[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Wednesday, September 27, 1995
.1541 
[English]
The Clerk of the Committee: This meeting was called pursuant to Standing Order 106(1) and the special order the House adopted Monday, September 18, 1995, for election of a chairman.
I am now ready to receive motions for the election of a chairman.
Mr. Abbott (Kootenay East): I nominate John Williams.
*Ms Catterall (Ottawa West): On a point of order, Mr. Chair, did you recognize the speaker? It's traditional for the chair to recognize the person who wishes to make a motion.
The Clerk: Mr. Abbott took the floor and I heard his motion. The way we usually proceed in all committees is that any member can move a motion for the election of another member to become the chair.
If there is more than one motion the other motions are considered notices of motion. I have to put the question on the first motion that was moved. If the first one is either tied or defeated then I go to the second motion.
Mr. Abbott is a member of the committee and he had the floor. He took the floor and I recognize his motion.
Mr. Telegdi (Waterloo): Mr. Chair, I would like to nominate Mr. Bélisle.
Mr. Williams (St. Albert): On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, Can you please tell us who the voting members of this committee are today?
The Clerk: Yes. The voting members of the committee are Mr. Assad, Mr. Peric, Mr. Crawford, Mr. Grose, Ms Catterall, Mr. Telegdi, Mrs. Whelan, Mr. Bélisle, Mr. Duceppe, Mr. Laurin, Mr. Abbott and Mr. Williams.
I have a motion from Mr. Abbott that Mr. Williams be elected chair of the committee. I have a notice from Mr. Telegdi that Mr. Bélisle be elected chair of the committee. If there is no debate or further notice of motion -
Yes. Pardon me.
Mr. Strahl (Fraser Valley East): Can I debate that please?
The Clerk: Yes.
Mr. Strahl: Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, it has become obvious during the last week and a half since the -
Mr. Boudria (Glengarry - Prescott - Russell): Mr. Clerk, on a point of order, am I to conclude that the clerk has given the power to debate the motion to elect a chair to someone who cannot vote for the chair? Is the hon. member a voting member of the committee? How can he debate a motion on which he can't vote?
Mr. Strahl: On the same point of order -
.1545
The Clerk: You have an agenda. There are probably not enough copies, but the agenda states that I'm only empowered to receive motions for the election of a chair, which I've done. The clerk cannot receive any other type of motion and cannot entertain points of order or participate in debate. The best I can do - and I've had the opportunity of going through this exercise twice with this committee - is offer my suggestions as to how committees usually proceed and what happens in certain cases.
I cannot decide on the point of order raised by Mr. Boudria. The only thing I can say is that members of the House of Commons who are not members of a committee may participate in public proceedings of a committee according to the Standing Orders, unless the committee decides otherwise. It's up to the committee to decide otherwise.
Mr. Strahl.
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Chairman, can I continue?
Since we've come back from our summer recess, it has become obvious that the government has been adamant or predisposed to set up ahead of time who gets elected as the chairs and the vice-chairs of the committees. It's a disturbing trend, Mr. Chairman, that has been going on in I don't know how many committees, but this must be nearing the end of the hoop, so to speak. I think every single committee to date has followed that same procedure.
It's interesting, Mr. Chairman, that some remarks, especially in the papers that I'm more familiar with, are starting to warn the government that continuing this trend is dangerous for democracy, and, Mr. Chairman, I think it's certainly a very unwise move for them politically. As an example of this, in this article from The Edmonton Sun there is a short clip saying that:
- Although Chrétien may appear to scorn the Bloc Quebecois and all its works when speaking in
the House, his manoeuvres in regard to the committees say something altogether different.
- And they go on to describe how in their analogy the Grits are unwilling to share any of the power
of committees with the third party.
Mr. Chairman, we saw so many red book promises about a freer democracy and about more power and independence being given to committees. It appears that those were empty and shallow promises. Instead we're forced into listening to - this is probably the eighteenth or twentieth committee - this same line being followed. It happened in my own committee and I have no doubt they will try to make this happen here today.
It's unfortunate, Mr. Chairman, because the committee structure should be a totally independent part of the parliamentary system. For instance, the Speaker does not rule on the actions of committees because committees are supposed to be masters of their own destiny.
In other words, they're not supposed to be kowtowing to the government. They're not supposed to be fulfilling the minister's wishes. They're certainly not supposed to be listening to the party officials. Their job is to be independent-minded entities so that they can give advice to the government, call the government to action and, if necessary, condemn the government for lack of action or for taking the wrong action.
Certainly, Mr. Chairman, the ability of these committees to do their jobs and to act independently like they're supposed to is compromised when the government comes down with an edict from on high that the committee structure will be set up in such-and-such a way.
Another article in another newspaper headline reads that ``the ruthless Chrétien wants MPs to be his puppets''.
.1550
Mr. Chairman, we don't need this in the committees. It's not doing the government members and it's certainly not doing the back-benchers any favours to have comments such as: ``Stick to the party line, boys and girls. Ignore your conscience and constituents if you have to, but never ignore the commands of your leader.''
It goes on to give different examples of what happened to Mr. Hopkins, what happened to Mr. Allmand and so on. They have many different examples in there about how not being willing to listen to the party leadership is a recipe for being cast into political cyberspace, from which these people may never return.
There are two or three things that I think could help restore people's faith in this system of the election of committee chairs and vice-chairs.
The first thing is that the election be taken on a secret ballot basis. If we could have elections with a secret ballot as a given, it would take some of the pressures away from especially government members who are either too timid or too intimidated to make decisions that are in the best interest of their constituents and frankly, I think, in the best interest of the country.
If a secret ballot is one of the basic ingredients of democracy, you should be allowed in this committee and other committees to make the elections of the chairs and vice-chairs based upon that basic democratic principle. I think if we were to follow that, not only in this committee but in the other nineteen, we would see comments such as the ones out of the editorials I just read become few and far between.
It is a step in the wrong direction for the government to pursue this ``I know best; to heck with the rest'' attitude. Really it's forcing people within their own party to make choices between doing what they know to be right - what they know to be in the best interest of the country - and towing the party line and not rocking the boat or whatever.
The other thing that I think would be a useful procedure involves the whole idea of when these decisions are made. I'd be interested to hear at some point from the government whip as to when or if he makes suggestions. As one of the Liberal back-benchers mentioned to me the other day, if the little birdie whispers in your ear, dare you buck the party line? It would be interesting to me to hear his opinion on that whole selection process.
Of course it's only right that the chairman of the committee be a government member. After all, they are the government. They deserve a chance to govern, and they deserve the chance to be the major player in the committees. That's why they have a majority. That's why they have the chairmanship, as far as I'm concerned. I don't dispute that that's within their rights, and I certainly think that would be only proper. The Canadian people expect them to lead, and in that sense I don't have a problem with the election by secret ballot of a chairman for any of the committees from the Liberal Party.
But I do question the legitimacy of and the rationale for consistently, every time, choosing a member of the Bloc Québécois to be the vice-chair of the committee. It's not like it's without precedent to give even just a dribble of vice-chairmanships to the third party. In the last Parliament there were eleven members of the NDP Party who were allowed to take part in the committee structure as vice-chairs. So it's not without precedent that the governing party understands the wisdom of allowing the vice-chairs, really the steering group of each and every committee, to reflect all parts of Canadian society.
I would not deny the Bloc Québécois a reasonable share of the vice-chairs. I think it would only be right that they represent a segment of the Canadian population - hopefully Canadian for a long time. They represent them and they're in the House, so by all means they should have their share of vice-chairmanships.
.1555
But just as surely, it's only proper that in the areas of the country where there are large numbers of Reform Party members, it should not automatically exclude them from taking part in the parliamentary process. It's not done in Question Period and doesn't affect our ability to give speeches in the House. It's not done as part of the debate. It's just not done. Beauchesne's rules are set up in such a way to ensure that all parliamentarians, especially of recognized parties, have an opportunity to take part in the debates they feel are necessary.
If this committee follows on the trend that has been obvious since we came back on September 18 -
Mr. Boudria: I was wondering if our colleague would entertain a brief question. If this is an attempt to filibuster the committee, and he can indicate so right now, quorum will immediately cease.
There was an agreement between whips, duly approved, ordered, and signed that we were meeting today to elect chairs. If this is a breach of that agreement, which it is on the verge of becoming, I'd like to know now. My colleagues and I will leave the room and quorum will cease. This meeting will not exist. Yes or no.
Mr. Strahl: I don't think you can ask me questions anyway, Don. I don't think that's your place.
Mr. Boudria: Thank you.
Mr. Strahl: You can do what you like. I'm trying to address the concerns of people -
Mr. Boudria: You don't need a Hansard any more, clerk.
Mr. Strahl: - about the election of vice-chairs. So it's certainly within my prerogative to do that.
An hon. member: You can talk all day long. You're alone.
Mr. Strahl: What I'm trying to get to, Mr. Chairman, is the process by which we're arriving at the election of vice-chairs. I think it's certainly within the prerogative of any member of Parliament to discuss with people and with members of the committee and other parliamentarians what's going to govern our ability to elect the people who are going to steer this committee.
I don't understand the government whip's opposition to a debate on this subject. We've certainly raised it in the House of Commons. We've certainly raised it in points of order. We've certainly raised it in every way we can, but the government appears to be unresponsive to its own red book promises and certainly -
[Translation]
Mr. Duceppe (Laurier - Sainte-Marie) : Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I would like to see if we have a quorum. If we don't, we should end this meeting.
[English]
The Clerk: Only three members of the committee are presently around the table, so we do not have a quorum. We also do not have the required number of members to even discuss anything without a quorum, or representatives of all three parties. Therefore, I think the committee will have to try to have a meeting to elect a chair on another occasion. Yes, it's over.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Chairman, can I ask that we be given the normal 48 hours' notice of the meeting being called to ensure that we have adequate preparation?
The Clerk: I can transmit that request to the whips. That's all I can do.
Mr. Williams: Thank you.
The Clerk: Thank you.