Lost his last election, in 2004, with 30% of the vote.
Government Contracts November 5th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, we would like to believe the former Secretary of State for Amateur Sport, but the only person who can clear up any doubt about it is the Minister of Canadian Heritage herself.
Will the minister acknowledge that by not discrediting the comments made by one of her officials at the time, she lent credence to the idea that it was the official who was giving us the straight goods, and not the former Secretary of State for Amateur Sport?
Government Contracts November 5th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Public Works repeats incessantly that everything was done according to procedure in his department. However, we now know that at the Department of Canadian Heritage, things are far less clear than they seem. The departmental official's version contradicts that of the former Secretary of State for Amateur Sport.
If anyone should know what exactly happened in her department, it would be the Minister of Canadian Heritage. Why is she refusing to answer? We want an answer.
Government Contracts November 4th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, the minister is mixing apples and oranges. It is possible that things were done properly. However, awarding contracts prematurely is another matter altogether.
Prior to the May 30, 2000 contract, Everest submitted a budget estimate in which it forecast that it would cost $60,000 to create an Internet site, a site that was launched on May 19, 2000 by the former secretary of state.
Can the Minister of Public Works affirm that Everest did no work prior to getting the contract, even though the site had been up and running for two weeks?
Government Contracts November 4th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, Everest was awarded the contract to organize consultations for the former Secretary of State for Amateur Sport on May 30, 2000.
However, the former secretary of state's tour began June 2 and 3 in Fredericton, only three days after Everest was awarded the contract.
Would the Minister of Public Works and Government Services still have us believe that Everest did not start work well before the contract was signed, as the former Secretary of State for Amateur Sport wished?
Government Contracts October 29th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, on May 27, the secretary of state said to the journalists who were questioning him to find out who had awarded the half a million dollar contract to Everest, “Well, the question must be put to Canadian Heritage, because this comes under the purview of Canadian Heritage”.
I would like an answer from the Minister of Canadian Heritage. Why did she recommend that Everest be hired to organize the tour of the secretary of state?
Government Contracts October 29th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, we know that when Groupe Everest was hired to organize the tour of the Secretary of State for Amateur Sport, Canadian Heritage officials did not know anything about the expertise of that firm, but they nevertheless recommended that it be hired.
Since these officials did not know about the firm's qualifications, it must be concluded that this recommendation was the result of political interference. My question to the minister is: Did this political interference come from her or from the secretary of state?
Supply October 29th, 2002
Madam Speaker, it does not make any sense. My colleague just read it. One does not need a master's degree in law to know that the conditional is about conditions. Hence, as a condition, we say that, if something happens, “we will do this”. This is not necessary and automatic.
It is thus urgent and important that there be immediate transparency on an issue such as this one. We are talking about 3,500 high level positions. It is not simply the Prime Minister of Canada who should decide about these positions. There must absolutely be some transparency for democracy and freedom to exist in this country. The decision about such influential positions must be removed from the Prime Minister's hands.
What I want to say to my colleague is that the response given by the government House leader shows one thing: either he has not read the motion and the amendment moved by the Bloc Quebecois, or he does not know verbs in the conditional or the definition of the word “condition”. When we say that all this must—
Supply October 29th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, of course I want to thank the hon. member for Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière. It is very important that people clearly understand the issue.
Earlier, I explained the appointment process for the governor in council, where those who are appointed to certain positions come from and who gives advice to ministers. I also explained how all this takes place. However, the decision is made—as we know—in the Prime Minister's office. It is the Prime Minister himself who decides. We are talking here about 3,500 positions.
Imagine the number of important people appointed to such prestigious positions as heads of crown corporations, embassies and so on. I listed several of them earlier. This is unbelievable. A number of administrators are also appointed to head foundations.
Imagine all the important positions for which these people practically do not have to demonstrate their competence and experience to a transparent House committee made up of members representing Parliament.
Voters absolutely want to know what appointees do. The best example is the case of the current Ambassador to Denmark, Mr. Gagliano. It is unbelievable that, after the sponsorship scandal that we condemned in this House, he was appointed Ambassador to Denmark, so that he would no longer be accountable. His answers were obviously very vague and, often, the answers came from other people. So, this individual was appointed Ambassador to Denmark without our being able to consider his qualifications
This is just an example and people took note of this situation. It became a public matter and the media talked about it. In fact, we are still talking about it, because the problems relating to the sponsorship program are not resolved. We are still looking at a number of dubious aspects of this program and of the contracts that were awarded.
This is but one position and we are talking about 3,500 positions. As regards the motion of the hon. member for Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, and the amendment of the hon. member for Mercier, we must, before an appointment can take effect, be able to take a look at the competence and experience of those whom we want to appoint to key and very influential positions all across Canada.
Supply October 29th, 2002
Madam Speaker, as you know, our motion today—with the amendment moved by our colleague, the hon. member for Mercier, of course—is very comprehensive, but it is quite different from what we are hearing from the members opposite.
It is essentially designed to enforce a legislative mechanism that recognizes our role as parliamentarians here in the House. Accordingly, the motion put forward by the Bloc Quebecois, as well as the amendments, clearly reaffirm the mandate that we have been given by the citizens of Quebec and Canada.
We believe that such a review process will result in an enhanced appreciation of our role here, on behalf of the constituents in our ridings.
It has become obvious, and urgent, specifically since scandals keep popping up, that we must act with transparency in order to win over the confidence the population. We are not talking about reinventing the wheel, simply letting it be known that cronies and political friends can no longer call all the shots.
We are talking about transparency in how the government operates. We remain cautious. We have seen some people now calling for increased transparency; yet a few years ago, these same people voted against a similar motion to designate an independent ethics counsellor. How are people supposed to believe in a government that makes no bones about rewarding its friends on our tab?
What is the current procedure for order in council appointments? It is up to the governor in council, upon the recommendation of the Privy Council, to make the aforementioned appointments. There are close to 3,500 positions that are filled this way.
Among these are positions of federal judges, heads of posts abroad, deputy ministers, directors and members of organizations, chief executive officers and directors of Crown corporations, and returning officers.
Their varied responsibilities range from quasi-legal decisions to the administration of large corporations, to recommendations on socio-economic development.
The recommendations for appointments come from a number of sources, including the worlds of politics, business, academia, the senior public service and interest groups. In addition, for most of the term appointments, competent candidates are recruited through public notices appearing in the Canada Gazette .
The head of the organization concerned, the minister's office, the department itself, the Director of Appointments in the PMO, the Management Priorities and Senior Personnel Secretariat, the Office of the Ethics Counsellor, the Assistant Clerk of the Privy Council, all have a part to play in Governor in Council appointments.
The heads of organizations or chairmen of the board in the case of crown corporations, consult the minister responsible on the appointments required within their organization, and share with him or her their opinion on the desired qualifications for the future members.
In addition, these administrators make recommendations on appointment renewals for outgoing members. I must also point out that they also present the minister responsible with a list of requirements for positions that are vacant or about to become vacant.
Given that these heads of organizations are responsible for the efficient running of their organization, they have a duty to keep the minister responsible reformed of all changes that occur in their membership as the result of resignations.
They must also inform the minister responsible of any situation liable to become sensitive or controversial in connection with Governor in Council appointments within their organization. Finally, they are required to assess the performance of appointees.
The staff of the designated department support the minister in formulating appointment recommendations by preparing the necessary documentation for submission to the Governor in Council.
The appointment director gives political advice to the Prime Minister concerning appointments. Ministers consult the office of the director to draft recommendations in this respect.
Those appointed by order in council must carry out their duties in the public best interest. Their impartiality must be beyond reproach.
The Standing Orders of the House of Commons provide that the House of Commons standing committees, which are made up of members from every political party, have the power to review every non-judicial appointment made by the government of Canada. As we saw, this is not done automatically. It only happens when a committee decides to do it.
However, it is important to note that the tabling of an order in council does not prevent an appointee from assuming his or her responsibilities in the organization to which he or she was appointed. The committee does not have a veto over these appointments.
Asking that some of these appointments be reviewed by the appropriate House committee is normal and highly desirable. It is the broader problem of the government's transparency which led us to move this motion and of course the amendment too. It must be remembered that democracy becomes meaningless and powerless when it lacks transparency.
Through this motion, the Bloc Quebecois is proposing specific goals to make the government transparent.
First, committee review ensures transparency. Thus, parliamentarians will exercise their mandate openly and publicly, in turn helping to establish a clear and non-partisan approach.
Second, the purpose of committee review is to allow Parliament to have a say. This has to do with our role as elected representatives. We were all elected. This means that we have a mandate as representatives before a legislative assembly. We are trying here to fulfill our mandate with regard to visibility.
Third, there are committee reviews so that the appointees know that they owe their position not only to the Prime Minister, but to all Canadians and Quebeckers.
Fourth, there are committee reviews to make sure that appointments are not used to reward past members and former friends. This goal is also aimed at retired elected officials or those who served the Prime Minister well.
Fifth, committee reviews send the message that there is indeed a democratic deficit in the Parliament of Canada.
Last, with committee reviews we will see whether certain people who are promoting the same ideas will be true to their words. I will not name any name, but I think we all know whom I am talking about.
There is a temptation, of course, to hide behind a veil of secrecy, which makes it easier to act more freely without the need for explanations. We have to remember, however, that we live in a democracy which is rooted in freedom.
Freedom implicitly and explicitly includes knowledge. We have the right to know about the appointment process and the qualifications of those who will eventually be chosen to carry out the duties the public assigns to them.
Ensuring transparency does not mean violating the rights of the candidates, but it does involve reviewing their appointments. The process must be crystal clear. If it is, then appointees will be selected according to their qualifications and experience, and not their political connections.
The public is right to demand transparency. As the Auditor General stated when he tabled his report on February 6, 2001:
Crown corporations account for a significant portion of government activity and play a key role in achieving public policy. It is critical that, as public sector bodies, they be governed well if taxpayers' money is to be well spent.
People take a cynical view of what happens here and we have the obligation and duty to correct a situation which has gone on for too long.
Questionable appointments should not be considered normal. This has to stop. As parliamentarians, we need to act and implement specific measures to put things right again.
What we have to look for from now on is qualified appointees. This would help to boost the image of parliamentarians and justify today's debate.
I see that my time has run out.
Jean-Luc Brassard October 28th, 2002
Mr. Speaker, my colleagues from the Bloc Quebecois join me in paying tribute to an internationally renowned athlete from Quebec.
Freestyle skier, Jean-Luc Brassard, of Valleyfield, has just announced his retirement from competition. We would like to thank him for his exemplary involvement in Quebec's sporting world. He laced up skis for the first time at the age of seven. From then on, he made his mark with a mix of optimism and courage.
In 1991, when he was only 18 years old, Brassard was the youngest skier ever to win the World Cup.Crowned world champion in 1993 and 1997, Jean-Luc also won the World Cup on three occasions, 1993, 1996 and 1997.
Throughout the world, this decorated athlete always served as a well-known ambassador for Quebec. Jean-Luc has given us the desire to excel, the taste of victory, but most importantly, the desire to have fun.
Bravo and thank you, Jean-Luc. We are proud of you.