Members look at parliamentary reform.

• Author: Clifford Lincoln, and others

On March 21, 2001, Government House Leader, Don Boudria, introduced a motion to establish a Special Committee on the Modernization and Improvement of the Procedures of the House of Commons. Consisting of the Deputy Speaker as Chairman and the House Leaders of the five parties represented in the Commons, the committee was instructed to report by June 2001. It was agreed that no changes would be made to the Standing Orders without the unanimous consent of all members of the Committee. Following speeches by the House Leaders a number of private members of Parliament outlined their ideas in a debate which lasted until well past midnight. The following are slightly edited extracts from that debate:

Clifford Lincoln (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.): The most traditional institutions such as churches and monarchies are becoming democratic today because they realize they have to be closer to the people. They have to live with the times. However, parliament is stuck in tradition.

Here is one small example. When the Speaker rises, the three pages required to sit at his feet rise as well. If he sits, they sit. What is the point of all this? think it is symptomatic of a tradition that, today, is completely outmoded, undemocratic and does not improve the life of the pages who come here.

I think about our colleagues here. Do we call them by name? No. We speak of "the hon. member for Bellechasse-Etchemins-Montmagny-L'Islet" or of "the hon. member for Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington".

I have been to many parliaments where people call each other by their names. It is no sin to call someone Smith or Tremblay. They get to know each other. The irony of this place is that in the Chamber I am an hon. member for Lac-Saint-Louis. When I get to a committee I am Lincoln. What sense does that make? If it is good for a committee, why should it not be good here? I find that in committee I can put a name and a face to people. There is a certain human bond that develops. I would like to be able to call the member for Regina-Qu'Appelle by name. It would be far friendlier than calling him by his riding name.

As for votes, I really believe very deeply that our system of calling all votes confidence votes, with free votes being the exception, should be reversed. All votes should be free votes except for confidence votes.

I will just give a few figures from the British House which I gleaned some time ago. In the British House of Commons, dissenting votes have been a significant fact of life for a long time. In the seventies dissenting votes accounted for 25% of all voting divisions in the British parliament. In the first session of 1983-1987, when the Tories were in power, 62 divisions took place in which 137 Tory backbenchers cast a total of 416 votes against the government.

Here that would be viewed as heresy because any type of expression that is contrary to the wish of the government is seen as disloyalty. I do not see it as disloyalty. I see it as intelligence. I see it as being accountable to my conscience and to my electors. I separate completely confidence votes, which are a fact of life and must be for the government, from the rest of the votes where we could vote very freely and the government would carry on all the same, and be no worse for it.

With regard to a code of ethics, in 1997 the present Speaker, the member for Kingston and the Islands, was co-chair of a committee that produced a code of official conduct for senators and members of parliament. Some of the members here were part of that committee. The report is still lying on the shelf. Why can we not institute that code of official conduct for all members and for senators? Why can we not make this official? Why can we not have a counsellor responsible to the Parliament of Canada? I do not see any reason why this should not become a part of the rules that govern our conduct as parliamentarians. That should be an essential and a prompt reform to institute.

When we talk about private members' bills, for six years I have had private members' bills that have just stayed in the draw. Recently I won. By magic my name got drawn, like the 6/49. Then I appeared before a committee and it decided that the bill was not important enough to be votable. So for one hour I had a little debate here and the bill died.

I look again at what happens in the British parliament. The differences are striking. In the British parliament, during the years 1983-1987, out of 415 private members' bills introduced in the British House, 70 of them were given royal assent, or 17%.

In our parliament, between May 13, 1991 and February 2, 1996, 428 private members' bills were introduced. Out of those, 163 were selected and only eight became statutes. Only 5% of bills were selected and a mere 2% became statutes. These bills made lacrosse and hockey national games and silly things like that. Very few items of substance are ever made into statutes.

All private members' bills should be made votable. We should have enough help to put private members' bills through. Admittedly let us have a limit on private members' bills. It could be one per member. I do not care. However let us have a chance to debate them.

I also believe that committees should be much freer. I am quite happy as the chair of a committee today to see my position being voted upon by my colleagues. I also believe that during the examination of legislation committees should be very free and open. Parliamentary secretaries should sit as expert witnesses for committees rather than be part of a committee.

I was in the National Assembly of Quebec as a minister. I had to appear as a minister to defend my legislation right through. I know the task of ministers is sometimes impossible. Therefore let the parliamentary secretary take over that function rather than sit as a member of the committee during the study of legislation.

I also believe the Board of Internal Economy in the House of Commons should be made more open. Certainly I do not disparage the members who sit on the board with great diligence and conscience. However it should be made far more open.

Committee chairs from day to day do not quite know how their budgets will be met. Halfway through the year they have to beg for another travel allowance. There should be far more input by members of the committees, chairs of the committees and House members.

We have a lot of reform to do. I would love to talk about other items such as electoral reform and the powers of the executive office, but I sincerely believe we have to start somewhere. Within the standing orders I think we can make reforms to parliament that will not make me less a Liberal, less a part of a government or less a part of an opposition if I were voted into opposition.

I will fight very hard for the things I believe in. At the same time I will feel empowered. I will feel dignified as a member of parliament. I will feel that the little intelligence I have been given, the little creative powers I have been given, have a chance to be expressed and find their way forward rather than just be there for duty times, for votes when I am supposed to vote a certain way, and be there always as a backbencher.

Rob Merrifield (Yellowhead, Canadian Alliance):

The House of Commons, as far as I am concerned, has to return to the people of Canada. The rights and responsibilities of members of parliament to represent the views of their constituents has disappeared. The government seems much more concerned about maintaining power than representing the will of the people.

I took my...