Suzanne Tremblay

[Supply, October 29th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I think that my colleague from Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière really picked up the substance of my speech in outlining the important words.

When the member for York West refers to Standing Orders, when the government leader refers to Standing Orders, he says that our proposal is somewhat outdated and that we do not need it. Essentially, they did not take the time to look at it.

Through our motion today, we are seeking to have people, before being officially appointed and before learning, for example, that they have to buy a ticket for Denmark, pass the test before a committee.

Being called before a committee is nothing to be ashamed of. In the United States, they even televise the committee proceedings, and people can see the nominee being interviewed.

We are not asking for much. We are asking that they at least appear before the committee comprised of MPs. We are the representatives of the people, and the people give us the mandate to appoint people who rise to the challenge and are not only members of the Liberal Party, of the Progressive Conservative Party or, perhaps one day, of the Canadian Alliance, that their main asset, credit card or diploma, is not belonging to the right party or being of the right stripe.

So, this must take place before appointments are made. This needs to take place automatically, and we need to have the power to examine qualifications and competence.

[Supply, October 29th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Châteauguay.

It is a real pleasure to speak to the motion moved by my colleague, which reads as follows:

That, in the opinion of this House, government appointments of ambassadors, consuls general and heads of regulatory bodies and Crown corporations should automatically be referred to the appropriate committee of the House of Commons for consideration, and that the relevant Standing Orders of the House of Commons should be amended accordingly.

Earlier my colleague, the member for Mercier, moved an amendment that you ruled in order, to have consideration of appointments take place, naturally, before they are confirmed.

I believe it is normal for a new government, that was elected on a given platform, to appoint people who are of the same political persuasion so as to implement the said platform.

For my part, I do not see much wrong with the Liberal government trying to appoint Liberals or the Conservative government seeking to appoint Conservatives, but on one condition: that the appointees have beyond any doubt the competence necessary to carry out the duties they are being considered for.

Last week I read in a paper that the Prime Minister in answer to a journalist said, “The first question I asked the member from Prince Edward Island was: Do you have brothers and sisters? And he said: no.” And he added that since he had no brothers or sisters, he was qualified to be a minister.

It is somewhat ridiculous to limit someone's skills to whether or not this individual has siblings. However, this is what the Prime Minister said. As long as he had no brothers or sisters, there would be no problem in terms of ethics. Therefore, he could be appointed minister.

If the Prime Minister is that flippant about appointing ministers, we can only guess how he proceeds when it comes to low-ranking officials. He must appoint around 3,500 people. They will necessarily be of the same political stripe as his party since they will owe their appointment to a minister who will have recommended them to the Prime Minister.

In this area, there is a lot of work to do to make sure we have more democracy in Canada, not less.

According to the hon. member for York West, just now, this motion was not necessary because there were already standing orders stipulating exactly the same thing. Standing Order 111(1) reads as follows:

The committee specified pursuant to Standing Orders 32(6) and 110, during the period of thirty sitting days provided...shall if it deems it appropriate, call—

The important words here are “shall if it deems it appropriate”. This is of vital importance.

First, the committee needs to deem it appropriate. If this is the case, it means that the majority of the government, which comprises the majority of all committees, must deem it appropriate. Thus, even if all members of the opposition were to deem it appropriate to meet the person whose appointment is contemplated, for example to the position of Commissioner of Official Languages or head of the CBC or the CRTC, or whatever, if the government majority did not deem this appropriate, the committee would never meet that individual.

What our proposal does is make this automatic before the appointment takes place. The important word here is “before”. It is to be done before the appointment is confirmed. There may well be prospects but these should be submitted for consideration by the committee members.

There is reference to examining candidates. This is another important term in our proposal. It must be possible to have nominees undergo a kind of oral examination to determine whether he or she has the necessary qualifications.

When Mr. Gagliano was posted as ambassador to Denmark, the committee members were denied the opportunity of examining his qualifications. Yet he appears to have had such qualifications, because the Prime Minister had selected him as ambassador. It was not sufficient to be a Liberal and to need to be distanced from possible problems related to some sponsorships. The government made sure that he was far away and could not tell us too much. But that was not what we wanted to examine him on. We wanted to examine him on his qualifications to occupy a position as ambassador and we were denied that opportunity.

Let us review Standing Order 111(2). My hon. colleague from Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier mentioned it earlier to the hon. member for York West. It reads as follows:

The committee, if it should call an appointee or nominee to appear pursuant to section (1) of this Standing Order, shall examine the qualifications and competence of the appointee or nominee to perform the duties of the post to which he or she has been appointed or nominated.

Very little would need to changed in this section to bring it into conformity with the motion we have put forward. It could read “The committee shall call a government nominee to appear pursuant to section (1) of this Standing Order, and shall examine the qualifications and competence of this person to perform the duties of the post to which he or she has been nominated”.

This would make things automatic. We could really look seriously into whether the government nominee meets more than just the qualification requirements. We can always assume that the qualification requirements are met. We are all pretty much good material. People who are not normally do not hold important positions in society. Any person considered by the government for an ambassador's position for instance would automatically appear before the committee. The government could include others, if it saw fit, but we would first be allowed to meet them to examine their competence to perform the duties awaiting them in their posting.

There are democracies, such as the United States, that have a specific system. I have no desire to imitate them. But this morning, I watched the news and saw that Lula, the new president of Brazil, was today going to appoint 50 people to put together the transition government that will take office on January 1. There are indeed other approaches besides the ones we have here, which are very obscure. There are new approaches which could, in all transparency and legitimacy, provide the public with a better picture of who is being entrusted with running important organizations that represent us, such as embassies and consulates, or chairing crown corporations, which are also important in our society.

I do hope that the government will take the time to consider the real impact of the absolutely terrific motion put forward by my colleague. We will see later this afternoon whether of not this government supports transparency.

[Health Care System, October 28th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the remarks made by my colleague. I know that accessibility is one of the fundamental principles.

He told us that all his constituents are against total privatization. I hear a lot of people, a lot of politicians, say that they are against a two-tier health care system. In Canada, we already have a three-tier or four-tier health care system in some places, and a single-tier, the lowest tier, system in other places. It is quite simple. Let us not be hypocritical. Let us just look at accessibility. Even in Rimouski, all health care services are not accessible.

What is the government of my colleague willing to do to respect the five principles for the benefit of the people of this country? It is fine to say that one is in favour of comprehensiveness, universality, portability and public administration, but what about accessibility? Personally, I live in Rimouski but I have to go to Quebec City to be treated for heart problems. The cardiologist told me that if it takes more than three hours to get to the hospital after a heart attack, the patient will die.

How many Canadian men and women risk their lives because health care is not accessible?

Personally, I would like to see an end to the empty rhetoric and more emphasis on reality.

[Copyright, October 25th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, on October 4, the Bloc Quebecois asked the government to refer the report on copyright to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, rather than to the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology, as it was rumoured at the time.

Could the Leader of the Government in the House confirm that a decision has been made and that this report will indeed be reviewed by the heritage committee?

[Women and Sports, October 25th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, this year, Women's History Month is dedicated to the physical and sporting activities of women and girls. This year's theme, Women and Sports--Champions Forever!, pays tribute to women who have reached the heights of victory.

During the 2nd Olympics in 1900, women were integrated into the Olympic Games. Since then, women have distinguished themselves in the sporting arena. Women like Sylvie Fréchette, gold medallist in synchronized swimming, Manon Rhéaume, the first woman to play in the National Hockey League, Chantal Benoît, gold medallist in wheelchair basketball, are among the Quebeckers who have shone in recent years.

The Bloc Quebecois wished to thank all women who have participated in games of the Olympiad since the beginning and highlight the determination and courage of these champions, who, thanks to their tenacity and their accomplishments, have become examples for society.

[Employment Insurance, October 9th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, a while back, the government introduced transitional measures to help the people of the North Shore and Lac-Saint-Jean region swallow the bitter pill of boundary readjustment for economic regions used for the purposes of employment insurance. With these measures, the EI eligibility rules will soon be tightened at a time when the region is hard hit by the softwood lumber crisis. Spokespersons for the Comité des sans-chemise have met with the federal minister responsible for Quebec to tell him about the problem and have expressed deep disappointment over his lack of interest.

Will the minister undertake to ensure that his government honours the commitments made in the last election campaign, when it promised to loosen up the Employment Insurance Act?

[Breast Cancer Awareness Month, October 9th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the month of October is devoted to breast cancer prevention and to increasing public awareness of this disease.

The mortality rate for this cancer has decreased 25% since 1985 among women aged 50 to 70. Every year, however, over 5,400 Canadian women still lose their lives to this disease and 20,500 are diagnosed.

It is therefore important to make women more aware that they need to take regular advantage of existing screening techniques, both personal and clinical, to protect themselves from breast cancer or ensure the best possible response to treatment. We know that early detection can boost the survival rate to 80%.

Let us spread the word so that increased awareness will mean an increased chance of a cure.

[Employment Insurance, October 8th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, no doubt the minister believes in urban legends and thinks that everything is hunky-dory when it comes to employment insurance for softwood lumber workers.

Why has the government, after withdrawing several billion dollars from the employment insurance fund every year, not decided to make a bigger effort by targeting the regions that have been hit directly and re-establishing benefits, at least for the duration of the softwood lumber crisis?

[Employment Insurance, October 8th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, thousands of workers have lost their jobs in the softwood lumber industry, mainly in regions like Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean, the North Shore, Abitibi, la Mauricie and eastern Quebec. Thousands of families have been directly affected by this crisis.

How can the government settle for such limited measures to help workers and their families, when really the whole issue of eligibility for employment insurance and the period of the benefits is what should have been reviewed in light of the drastic cuts this government has made to the employment insurance program since 1995?

[Regional Air Transportation, October 4th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, does the minister realize that by saying no to subsidies or regulations, he is encouraging Air Canada to abandon the regions, without helping small companies settle there and charge reasonable airfares?