While scandal after scandal rocks the
liberal government, and corruption runs rampant, I’m trying to bring more
democracy and accountability back to the House of Commons.
It’s an uphill battle, however, since the Prime Minister holds all the
procedural levers of government. By
doing this, he strangles the initiative and effectiveness of MPs and chokes the
life and vibrancy out of Parliament. Consider
the following: the Prime Minister dictates to all his members how they will vote
on government legislation; he appoints all Senators when a seat becomes vacant;
appoints all Supreme Court justices; and over 5,000 other positions inside the
government bureaucracy. What kind
of influence does an ordinary Member of Parliament have when compared to the
Prime Minister? Almost none.
One area that could loosen the grip the
P.M. has on the parliamentary agenda is Private Members Business. But in order to do that, there must be sweeping reforms to
the way Private Members Business is handled in the House of Commons.
Private Members Business allows MPs not in cabinet to submit legislation
or motions for debate, but the debate on these motions or bills is limited to
one hour. Yet much of Private
Members Business merits serious consideration and much more than one hour of
debate.
Private Members Business, in theory,
should allow backbench MPs to play an important role in correcting flaws to
previously enacted legislation, and make excellent recommendations for future
initiatives in government. The
present practise of the House is to refer the decisions on how Private Members
bills and motions should be treated to a committee.
This committee decides in secret, which bills or motions are of value,
and whether they can be voted upon. They
do not have any requirement to provide the rationale of their decision to
anyone.
These bills and motions are then
selected by lottery every six weeks or when the number of Private Members
Business items begins to get low on the House of Commons’ agenda.
Those that are lucky enough to “win” the lottery go before the
committee who then decides whether the motion or bill should be voted on or not.
The vast majority are never given votable status even though they all
usually meet the criteria set out for votability.
But because the spirit of the motions or bills may not agree with the
views of the committee members, they almost always get one hour of debate and
then die on the floor of the House. Those
motions or bills that are deemed to be votable get 3 hours for debate, and are
then voted upon.
A Private Members bill that comes to
mind, which deserved to have three hours of debate and a vote, was one put
forward by my colleague Germant Grewal, MP for Surrey Central, in British
Columbia. Mr. Grewal created a bill
that would have protected those in the civil service from any retaliation or
discrimination if they reported waste, fraud, abuse of authority, violation of
law, or threats to the public’s health and safety.
Such a law would protect those civil servants who do their job with pride
and feel compelled to blow the whistle on improprieties in their department.
It would also help to keep the government accountable.
In the last few weeks, we have seen how corruption and sleaze have been
kept hidden in the Liberal government. If
Mr. Grewal’s bill had been deemed votable, we would have had a more effective
and accountable government.
Why should Private Members Business have
a major overhaul? The reason is
that reforms would hopefully bring a bit of democracy back to Ottawa.
The Prime Minister’s control over the House of Commons’ agenda has
squeezed the life out of Parliament. MPs
that should be making decisions on key issues don’t really get to since these
concerns never have to be voted on, or never make it to the floor of the House.
Private Members Business is one of the
few times where Members can vote freely. This
practise should continue, however, it should be applied to all bills –
government or private. MPs should
be allowed to listen to both sides of the debate and make their decision based
on this. This could potentially
revolutionize the way we do things in Parliament.
With such a change in procedure in the House there would inevitably have
to be several other changes as well. Perhaps
each member would have to be limited to one item in each session of Parliament,
or in each term. Maybe some items
would receive more or less time for debate.
These minor changes can be easily worked out.
The growing apathy and cynicism many
Canadians have towards parliamentarians is a major concern to me.
It is my hope that we can address this feeling by reconnecting with
Canadians. We all need to take more
of an interest in the issues and challenges facing our country and how they are
being addressed in Parliament. This
is why I hope reforms to Private Members Business are made as soon as possible.
If Canadians saw that they could influence the agenda of Parliament
through their MP and, in turn, take responsibility for how they are governed,
democracy would be revitalized dramatically.
By placing more responsibility with MPs, we provide more responsibility
to the people who elect them. The
helpless feeling most Canadians now experience between elections would change as
they could have continuous input into the decisions being made in Ottawa.
Dramatic reforms such as this would shake the comfort zone of the Prime Minister and those around him. A change like this could lead to a real turnaround in Canadian politics, and have a healthy impact on almost every aspect of Canadian life. As a result, Canadians might more closely examine federal issues affecting our great nation, thus creating a more effective, democratic society.