Antoine Dubé

[Supply, November 4th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with a lot of what the hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough said in his discussion of needs, particularly with respect to the frigates and other equipment.

However, today's motion seeks to increase military spending. In our view, this motion lacks precision, and vision.

I would be in favour of having more maritime equipment in the riding of Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, as the hon. member knows. We both represent ridings with a shipyard, he on the Atlantic coast, and I on the St. Lawrence River.

Given how important this issue is to him, would he agree to have a debate in this place so that we can review the national defence policy, even develop a new one if need be, before we get into any discussion of budget planning?

[Supply, October 29th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague from Châteauguay for the excellent speech he just made. We see that his training as a lawyer serves him well. He has done a good job of covering all the aspects of the issue.

However, when we use the legal terminology, we can sometimes confuse people who are not used to these issues. I think here about the terms that we often use, such as the governor in council. I would like to give my colleague the opportunity to explain that the position of governor in council is controlled by a person. I would like him to tell me who this person is.

I would also like him to indicate to me whether he thinks that it is right and democratic, as other colleagues of the Bloc Quebecois think, that this person has way too many powers in his hands. In fact, this person has the power to appoint indirectly and directly—because he is the one with the authority—3,500 people.

I would simply like to point out something that just happened at noon, that is a few hours ago, I believe. The Board of Internal Economy has finally agreed with the proposal of holding a secret vote for chairs and vice-chairs of committees, and I am happy about this.

[Supply, October 29th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate the hon. member for Rimouski-Neigette-et-la Mitis on her enthusiastic speech, particularly because she was able to look at the key words, such as the term automatically. Liberal Party members are trying to tell us that this is what is being done right now.

I wonder if the hon. member could elaborate on this issue, particularly as regards everything that goes on before an appointment is confirmed.

Finally, at present, a member can ask, when an appointment is the object of petitions and a topic of current interest in the media, that the persons involved be called for a hearing. Of course, under the current process, it might be possible to have these people appear, but since they have already been appointed, we are before a fait accompli.

I wonder if the hon. member could tell us more about her views on this issue.

[Supply, October 29th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, oddly enough, the member who just spoke is a member of cabinet and she just asked a whole series of questions.

All through her speech, she spoke about the American system. I was wondering if she could say the same thing knowing that she would be heard by the U.S. government.

I will talk about something else. She repeated the position stated this morning by the government House leader that the motion brought forward by the member for Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier is almost identical to one of the suggestions made by the member for LaSalle—Émard, a leadership candidate, a contender for the job of Prime Minister.

Can the member tell me whether or not she thinks that the member for LaSalle—Émard is wrong when he says that he wants to bring in parliamentary reforms, particularly with regard to committees?

Can she tell me whether or not the member for LaSalle—Émard is right? Can she state her position on that? Is he right, yes or no?

[Supply, October 29th, 2002]

Madame Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. In terms of free votes, we really have to be careful about a few points.

Free votes are allowed in certain countries. However, free votes without restriction can lead to excesses. For instance, observers in the United States deplore the fact that votes are freer in that country. However, this can lead to more interference on the part of lobbyists or people who are bent on imposing their point of view. This in turn leads to a higher risk of bribery. In countries where there are no free votes and where everything is decided ahead of time, only the PMO might be tempted by that. But this is not the point of his question.

I would be in favour of more free votes, especially on matters of personal values and so on. However, there would need to be limits. We must push ahead on this, nonetheless. What we see currently--a case in point being the Liberals refusing to have committee chairs elected by secret ballot--is that the people across the way are not free to do what they want even when it comes to votes regarding committees.

[Supply, October 29th, 2002]

On the face of it, the member is absolutely right on this issue. We cannot say that something is automatic and conditional at the same time. An automatic transmission does not involve gear changes.

The member is absolutely right. This gives me the opportunity to remind the House of the two ifs in question. If an opposition member or even a government member has to ask for something—but we know that a government will not ask, at present—and if the Liberal majority is in agreement, what is automatic? Nothing, of course. Instead, the automatic process is reversed. If no one notices it or raises it, if no one asks for it and if the Liberal majority notices that nothing is happening in the country, in the newspapers, in demonstrations or in petitions, and what not, it is all these ifs put together that might be discussed.

But what is even worse is that, even if the person in question is called before the committee, all the other ifs that applied before remain. If the committee thinks at some point that things are starting to get hot or that they might get hot, the majority can say at any time that there has been enough talking and that they have to move on to something else.

So, in the end, what is the point of calling people? You will perhaps think that this is a light answer, but there is a maxim that says that there are two definitions of democracy: there is one where everything is forbidden, where someone has no right to do anything, as we see in some dictatorships; and there is the other one, the Canadian one, which is typical of the current Prime Minister, something like, “You can say whatever you want”, nothing will change.

[Supply, October 29th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I could have asked the member for Mercier about the merits of today's motion in amendment, but I will use my allotted time to speak in support of the amendment.

This morning, the government House leader spoke to the motion introduced by the member for Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier. I congratulate the hon. member on having introduced this motion and also on his speech on this matter. He made an eloquent plea. Using his obvious legal background and his increasing political experience, he made the right political arguments in favour of greater democracy. I congratulate him on this initiative.

The government House leader forgot to talk about a key word in the motion, and that is the word “automatically”. He said we could use Standing Order 111 in particular to hear appointees before a parliamentary committee. We may hear them, but if those people are already appointed, it becomes difficult to change the decision. In order to demonstrate their incompetence, a certain number of facts have to be proven to have the appointment process reversed.

There is also quite rightly the argument submitted by my colleague from Mercier, who said that a member of the opposition might submit that, but that there would always be the issue of the government majority. Nothing being secret and the Liberal government being a majority government, it could have used its majority to make its members toe to the party line and not summon former minister Gagliano who is now ambassador to Denmark. Why did the government majority agree to hear him? It did so because of the public pressure and the considerable number of articles by commentators of all sorts demanding that he be sent for. This was the topic of the day, with the circumstances which led Prime Minister to replace Mr. Gagliano. Of course, in order to save appearances, the Liberal majority allowed us to hear Mr. Gagliano and ask him questions. Predictably, once this exercise was completed, the Liberal majority decided that former minister Gagliano could continue in his position as ambassador, a position which he still holds today.

The amendment moved by the hon. member for Mercier to the motion by the hon. member for Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier is extremely important. The Chair has ruled the amendment in order. The amendment specifies “before confirmation of the said appointments”. Obviously, appointments should be considered be before they are confirmed. If the decisions have already been made, it would be a situation similar to the one we had when the Prime Minister allowed the House to have a debate on the situation in Iraq. On the second day of the present session, the Prime Minister was presented with an award in New York, after which the American media asked for his opinion. He almost gave his unconditional approval to President Bush when a debate was being held in the House.

It is fine to have people appear before committees in certain situations, but the hon. member for Mercier just mentioned that Parliament is not always in session. It does not sit during the summer or the holiday season. I pointed this out myself. The government often makes appointments at such times, especially during the summer, knowing that people are vacationing, that the media are less interested in politics, that the members are not sitting, and that committees are not busy working. Incidentally, many committees are not sitting right now, because chairs and vice-chairs have not been elected. And all the while, the thirty days are in effect. This is democracy the Canadian way.

I am a member of the Subcommittee on Human Rights. Canada is trying to protect its good reputation. Through its officials, including ambassadors, elected members of Parliament and ministers, Canada condemns human rights violations in various countries, but here we are almost witnessing a rejection of the laws governing democracy.

We find ourselves in a situation where the Prime Minister enjoys a majority in the House. He is not elected directly, as is the case in most western countries. For example, before sending troops or taking any military action, the President of the U.S. must obtain a resolution from both houses, as is the case elsewhere. But the Prime Minister is elected by the members of the Liberal Party. The hon. member for LaSalle—Émard has been silent on this issue. If he becomes Prime Minister, he will find himself in the same situation and he will be able to appoint whoever he wants. There are 3,500 positions, including those of Governor General, lieutenant-governors, senators, justices, heads of Crown corporations, members of boards such as those of the Quebec City port, the Quebec City airport and the commission that deals with the Plains of Abraham. I am giving specific examples from the Quebec City area, but the Prime Minister appoints people everywhere in Canada, personally or through the governor in council, which is in fact his cabinet.

He also appoints ministers, and they are warned. They must not contradict the Prime Minister, who is the person with the most power, considering the size and the relative weight of Canada in the world. Of course, he does not have the same financial capacity as the President of the U.S. or of the Prime Minister of Great Britain, but the Prime Minister of Canada currently holds most of the powers in his hands. One simply has to watch members opposite. They almost feel like saying, “Yes, the hon. member for Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière is right”. This evening, they will vote on the amendment and the motion. Those who support the former Minister of Finance will have a dilemma. The former minister agrees with this proposal, since he suggested it 15 days ago. We will see if he comes to vote this evening and how he will vote. One would normally expect those who will support him in the coming leadership race to be logical and support one of his proposals. I hope that these members will vote according to their position and will not support the position defended this morning by the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, who was playing on words when he used the term may, which does not mean automatically.

As I said before, during the summer recess and other periods when the House is not sitting and when issues or appointments go unnoticed and do not generate controversy, editorials, public protest or petitions, if nothing is changed, the Liberal majority will be able to continue doing exactly what the Prime Minister wants, because it is its future which is at stake.

Indeed, these people could be appointed parliamentary secretaries one day. They could become, like certain defeated Liberal candidates, associates of or assistants to Crown corporation presidents appointed by the Prime Minister.

[Supply, October 29th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, the question raised by the hon. member for Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier is very important. Observers who have been here, like us, for the past nine years, around and on Parliament Hill, are beginning to get to know a lot of people. People start to talk a bit more after nine years. I do not know if, like me, he has heard civil servants and even senior officials say that the system is really deeply rooted, which means it has been in existence for some time now.

Except for the nine years the Conservative Party under Brian Mulroney was in office, the Liberals have been running this country for a very long time. In fact, people have secretly told us that the same system exists at the lower echelons. It does not affect only heads of crown corporations or deputy ministers. Since this is widespread, despite all the goodwill in the world, it will take some time to change the system.

Since he is a young member of Parliament, we cannot blame him for past mistakes. Could he suggest how to change things around?

[Supply, October 29th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague on his speech.

He stated his position in support of the motion brought forward by the member for Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier. I have had the opportunity to work with the member on a number of occasions over the last few years because of the responsibilities he has held with regard to foreign affairs. Like him, I have noticed that many appointments to ambassador positions are political. The former public works minister is an example, but there are other ambassadors as well. I am also thinking of government corporations such as the Canada Post Corporation. I would like him to comment on the fact that many of these appointees are Liberal candidates who were defeated.

[Supply, October 29th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, invited to answer a question by my colleague, I underlined his acting talents. The government House leader showed us another of his talents, the art of diversion.

I will ask him a very specific question. In his reply, when he said that the hon. member for Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier had asked if that existed already, he was wrong. If he reads properly, he will find that the wording is automatically and not by representation, on request and certain committees.

To put this in the right perspective, it is about Mr. Gagliano, the former Minister of Public Works and Government Services, and the Department of Foreign Affairs.

Indeed, on the issue of ambassadors representing Canada abroad, the hon. member of Mercier found that part of the Standing Orders, but for that case only. I would like to give you other examples where this past of the Standing Orders was used by other committees.

He said the member was not well prepared. So, let us hear his answer. If he is so well prepared, he will able to say “here are all the cases where this was invoked”. So I am inviting him to read the word automatically properly, instead of the word may.