ad hoc basis.

    It seems to me also, Mr. Chairman, that we have a modernization committee that's being worked on.

    The Chair: Twenty seconds.

    Mr. Geoff Regan: I object to being cut off, Mr. Chairman. I feel I have a right to speak—

    The Chair: You can object, but I've explained—

    Mr. Geoff Regan: —and I don't think you would do the same to that side, Mr. Chairman.

    The Chair: —why I'm cutting people off. It's the normal practice on this committee.

    André Harvey is next.

[Translation]

    Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, much was said about democracy by my Bloc colleagues, among others. I would like to make a brief comment.

    My colleague Jacques Saada noted that we needed to give more thought to improving the way in which this committee operates. I've served on both sides of the House, in opposition as well as in government. From a democratic standpoint, our main task is to fulfill our duty when we have the pleasure of winning an election and forming the government. We have waged some very fierce battles. In my region, the adversary was the Bloc Québécois with its well-run organization. I was fortunate to win the seat and I make every effort to serve my constituents well.

    Being in politics is nothing like being in the ministry. If our constituents saw us trying to give more power to opposition members, what would they think? As I see it, as elected representatives, our role, particularly when we sit on the government side, is to carry out the democratic mandate we were given and to win elections. This doesn't prevent us from trying to further improve the way we conduct our business. I think the committee should give more thought to what my colleague Jacques Saada said at a later meeting.

    One example often cited is the Speaker of the House. The Speaker's role is to moderate proceedings in the House of Commons. Unless I've misunderstood something, his role is somewhat different from that of a committee chair who in some respects works to carry out the government's legislative agenda.

    In short, I think we need to give the matter some thought. Our primary function as committee members--and I think the opposition can appreciate that--is to carry out the democratic mandate we received when we were elected to office, and they've yet to come up with a better system. However, there's nothing to stop us from trying to improve the way we run our committees. Jacques Saada's comments warrant further consideration and we need to see if there are better alternatives out there.

    Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

  (1250)  

    The Chair: Thank you, André.

    Yvon Godin.

[English]

    Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Chair, for many years I was a staff representative for the union. I never brought my people out on strike without a secret ballot vote. I have lots of respect for Mr. Mahoney's father, who was the director of the steelworkers. He never brought his members out on strike without a secret ballot vote. I want those words to be retracted, because it's not the way we work in the unions.

    Thank you.

    The Chair: Marlene Catterall.

    Ms. Marlene Catterall: I spent my first nine years in politics on city council. I was an independent, I didn't get elected as part of a team, I got elected as me, and I could do whatever I wanted on anything. When I chose to run for Parliament, I knew I was running as a member of a team, and I wasn't sure how well I would adapt to that, frankly. But I've served in opposition, along with less than the majority of members around this committee, and I've served in government, so I understand the offensive role as well as the defensive role I now play on this side of the table and on the government side of the House. I think I understand fairly well the reasons the opposition wants to do this.

    The approach I bring to this is, what's good for Parliament in the long run? What would serve the opposition parties in government, as well as the current governing party? I did that when I was in opposition as well. I never took a position as a critic, for instance, that I didn't feel my party could live with, defend, and implement when we were in government. So I understand very well the role of the opposition in trying to put the government in a difficult situation, and frankly, I think that's what they are trying to do with this motion.

    We're talking about secret ballots. Well, committees already have the power to have an election by secret ballot if they wish. Some of them have done it, most of them don't. I've said before, and you've heard me argue this many times on many subjects, I don't think committees should do their business in secret, period. We write reports, and the public has a right to know what the debate is. I think, when we discuss our agenda, the public has the right to know what that debate is. I think we have the obligation to do our business in public, and that includes how we select chairs. I don't think it's a good idea, frankly, that the selection of chairs become a popularity contest, but that's a debatable issue.

    I concur with what Mr. Regan has just said. There's been discussion about a modernization committee. There was a previous one, and it did bring forward some fairly substantial amendments with the agreement of all the parties. That's the way this committee has always tried to operate. I think there should be some serious consideration as to whether it shouldn't be this committee that operates as the modernization committee, so we can consider this and other issues as well, because Standing Orders are our responsibility. I don't like the idea of tinkering. I don't like the idea of doing one-offs. I think it takes away from pressure on us to have a more thorough look. We haven't done that as a committee since the 1997 election. We've done little bits here and there. We have an obligation to look at the Standing Orders as a whole and to make amendments that are in the best interests of the Parliament and of all our colleagues in Parliament from all parties, and we, frankly, have not carried out that responsibility. We're now into the second Parliament where we haven't carried out that responsibility.

    So I frankly think that we should be looking at whether this committee should not be the modernization committee. We could have our discussions in public. We could invite our colleagues to make representations to us on this and a variety of other issues. But we could be looking at an overall package that would serve Parliament, not in the short term, but for a long time to come.

    I don't want to repeat what I said earlier, Mr. Chair, about the role of Parliament, the role of government, but the fundamental democratic process is the election of a government and the election of a Parliament.

  (1255)  

    The Chair: You have five seconds.

    Ms. Marlene Catterall: Only five seconds left--

    The Chair: That's because it's now two minutes before one o'clock, which is our rule of thumb. That's all we have.

    John Harvard--

    Ms. Marlene Catterall: Mr. Chair, I think this deserves further discussion, and I don't want to be cut off by somebody insisting that we have a vote before one o'clock. I therefore move that the committee now adjourn and take up this issue at our next meeting.

    The Chair: The motion to adjourn takes precedence. It's non-debatable. Please indicate whether or not you are in favour of Ms. Catterall's motion.

    The vote is tied. I will support the motion to adjourn.

    (Motion agreed to)

    The Chair: The meeting is adjourned until our next meeting, when we take up this same matter.