[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Thursday, September 28, 1995
.1530 
[English]
[Technical Difficulty - Editor]
Mr. Telegdi (Waterloo): I move that Richard Bélisle be elected chair of the committee.
Mr. Ringma (Nanaimo - Cowichan): If it pleases the clerk, I must intervene, on the basis that a motion is already on the floor. There was a motion from yesterday's meeting. You left yesterday's meeting. As far as we're concerned, the meeting continues.
What we're talking about here, if I have the floor still.... The issue is democracy. The issue is democracy, Clerk, and I want that clearly understood. I am not going to be subverted.
[Translation]
Mr. Duceppe (Laurier - Sainte-Marie): May we know which MPs are members of this committee for the purposes of today's meeting?
The Clerk: Yes. Messrs. Assad, Boudria, Crawford, Grose, Hopkins, Telegdi, Bélisle, Duceppe, Laurin, Abbott, Ringma and Ms Whelan.
[English]
These are the members who have voting privileges.
You have an agenda, or you should have an agenda, and you'll see it's the same agenda as yesterday. The same note appears after the election of the chair. It says:
- The Clerk of the Committee can only receive motions for the election of the Chair. The Clerk
cannot receive other types of motions and cannot entertain points of order or participate in
debate.
Yes, Mr. Duceppe.
Mr. Duceppe: I agree with Mr. Ringma. A motion was moved yesterday and I move that we vote on it.
The Clerk: People have been researching this matter since yesterday, and it would appear that never before at an organization meeting has a motion been duly moved and the committee subsequently lost its quorum. We consulted with the clerks at the table as well as with the Clerk of the House and in their opinion, the motion has lapsed.
[English]
The motion lapsed when the committee lost its quorum yesterday because there was no committee that was constituted with a chair. The motion could not be brought forward from one meeting to the other without a committee constituted with a chair. That's the advice I got from the Clerk of the House, and that's the procedure I am following now.
[Translation]
Mr. Duceppe: If that is the case, Clerk, I move that Richard Bélisle be elected Chair...
[English]
Mr. Ringma: Sorry, objection.
Mr. Boudria (Glengarry - Prescott - Russell): There's no point of order here.
Mr. Ringma: There absolutely is, because I do not accept the ruling of Mr. Marleau on yesterday's meeting being put aside.
[Translation]
Mr. Duceppe: I am trying to understand, Clerk. Yesterday, Mr. Ringma moved that Mr. Richard Bélisle be elected Chair of the committee and today, I am putting a new motion on the floor that Mr. Richard Bélisle be elected Chair of the committee.
Let me stress, Clerk, that I would agree to either motion, as they are both one and the same. I think the people of Quebec and Canada care little whether the motion was moved yesterday or today since it is one and the same motion. Therefore, I move that we proceed with the vote.
It doesn't matter to me whether we are voting on yesterday's or today's motion.
The Clerk: I cannot make a ruling. The meeting began and Mr. Telegdi duly moved thatMr. Bélisle be elected Chair. This motion is now on the floor.
[English]
Mr. Ringma: There is a motion on the floor, Chair. There is a motion on the floor from yesterday.
Mr. Boudria: No, there isn't.
Mr. Abbott (Kootenay East): The meeting was not adjourned yesterday.
Mr. Boudria: The meeting was never constituted yesterday.
Mr. Ringma: We had a quorum.
An hon. member: We had a meeting. I was there. I saw you there.
Mr. Ringma: There was a quorum in the room. The meeting was therefore constituted.
Mr. Boudria: If you don't like it, go back to the House and argue that point. The clerk can't decide on that.
Mr. Ringma: Oh, so it is ``Dear colleague, go back to the House and argue it''. I'm trying to argue it in the House and even the chair of the House is turning around and saying to go back to the committee. Where do I get democracy in this country if not in the House of Commons? Whether it's in the committee or in the House itself, I demand democracy.
.1535
Mr. Boudria: Democracy is defined as that with which you agree personally. That's the definition.
Mr. Abbott: It's either that or visualizing the government subverting the process of democracy by walking out of a committee meeting. A subversion of democracy is what it is.
Mr. Ringma: Mr. Chair, we know that eventually the government will get its way. The government will get its way and say we'll elect our BQ friends as chair of the committee and they can do what they want. In the meantime I want it to unfold step by step as legally as I can make it happen.
[Translation]
Mr. Duceppe: It appears that I am the only one to have asked for the floor. The right to speak is one component of democracy.
What was yesterday's motion?
The Clerk: The motion moved by Mr. Abbott.
[English]
Mr. Abbott moves that Mr. Williams be elected chair of this committee.
[Translation]
Mr. Duceppe: Since the committee can decide how it will proceed, is there unanimous consent to proceed with yesterday's motion? We could then move immediately to a vote without debate. Is there unanimous consent to proceed with a vote on Mr. Abbott's motion?
[English]
Mr. Abbott: I agree with that, Mr. Chairman. I would like to recommend, however, that the voting be done by secret ballot.
Mr. Telegdi: Mr. Chairman, we are elected members of Parliament. The electorate does not elect us to do the public's business in secret ballot and we're working on electing the officers. I am surprised that the Reform Party would suggest such an idea.
[Translation]
Mr. Duceppe: Since the committee can decide how it will proceed, I move that we vote on the motion that voting be done by secret ballot. Who is in favour and who is opposed? We can vote on this motion first, and then on Mr. Abbott's motion without further debate.
[English]
Mr. Hopkins (Renfrew - Nipissing - Pembroke): Mr. Chair, may I have a word before you close the floor?
The Clerk of the Committee: Miss Grey can go first, and then Mr. Hopkins.
[Translation]
Mr. Duceppe: I move that only the members of this committee be recognized by the Chair, in accordance with committee rules.
The Clerk: We addressed this issue yesterday.
[English]
I informed the committee yesterday, and there hasn't been a change to the rules since yesterday, that all members of Parliament can attend public meetings and participate unless committees decide otherwise. This committee never otherwise decided, and I cannot entertain such a motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Duceppe: The members can decide here and now.
[English]
The Clerk: There would have to be unanimous consent.
[Translation]
This would require the unanimous consent of the 12 members who are entitled to vote today.
Mr. Duceppe: We won't get it.
[English]
Miss Grey (Beaver River): Surely you remember the last parliament, Mr. Duceppe, when you and I were both treated as independents and you gave it your utmost to try to speak at committees. Surely you would not cut that off now.
My question for the member over here is about democracy and how we're elected by the Canadian people. I would like you to explain to us how you are going to convince the Canadian people that you will elect - you will choose, if you will - a separatist to be in charge of the Public Accounts of Canada. How much support do you think you would get for that from sea to sea to sea?
Mr. Boudria: That's an interesting proposition. Does that mean -
Miss Grey: I didn't ask you, Mr. Boudria. I asked Mr. Telegdi the question.
Mr. Boudria: You're suggesting that the opposition should be chosen for ideological reasons rather than numerical ones, which suggests then that the government could choose its own opposition based on which one it would like best. Now, if that's the view of democracy of the Reform Party, ultimately they're doing themselves an awful lot of harm when they get to be the fourth party.
Miss Grey: Mr. Clerk, obviously it says that the chair of this committee is picked from the opposition. I would like to know why this government is so hysterical at this point, why they are going to block the Reform out of almost everything. In absolutely every committee it says it is not just the official opposition, but that the chair of this committee would be from the opposition. It looks to me like there's collusion here, and the Canadian public is not going to stand for it any longer.
.1540
[Translation]
The Clerk: I cannot entertain points of order, only recognize members who ask to speak.Mr. Hopkins is the first on my list.
[English]
Mr. Hopkins: Mr. Chairman, if I may put some foundation into what is not taking place here and what should be taking place, our system of government is based on the British traditions. We have changed it somewhat to apply to ours, but it's based on traditions. It was introduced into Parliament 37 years ago by the Diefenbaker government that a member of the opposition should be chair of the public accounts committee. That has nothing whatsoever to do with who sits where at what time.
Our constitution says nothing about political parties. It says nothing about idealisms or ideologies. It simply talks about electing members. The committees are sitting here to elect a chair on that basis.
If the third party wants to argue this, I would simply point out to you, Mr. Chairman, that in Great Britain today, third parties don't have a say. They're not even considered. Here in Canada you have democracy. All this talk about democracy....
What I'm seeing here is that democracy is what I want out of life, and I don't care about anybody else's views. What we're basing this argument on today is not ideological parties, and not separatist parties. We're lodging on the traditions of this House of Commons. I'm telling you that if you're going to change all the traditions and try to upset the things that have worked well for years, then these things will come back to haunt you at a future time.
I am speaking on behalf of the conventions, the traditions and the rules of the House of Commons. Let's follow them in the traditions we've had. Partisan politics is beginning to upset the traditions of Parliament in this particular case.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear!
Mr. Hopkins: That's exactly what's happening.
The Clerk: The next one on my list is Mr. Strahl.
Mr. Strahl (Fraser Valley East): Mr. Chairman, I have to respond to that last comment first, which is to say that if precedents mean everything to the member, then certainly the precedents in the last House, where 10 or 11 of the vice-chairmanships went to the third party, must make a difference.
Mr. Boudria: Factually incorrect.
Mr. Strahl: I can give you the list.
Mr. Boudria: Go ahead.
Mr. Strahl: How many were there, then?
Mr. Boudria: One.
Mr. Strahl: Nonsense. Dawn Black was one of them. There were at least eight or ten. I think there were eleven.
At any rate, many of them were from the third party. If precedence is the be-all and end-all, then certainly it's interesting that not a single one has been given or offered or even allowed by the government in this parliament.
Perhaps just for the record I should just quickly whistle through them here. From May 1991 to September 1993, which is the end of the last parliament, Chris Axworthy was a vice-chair on a subcommittee on poverty.
Mr. Boudria: A subcommittee. One gone.
Mr. Strahl: Dawn Black was acting chair of the status of women subcommittee.
Mr. Boudria: A subcommittee. Two gone.
Mr. Strahl: Derek Blackburn was acting chair of the Standing Committee on Justice and the Solicitor General.
Mr. Boudria: Acting chair. Three gone.
Mr. Strahl: These are all significant positions here.
Mr. Abbott: But the NDP was frozen out, is that right?
Mr. Strahl: Mike Breaugh, first deputy chair, Committee of the Whole.
Mr. Boudria: Nothing to do with standing committees. Four gone.
Mr. Strahl: John Brewin, acting chair, Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs.
Mr. Boudria: Acting chair. Five gone.
Mr. Strahl: Steve Langdon was joint chair of the environment standing committee, chair of the external affairs and international trade standing committee, and chair of the subcommittee on international financial institutions.
Mr. Boudria: A subcommittee.
Mr. Strahl: So I guess he gets only two chairs and a subcommittee by being a member of the third party.
Rod Laporte was acting chair, recodification of the general portion of the Criminal Code. Len Taylor was acting chair of the acid rain subcommittee. Neil Young was the vice-chair of the Standing Committee on Human Rights and the Status of Disabled Persons.
.1545
Mr. Boudria: So you've only found one.
Mr. Strahl: I guess he doesn't count either. It is interesting, Mr. Speaker, that there is a history, there are precedents, of giving significant roles to the third party that has been denied to the third party in this parliament.
In case the members are wondering how this is playing out in the real world - this is when you get away, blowing distance from this House of Commons - you should come out to where we are. This is where significant numbers of Canadians, regardless of whether the government side likes it or not, have voted for members of the third party.
It says:
- Although Chrétien may appear to score on the Bloc Québécois and all its works when speaking
in the House, his manoeuvres in regard to the committees say something altogether different.
- In catering to the tiny tyrants of the Bloc, Chrétien is giving power over to Canada's laws to the
very people who would destroy it.
When we started in on this process, I tried to encourage the government by making statements in the House - I think I've been very forthright - suggesting that the government is doing itself harm by consistently electing Bloc members to every single position. This includes the absurd thing of having the Bloc in charge of Canadian heritage as if the Bloc is in charge of all Canadian heritage, and in charge of Canadian culture, and so on. I just don't understand this trend toward giving the Bloc additional powers when the Bloc's entire purpose is to break away from Canada.
We accept the right of governments to chair most committees; that is not a question. The government is elected to govern. I don't argue with that as that is democracy. By all means, it should run the committees. The Standing Committee on Public Accounts is an exception in that it has traditionally gone to an opposition member.
But certainly we accept the right of government to appoint or elect, whatever you want to call it - ``anoint'' - chairs for all the committees. That's fine, but it should follow through on the rest of the red book promises. It has not been doing that; it has been talking about making committees more independent of government, but that is not happening.
It certainly is not happening when the edict comes down from on high as to how and who to elect into the vice-chair position. That's not independence at all; that is more government interference with the committee, not less.
As for the election of vice-chairs, I mentioned today in the House further parliamentary reforms about the selection of deputy speakers. There were promises from the honourable whip, who sits at this table. In the last parliament he put forward proposals, along with Mr. Gagliano and the former House leader, Mr. Dingwall, that said we should have members of the opposition party as deputy speakers. I don't know why that wasn't followed through. I don't know why suddenly that promise is no good. I guess maybe we can get an answer from the whip when he again speaks.
The separatists continue to be rewarded in Parliament; the disobedient Liberals are slammed. There are interesting comments being made in Edmonton about how sorry they feel for Pembroke MP Len Hopkins. For thirty years he has been a dedicated and good member of Parliament and doing the job to the best of his ability. He dared to oppose the government's gun control bill, so he has been sent to political cyberspace in never-never land. Why? It is a shame. I agree with the editorial comment that says ``bye-bye, Len''.
It is unfortunate when that happens. Why is it that the government...? I don't know what it's afraid of. I don't know what it's worried about. It talked a lot about parliamentary reform, but it has not happened.
The other day, Mr. Chairman, the whip of the Bloc rose in the House and mentioned that they had offered vice-chairs to the third party but we had turned them down or we didn't like the deal, or whatever. Our whip of the day, Diane Ablonczy, stood up and straightened out for the record what was actually done there.
.1550
You said, sure, you can have a few vice-chairs, but you have to give up questions in Question Period to get them. We just said we were not prepared to do that. We weren't then and we aren't now, because based on the merits of the situation, we think we should have a certain number of them.
I think the qualifications of a good chair of this committee are self-evident. Obviously the person should have an understanding of public accounts. In other words, the person should have some ability and some accounting background so he or she can understand what we're talking about here.
That person should have experience on committee. He or she should have spent some time here and have a proven track record through his or her statements, motions, private member's bills and actions to date. He or she should have a track record that shows he or she is concerned and conversant with public accounts and the importance of them. He or she should have a grasp of the issues in that way. It should be an obvious thing.
Because we're dealing with the Public Accounts of Canada, I think the person should be a federalist, not a separatist. Someone who's dealing with the Public Accounts of Canada should be concerned about Canada and want to see them handled properly.
An hon. member: Hear, hear!
Mr. Strahl: If you want to handle the public accounts of Quebec, then certainly there's a provincial government to do that under. But if you want to handle the public accounts of all of Canada - including Quebec - you should be Canadian. I think that would be an excellent qualification for someone who's going to chair one of the most important committees of Parliament.
That's just a short list of qualifications. Certainly John Williams fits that list, and I think for that reason he should be considered for the chair position.
The Clerk: Next on my list is Monsieur Duceppe.
[Translation]
Mr. Duceppe: I move, Clerk, that we proceed immediately to vote on whether we will vote by secret ballot or by show of hands and then that we proceed immediately to vote on Mr. Abbott's motion to elect Mr. Williams as Chair.
The Clerk: Do we have the unanimous consent of the members who are entitled to vote? Is there an eligible member who is opposed to a secret ballot?
We cannot operate by majority rule. The only motion that I can put to the committee is the one moving the election of the committee Chair. Everything else requires unanimous consent.
Are all members in favour of proceeding by way of a secret ballot? If 12 committee members agree...
Some hon. members: No.
The Clerk: No. Then we cannot proceed with a secret ballot. Resuming debate.
Mr. Duceppe: Moving on to Mr. Abbott's motion, I ask...
The Clerk: Unanimous consent is required to go to Mr. Abbott's motion.
[English]
Mr. Abbott: Someone will have to brief me here. I have never heard of an electoral process where the candidates were voted on one at a time. I have run for office a number of times in my life, but this is novel. Perhaps the clerk could explain to us the precedents for voting on candidates for any office one at a time, as opposed to on an electoral ballot voting one on the other.
I believe Mr. Boudria said this on May 30, 1991.
Mr. Boudria: And I was ruled out of order.
The Clerk: There's no consent to go to Mr. Abbott's motion, so we are still on -
[Translation]
Mr. Duceppe: We can proceed with the vote on the Reform Party's motion.
[English]
Mr. Ringma: Can we proceed with recording the vote?
[Translation]
Mr. Duceppe: Absolutely.
[English]
Mr. Boudria: Let's vote.
The Clerk: Is there consent to proceed with the motion of Mr. Abbott?
Some hon. members: Yes.
Mr. Hopkins: Mr. Chair, I had my hand up because something was said here that -
[Translation]
Mr. Duceppe: There is no point of order.
[English]
An hon. member: Put the question.
The Clerk: I cannot put the question if there are members who wish to speak.
Mr. Hopkins, if you want to speak, you are entitled to speak.
Mr. Hopkins: I said my interests are in the practices of Parliament that are being subverted here, if anything is.
I also want to point out that when the Liberals and the NDP were in opposition they talked to one another and conversed. They made agreements between themselves. It is not up to the Government of Canada to be the referee between two opposition parties in their argument here. It is up to us to support the practices, traditions and conventions of Parliament.
.1555
Thirty-seven years of doing the process this way may not be a long time in history, but when you consider that the country was only 91 years old when that decision was made, it's not a bad tradition in Canada in terms of historical practice.
I want to support the rules of the House of Commons that the committee guide its own fate here.
The Clerk: I have a list here. Is there anybody who wishes to speak before I have a recorded vote on the motion of Mr. Abbott?
Mr. Ringma: Just before we go to the vote, I would like it to be very clear why we appear to be obstructionist, because we have no weapons at our disposal.
It is patently clear that the government has been, and is, in collusion with the Bloc Québécois to act together to ensure that only the Bloc Québécois has the vice-chairs. The evidence of this is in all of the committees that have met in the last 10 days. Since we convened on September 18, time after time the Liberal whip has acted in concert with the BQ whip to let no Reformer pass.
We've have seen the example in the defence committee this morning, where the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Defence broke the order of the day by moving quickly to subvert any attempt by the Reform Party to nominate its own member as vice-chair. That parliamentary secretary broke the agenda to quickly nominate a BQ member to be the second vice-chair, out of order of what was to happen.
We have had evidence for 10 days solid, and the evidence is just culminating in this committee that there is collusion there. What are the reasons for it? I can only imagine that the government of the day says the real opposition around here is the Reform Party and not the Bloc. But the Reform Party is getting too big for its britches trying to defend democracy around here, so let's quell it; let's screw it down. The only other reason I can think of for the government to take this attitude is because it does not want to upset anything in Quebec, and that includes upsetting the BQ here on Parliament Hill.
So if it's quite clear to everyone that there has been a clear and determined attempt on the part of the government to keep Reform out of here, then we're ready to just go on with this farce of a vote. I hope somehow we're getting this out to the public of Canada in this regard by saying, look at this; this is what's happening, this is subversion of democracy in our country.
The Clerk: Mr. Telegdi has indicated he wishes to speak.
Ms Whelan, you're next.
Mr. Telegdi: It's not my intention to go on ad nauseam, as Reform has done, but let me just say we are operating here by convention, by previous rules. Let me express my disappointment at the Reform Party, which promised to do politics differently, at its obstructionism. It is my understanding and the understanding of my constituents that when you vote on the nation's business you do it in public, not in private. It might be acceptable to the Reform Party, but it certainly isn't acceptable to us.
Mr. Strahl: Trying to give you some courage.
Ms Whelan (Essex - Windsor): I welcome Len Hopkins to this committee. He will be an asset to this committee because, if the Reform Party was aware, we studied the defence department thoroughly. It will be nice to have somebody who has experience and knowledge in that area on this committee. We look forward to his being here, and we consider it a very important committee, not political cyberspace.
The Clerk: I am now putting the question on the motion of Mr. Abbott that Mr. Williams do take the chair of this committee.
I will call out the members' names. Please answer yeas or nays. I will call them in the order they appear on my attendance sheet.
.1600
[Translation]
An hon. member: What is the motion?
The Clerk: Mr. Abbott's motion is on the floor. He moves that Mr. Williams be elected Chair of the committee. Please indicate your choice by answering yea or nay.
[English]
Motion negatived: nays 10; yeas 2
The Clerk: So we go back to the original motion of Mr. Telegdi that Mr. Bélisle be elected chair of the committee.
Mr. Abbott: I'd like to speak to that motion, please.
The Clerk: It's a debatable motion. Mr. Abbott.
Mr. Abbott: This is an absolutely classic example of democracy gone awry. My friendMr. Hopkins has talked about the precedents in Great Britain. Well, there also happen to be precedents in Great Britain of free votes in the House of Commons for all members of Parliament who are voting on government bills. That is exactly what was promised in the red book during the last election, and that is exactly what this whip has done to make sure that he has subverted any possible uprising within the ranks that people might actually consider voting against the powerful dictates of the Prime Minister and the rest of the ministers.
Furthermore, he also said that according to custom, going back to the time of Diefenbaker, this committee was to be chaired by a member of the opposition. I do not believe it was said that it had to be a member of the official opposition. It was a member of the opposition. As a consequence, we are not breaking from precedent.
As a matter of fact, I would suggest that this government is breaking from precedent in getting into bed with a very difficult group of people who are out to break up Canada. Putting a member of that party into the position of chair to oversee the Public Accounts of Canada is an unspeakable travesty. I just cannot imagine it.
As a consequence, I am going to get up and walk out of this rather stupid exercise that we're involved in - and I encourage the rest of my Reform members to do the same.
Thank you.
Mr. Scott (Skeena): Mr. Chairman, when I come to committee meetings like this I often wonder what people in my constituency would think if they could be in the room. What would ordinary Canadians feel like if they could be in the room? I can only say that ordinary Canadians from coast to coast - and I've been to the Atlantic provinces, to Ontario, and to the prairie provinces, and I live in British Columbia - would be sickened by this exercise.
We have a red book that promises change, but we see that the change is not coming. We see the same old empty promises. We see this government engaged in backroom deals. We see the same old party line pushing the same old partisan, dictatorial, top-down management. That is unacceptable to Canadians, and you will pay the price for it.
[Translation]
Mr. Assad (Gatineau - -La Lièvre): May we begin now?
The Clerk: Mr. Boudria, you are next. Do you wish to speak?
Mr. Boudria: Certainly, Clerk. I am pleased to speak and I invite my colleagues to proceed with the vote.
[English]
The Clerk: I had other members. Does anybody wish to...?
Mr. Telegdi: There's a way for the Reform Party to become an official opposition. That's to do it in the old-fashioned way and earn it.
The Clerk: The vote is on the motion of Mr. Telegdi that Mr. Bélisle be elected chair of this committee.
Motion agreed to
The Clerk: I declare Mr. Bélisle to be the duly elected chair of the committee.
[Translation]
Mr. Bélisle, please take the chair.
.1605
The Chair: Thank you for this appointment. We will now go to the second item on the agenda, that is the election of the two vice-chairs.
[English]
Mr. Grose (Oshawa): I would like to put in the name of Andrew Telegdi for vice-chair.
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Translation]
Agreed.
The Chair: I will now hear motions for the second vice-chair. Mr. Telegdi.
[English]
Mr. Telegdi: I nominate Mark Assad as vice-chair.
The Chairman: All those in favour of Mr. Assad's nomination?
[Translation]
Agreed.
The Chair: Do we have next week's agenda?
[English]
Mr. Grose: Mr. Chair, before we do any other business, I'd like to say something. Unfortunately Mr. Abbott is not here to hear this, but I would like it to appear on the record that ``these people'', as Mr. Abbott refers to them, were elected to this assembly by citizens of Canada.
Mr. Hopkins: Mr. Chair, I have an addition to that.
Normally under our Canadian parliamentary system the party that elects the biggest number of members becomes the government, the party that elects the second largest number becomes the opposition, and the party that gets the third largest number is not the official opposition. Parliament is built on that foundation.
I didn't like it either when we were sitting in the opposition and not elected, but when you're in opposition you go ahead and work and you become the government. But don't downgrade other people for lack of democracy when we are indeed here on the Hill supporting the traditions, the practices, and so on that have been the rule of the day for the House of Commons over the years. Let's not forget that we do indeed have a Constitution on which all this is based.
I want to repeat that in Britain third parties are not considered in the system. Our traditions come from that form of government. So I'm surprised to hear all this stuff that there's no democracy. I suppose when we were in opposition we could have said the same thing. But we do have democracy in this country, and I think in the long haul people are going to look back and say that it's been a pretty good system. I don't think we should go around casting aspersions on everybody else.
I've seen 30 years of this place and the way it works, and I don't want to see the baby thrown out with the bathwater as far as parliamentary practices, parliamentary traditions, and a parliamentary committee system are concerned. So let's move ahead with a better rapport, because no institution can work where people are at loggerheads with one another continually, day in and day out.
The people didn't send us here to scream and shout and try to upset the system. They sent us here to do a job, so let's go ahead and do it and do it in the best way we can with the given circumstances. I have no qualms about Parliament. I think Parliament will proceed very well and the sun will still rise tomorrow morning.
[Translation]
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Chairman, I have been criticized today and accused of conspiring with separatists. I have been accused of being a dictator and more. I would like to take a few minutes of the committee's time to state publicly my position on this issue.
.1610
[English]
If the government, as I indicated a while ago, felt it was its privilege to choose its opposition based on ideological reasons rather than by the present system of the opposition being chosen the way that it is, can you imagine the logical end of that? First of all, the government does not choose who the official opposition is; the Speaker does. We all know that. That's the first proposition. Once that is established, it's not up to the government whip to reverse it. Could you imagine, if the government whip did try to reverse the decision of the Speaker, what the so-called defenders of democracy would be saying in this room?
The second element I think is the following. Assuming even that the whip did have that power and exercised it, well, then what? Would the whip or the government be justified in choosing...well, if the third party should be the official opposition, with fewer seats than the second, what's wrong with the fourth party? It has 8 seats. After all, it would be less dangerous to the government to have a party with 8 seats as the official opposition than one with 53 or 52. While we're at it, why not the Conservative Party? There are 2 of them. That's less dangerous yet. Maybe Jag Bhaduria should be the official opposition on his own.
You see where that leads us, Mr. Chairman, once you get on that slippery slope of choosing who your opponents are on ideological grounds. If I were to choose the opposition on ideological grounds, I'd probably put them all third.
That's not the issue. The issue is not whether I as a franco-Ontarian, for all the reasons everyone will understand, would sympathize with separatists. Of all people in this country, the constituents I represent probably have more to lose, if there were ever to be a yes vote, than anybody else. That's not the issue. Everyone knows that. My constituents know that. Do you think tonight my constituents are going to vilify and criticize me because I upheld, and tried to uphold with my colleagues, parliamentary democracy?
We're being told by the Reform Party that contrary to what they believe the member for Renfrew - Nipissing - Pembroke said, it would be quite correct for them to be chosen in a way that would be something equivalent to official opposition because this isn't Britain. Well, that's very interesting, because there's a specific section in our Constitution - I believe it's section 42 of the British North America Act - that says we must abide with the parliamentary principles established there unless it is otherwise stated in our own laws. There's no choice about it. In fact, what is there as a rule is not there only for Britain, it's also there for us. I didn't make it that way; that was there a long time before I ever came along.
But this business that somehow I should be dragged into an argument between the two opposition parties when negotiations broke down two years ago at a time when I wasn't even the whip of my own party...and I don't know why they broke down. I heard both versions. One party said they made offers. The other one said they weren't good enough. Then they stopped talking to each other. Well, that's their problem, not mine. As far as I'm concerned, if the official opposition didn't give up any of its positions to the third party, why should I pretend that they did? It's not up to me to say. That's done. I wasn't even there at the time.
I want to conclude by repeating what I said initially. Any action other than the one that is being followed would be a subversion of democracy as we know it in this country. For someone to pretend you can choose your opposition based on whether or not you like them better than another political party rather than on numerical grounds is absolute nonsense.
[Translation]
I am convinced, Mr. Chairman, that those who made statements similar to this today know this as well as I do.
[English]
Mr. Hopkins: It would be a subversion of Parliament itself.
.1615
[Translation]
Mr. Boudria: Yes, indeed it would. And if they don't know it, I have serious questions about their ability to carry out their duties in Parliament, particularly in the case of those who hold positions in this political party and claim to be leaders.
That's all I wanted to say.
Mr. Duceppe: Mr. Chairman, before commenting on the substance of this matter, I would like to focus on the government whip's statement that a Yes vote would be very bad for francophones. History, I think, has proven the contrary. Under the federal system, the rate of assimilation of francophones has increased in Canada. In Ontario, it is increasing by 25% from one generation to the next. The situation is worse in the Prairies and in British Columbia. In Acadia, the rate of assimilation is 8.7%. I think the government whip is against the Bloc Québécois because he is a Liberal. That's the real reason. However, he's entitled to his views and I respect him. That's the way it should be.
Getting back to the issue at hand, I would say that Parliament functions essentially because of two things: precedents and the ability to negotiate. Precedents are often the result of negotiations. Negotiated agreements become precedents for future legislatures.
That's what lends the British parliamentary system its imaginative character and ensures its continued survival. Even a sovereign Quebec would be very proud of this fact. The Quebec parliament has been around since 1791 and is the oldest parliament in North America. This is proof of our long-standing attachment to such traditions.
Since a party distinguishes itself by virtue of its compliance with rules and its ability to negotiate, we must conclude that the Reform Party has failed on both scores.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Laurin.
Mr. Laurin (Joliette): I will be brief, Mr. Chairman. I want to focus on one part of the Reform Party's argument which I find extremely serious.
They accuse the committee of acting undemocratically because they were unable to have one of their representatives elected to the chair. Yet, the fact that anyone can move a motion, put it to a vote and accept the decision of the majority, that is democracy. That is what happened. The Reform Party had the opportunity to nominate a candidate. Its choice was put to a vote and it was defeated.
The serious problem I see here is that even before we moved that a Bloc Québécois member be elected Chair, the Reform Party wanted to deny us this right because of our political ideology. If that's not anti-democratic, Mr. Chairman, then I don't know what is.
By acting in this manner, the Reform Party wanted to deny us our rights to hold certain positions on this committee. It claims that Bloc Québécois have no right to serve as vice-Chair and chair of the Public Accounts committee because their ideology clashes with that of the Reform Party.
To my mind, this illustrates once more why the members of the Bloc Québécois are here. It's because Quebeckers have repeatedly been excluded from certain meetings and decisions that a sovereigntist party came to be.
We don't have to look any further, Mr. Chairman. We see another example here this afternoon. The Reform Party has said to us: We want nothing to do with separatists. When they say they want nothing to do with Quebeckers who were democratically elected by a majority of voters, when they want to deny them the right to hold positions on the committee, as is the case this afternoon, this gives Quebeckers one more reason to say: We want nothing more to do with this system.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Laurin.
Before we adjourn, I would like the committee to agree to the motion of the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure. The subcommittee, which is composed of the Chair and two Vice-chairs - Messrs. John Williams and Alex Shepherd at the time - proposes that the committee sit on Tuesday, October 3, on Wednesday, October 4 and on Thursday, October 5. I think we don't have much of a choice in this matter, because commitments have already been made.
Therefore, does everyone agree with the proposed schedule of meetings for next week? As for the following weeks, I will sit down with Messrs. Telegdi and Assad and we will come up with some suggestions for your consideration.
I think everyone is in agreement. Thank you.
The meeting stands adjourned.