House of Commons Hansard #9 of the 37th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was opposition.
Stan Keyes Liberal Hamilton West, ON
Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, having given that brief explanation, I think the subamendment is in order because it seeks to clarify the amendment that had been put forward in somewhat of a stunt fashion by the opposition. It clarifies for yourself and for the House that we want a continuation of exactly what the motion addresses.
Ghislain Lebel Bloc Chambly, QC
Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to this debate for a while and I want to warn the Chair that the proposal by the party currently in power will literally change the nature of opposition days in the House.
What we call an opposition day, unfortunately for the government, is not generally a day of praise. What the House leader of the party in office has said will turn opposition days to the advantage of the party in power.
To remedy that there will be a vote this evening, or a deferred vote, if the party in power does not agree with the proposal and the amendment by the opposition parties. It can always catch up, with its parliamentary majority, in the vote at the end of the day.
I therefore ask that the Chair pay careful attention to avoid creating a dangerous precedent for the opposition, which is in the minority in the House, as we all know.
Jim Abbott Canadian Alliance Kootenay—Columbia, BC
Mr. Speaker, as a scholar of the affairs of the House, I am sure you of all people would be aware of the reason for the amendment in the first place. It became a practice of the House back in 1993 and has been a standing practice of the House since then.
I believe you would agree with me that in addition to Erskine May, Beauchesne's and the rulings of the Speaker, the House over a period of time does come to certain practices. This has been an accepted practice from the time I became a member of parliament in 1993.
If you permit the subamendment as stated, which basically eviscerates or guts the opposition motion, you will have created a situation where the opposition parties will no longer be able to bring to the attention of the House motions that are contrary to what the government would prefer to have in the House. That is the purpose of opposition day. You would be setting a precedent, Mr. Speaker, and I suggest that it would not be a good precedent.
Bill Blaikie NDP Winnipeg—Transcona, MB
Mr. Speaker, it might be helpful to the Chair in deciding this issue so that we can get on with the debate, to refer to Marleau and Montpetit's House of Commons Procedure and Practice . On page 453 in chapter 12 it states:
An amendment should be framed so that, if agreed to, it will leave the main motion intelligible and consistent with itself.
In elaborating on this point, it goes on to say that an amendment should be out of order if it would produce the same result as the defeat of the main motion.
I would contend that the government subamendment in this case is designed to do exactly what subamendments should not be designed to do. This subamendment, if adopted, would make the original motion as amended inconsistent with itself. It would be inconsistent with the claim of the opposition that a particular policy has not been implemented and must now be implemented and, as amended, immediately implemented. The insertion of the words continue to implement is inconsistent with the main motion insofar as the word continue implies that this policy is being implemented when the contention of the motion is that it is not being implemented. Therefore, the passage of that particular subamendment would in effect produce the same result as the defeat of the main motion.
On those grounds it would seem to me, Mr. Speaker, that you would have ample room to not only rule technically that this subamendment is out of order, but also to save supply days for the purpose for which they were created, which is for the opposition to lay down a motion that must be debated on the opposition's terms. If you do not, I submit that you will be creating a problem that will grow in proportion. As supply days continue the government will have secured a loophole if you rule differently than the opposition is advising on this and it will not be healthy for the House.
I also suggest that it would not be healthy for the government House leader's relationships with the opposition. I say to him that this is inconsistent with the relationship that I think he has tried to establish with the opposition.
SupplyGovernment Orders
The Speaker
I think the Chair has heard enough on this point.
In my opinion I have already heard a lot of members. The quote from this book has already been cited in the House. I give the floor to the hon. Bloc Quebecois whip, and this will be absolutely the last intervention.
Stéphane Bergeron Bloc Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC
Mr. Speaker, I realize that several quotes from Marleau-Montpetit were submitted to the Chair on the admissibility of motions in amendment and, in this particular case, regarding the very nature of the main motion.
I would like to quote an excerpt from Marleau-Montpetit dealing with your responsibilities vis-à-vis the minority in the House, namely opposition parties which unanimously share the same view on this issue. On pages 260 and 261, it says:
The duties of the Speaker of the House of Commons require balancing the rights and interests of the majority and minority in the House to ensure that the public business is efficiently transacted and that the interests of all parts of the House are advocated and protected against the use of arbitrary authority. It is in this spirit that the Speaker, as chief servant of the House, applies the rules. The Speaker is the servant, not of any part of the House or any majority in the House, but of the entire institution and the best interests of the House as distilled over many generations in its practices.
SupplyGovernment Orders
The Speaker
The Chair would like to thank all the members who took part in the debate on the point of order raised following the amendment to the amendment proposed by the hon. leader of the government in the House. I truly appreciate your input on this issue.
The Chair will take the matter under advisement. I propose to come back to the House with a decision at 3 o'clock, following question period, on the question of the admissibility of the subamendment.
I know hon. members have expressed a certain outrage. As a past participant in the discussions relating to these amendments and motions on supply days, both as an opposition member and as a government member involved in these kinds of arguments, I sympathize with the views expressed on both sides of the issue. I am well aware of them. I will take under advisement the matters that have been referred to Chair and the submissions. I will look at the authorities and come back to the House shortly.
Randy White Canadian Alliance Langley—Abbotsford, BC
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Can one assume that in debate we are debating the amendment?
SupplyGovernment Orders
The Speaker
The question before the House is on the amendment. The subamendment has not been put to the House and will not be until I make a ruling that it is in order.
Chuck Strahl Canadian Alliance Fraser Valley, BC
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. As I said earlier, it is very unfortunate that we have been on this point of order for the last half hour. I wonder if there would be consent of the House to extend the orders of the day for a half an hour at the end of the day to make up for it.
SupplyGovernment Orders
The Speaker
Is there unanimous consent to extend orders of the day by half an hour today?
Chuck Strahl Canadian Alliance Fraser Valley, BC
Mr. Speaker, without again getting into what I think is just a detestable move on behalf of the government House leader, I will wait for your ruling. I cannot believe he has actually done this.
The essence of his speech is that everything is glowing, everything is wonderful on the government side, democracy is going on without a hitch and life is grand.
I bring the attention of the House to two or three different quotes from independent watchdogs of parliament who say otherwise.
The access to information commissioner's report begins with “Mayday-Mayday, democracy is at risk”. The commissioner goes on to say that he has never in his 17 years on the job seen a government that has been so intransigent as the current Liberal government. In fact he said that the government routinely intimidates those who put forward legitimate requests for information.
The auditor general's report that was released yesterday states that the process of political patronage appointments is tainting the institutions where those appointments take place and tainting the political process. That is not a glowing report.
The privacy commissioner has routinely chastized the government for the intrusive actions of this government into the private lives of others.
It is no wonder that the government House leader is trying to eviscerate this motion today by pretending that all is well. He apparently does not want a watchdog with some teeth, he wants a lapdog to do his bidding.
An independent ethics counsellor who would report to the House through a standing committee instead of reporting to the Prime Minister, the guy who signs his paycheque, is the difference between night and day. By approving this motion today, not only could the Prime Minister keep his promise from the Liberal red book, but for once he could reassure Canadians that we will have a complete set of guidelines for members of parliaments and prime ministers, which we could have access to.
Yesterday members from the Progressive Conservative Party asked if they could see the ethical guidelines and could they be tabled in the House. What was the response? The Prime Minister said no. We cannot see or have access to the guidelines. In fact we are not allowed to even know to which standards we are being held.
By not giving the motion the chance to go ahead and by perhaps denying the House even a chance to vote on it, which I think is almost unspeakable, he is basically saying that the guidelines they are going to hold themselves to are their own guidelines. They make them up. Not only that, after they make them up, they keep them secret. Then they give them to somebody who judges them without calling in witnesses or doing investigations. Further, the person reports only to the person who is signing his paycheque, and finally, he releases only what he wants to release to the public.
When he said that this ethics counsellor has come before committees, he just had to throw in there that the current ethics counsellor comes before committees to talk about his estimates, about how much he spends. We cannot ask him about a ruling.
We know and I think the Canadian people know what is going on. The Liberals made a promise. The motion today was lifted verbatim out of the Liberal red book. The Prime Minister made a promise. All he has to do is follow through on the promise that was made in writing to the Canadian people. We did not change a single word. All he has to do is say that it is a good motion. In fact, they drafted it. All we want is to have a go at it and to have a vote on it.
Don Boudria Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. House leader for his question. I believe, though, that there is a certain misunderstanding or perhaps an inaccuracy in what the House leader for the official opposition has just stated. I believe he said that the guidelines for public officeholders are not public. That is not accurate. The guidelines for public officeholders are public, both category A and category B. They have been in place for a very long time and they are public.
The hon. member also said that the ethics counsellor does not report directly to parliament, but he does. Let me elaborate on this a little. The ethics counsellor reports directly to parliament for the registration of lobbyists and reports to the Prime Minister for that additional threshold of accountability that the Prime Minister asks of his own ministers in addition to the regular guidelines for public officeholders that are the exigencies of everyone else. With respect, I believe that is what the hon. member does not correctly understand.
The Prime Minister is obviously in a system known as responsible government, with a capital r . We could argue that the government is also very responsible in the regular lower case r for that matter. In the system of responsible government it is the Prime Minister who appoints cabinet and it is the Prime Minister who has the ultimate responsibility for recommending to Her Excellency to of course remove someone who is behaving in a way that is inappropriate. Therefore that responsibility is upon him and not upon anyone else, and it cannot be. I am sure none of us would want it to be otherwise. How could we ever tolerate a situation in the House where someone, a prime minister some day, could say “It is not my fault. I have nothing to do with this. Ask the ethics counsellor”.
That is not the way in which the Prime Minister does his job. This Prime Minister is accountable to parliament, does not try to pass the buck to someone else and takes full responsibility for his ministers. That is the way I believe it should be, both in terms of accountability in the House and in terms of the constitutional requirement of how it should be done.
Bill Blaikie NDP Winnipeg—Transcona, MB
Mr. Speaker, in an odd sort of way, what we see here today reinforces the point that I think the opposition has been trying to make over the last little while with respect to the Prime Minister.
Because this motion impinges on the Prime Minister's behaviour, and because it causes distress to the Prime Minister, when it comes to the Prime Minister there are no rules, or what rules there are have to be bent, twisted, ignored or reinvented, whatever the case may be when it comes to the Prime Minister.
It just seems to me that in a strange sort of way the government, by its behaviour today with respect to this motion, is reinforcing the very point that many of us on this side are trying to make: that when it comes to the Prime Minister the ordinary rules of behaviour, particularly in terms of appearance but also with respect to how certain things are handled, do not apply.
I ask the government House leader, given that this was a red book promise and that he had 20 minutes to speak, why he at least did not explain why the Liberals did not keep their promise. It was their promise, not our promise. They promised that this person would be an officer of the House. It was not something invented by the opposition.
It would seem to me that at the very least the government House leader could have taken some time, in the time that he had on his feet, to explain why the Liberals changed their minds. People change their minds. They obviously changed their minds. If they did change their minds, why did they? Or is this simply a case of a broken promise and something they did not mean to do in the first place? Could we please have an explanation?
Don Boudria Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
Mr. Speaker, the hon. House leader for the New Democrats raises two propositions, one in which he alleges that the ordinary rules of behaviour have somehow been modified for the purpose of this debate. That is factually incorrect. The hon. member has been around here so long that he has been here even longer than I and that is a long time. Of course there is another hon. member near him who has been here even longer. They will both remember, of course, that an opposition motion being amended is not something new. It is something that has been done for 50 years. To say that it has been suspended is wrong.
What the opposition, cleverly or otherwise, discovered a few years ago was to find a way of making a minor amendment to its motion to prevent someone else from offering one later. I have offered a subamendment today which I believe is acceptable. If the Speaker decides that it is not, I will certainly accept that. I hope the hon. member does the same.
Insofar as the ethics counsellor being, as I believe the hon. member said, an officer of the House, I do not believe that particular feature was ever in the red book. There was a reference to reporting directly to parliament, which he does in relation to one part of his work. He reports to the Prime Minister on the part dealing with ministers. For the part dealing with backbench MPs, all of us collectively have not yet put in place a system regarding the code of conduct for other MPs, so it does not apply there.
Richard Marceau Bloc Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, QC
Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the Bloc Quebecois whip, the hon. member for Verchères—Les-Patriotes.
Since last November 27 I have heard members of the House, either within these walls or elsewhere, including in the media, asking why there was such a poor turnout at the last federal election.
Surely one of the reasons is that the public so often feels betrayed and misled by people who do not keep their promises. When there are more people believing Elvis is still with us than people believing that politicians are to be trusted, that should send some pretty strong alarm signals to all members of this House.
For once the Canadian Alliance had a good idea: to bring before the House an issue that would normally be totally non-partisan. The proof of its non-partisan nature is that they actually repeated, word for word, a promise made in the 1993 Liberal red book, and are merely asking that it be adopted by all members of this House.
It seems that the members of the four opposition parties are the only ones who want to honour this promise originally made by the Liberals, which is ironic to say the least. Moreover, the Bloc Quebecois election platform for the year 2000 stated as follows:
The Bloc Quebecois proposes that the ethics counsellor report to the House of Commons rather than to the Prime Minister's Office.
We are therefore fully involved in this movement, which seems to be unanimous on this side of the House, to have the ethics counsellor not be answerable to a single person, the person who signs his paycheque, in other words the Prime Minister.
The purpose of this proposal in 1993—I remember the debates on it then, and nothing has changed—was to restore at least a little of the public confidence in politicians. Unfortunately the government has failed miserably at that.
It is perhaps worthwhile reminding hon. members that, since the quiet revolution, no hint of scandal has involved any Quebec political party in power, regardless of political stripe. I am referring to the Union Nationale government, the Quebec Liberal government and the Parti Quebecois government
There has been a broad consensus, the result of which is that the sorts of political and financial scandals we see on the federal scene are unheard of in Quebec. Unfortunately, or fortunately, this has been a lesson that Quebecers have learned the hard way. We went through the terrible excesses of the Duplessis period, which preceded the quiet revolution, but the problem began before that. The government of Quebec was wallowing in patronage and was helping itself to public monies.
I put myself in the shoes of a young Quebecer. A young Quebecer is amazed by the sorts of scandals we are seeing in France with the Sirven affair, in Germany with the CDU problem, in various countries, and even on the federal scene. As a young Quebecer I am rather proud, damned proud, that these sorts of scandals do not exist in Quebec.
I have heard friends or relatives talk about them, and I have read about them in history books, but they have not been seen in Quebec for the past 40 years. When someone oversteps the limits, which are very strict, they are dealt with by the courts and no more is heard about them. They are dealt with effectively and efficiently.
It is rather sad for young people to see that Duplessis-style politics have now sprung up on the federal scene. This increases young people's disillusionment with politicians in this country. It is all the sadder since the Prime Minister, who comes from an old red family, having fought the Duplessis system, has come himself to the point of setting up much the same system.
The example of Placeteco comes to mind. In it $1.2 million in public funds were squandered without an invoice to account for the spending. There is the Auberge Grand-Mère, a subject of much discussion these days. There is also the business in the riding of my colleague from Rosemont—Petite-Patrie, which—we will recall it having been brought up—magically ended up in the riding of the Prime Minister.
This sort of attitude on the part of the federal government leads it to consider the money of Quebec and Canadian taxpayers its own, so it can spend it as it likes. One of the most effective ways of stopping that is to have a man or a woman outside the parliamentary system and not accountable to the Prime Minister, who usually makes the decisions that often benefit his friends, his riding, under a very vague set of rules, but accountable instead to parliament, a bit like the auditor general.
In conclusion, the position of the Bloc Quebecois is very clear. We support this motion. I hope the Liberal government will honour its promise in 1993, when it made this proposal we all fully support.
I will conclude therefore by saying that Quebecers learned the lessons of the Duplessis system the hard way. We have built a just and fair society, which has created strict and clear rules for itself thereby ensuring there will be no scandals in Quebec.
I am truly and firmly convinced that this attitude of Quebecers in general to scandals and the need for their MNAs to be honest, augurs very well for the political system we will soon be setting up in Quebec.
Guy St-Julien Liberal Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, QC
Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the comments of the Bloc Quebecois member.
He said that the public had lost confidence in the government. Looking back at the results of the last election, it looks as though Quebecers lost confidence in the Bloc Quebecois, which lost six seats, while we made gains.
Be that as it may, in his speech, the hon. member often referred to the standards of the Quebec government. He contends that there were no scandals. I find this strange, because over the past three years, the media have reported on people being prosecuted, on scandals relating to several issues, on suspicious discretionary budgets.
How does the Bloc Quebecois explain then that, in 1994, it voted against a bill to increase transparency in the Canadian government, when in Quebec the act governing the National Assembly includes provisions such as the following:
The jurisconsult is appointed under section 74 of the Act respecting the National Assembly, on the motion of the Premier and with the approval of two-thirds of the Members, for a renewable term not exceeding five years.
Indeed, the act respecting the national assembly creates the office of jurisconsult, a position currently held by Quebec's former chief justice Claude Bisson. The jurisconsult's advisory role only extends to members of the national assembly. Several Quebec premiers have added directives that apply to cabinet members.
These rules are similar to those established at the federal level and in the other provinces.
I will conclude by saying that the responsibility of the current premier of Quebec is made even clearer in the final paragraph of the letter Mr. Bouchard wrote his ministers on January 29, 1996:
In contentious cases, the Premier (of Quebec) is responsible for the interpretation of these directives.
Is it true or not?
Richard Marceau Bloc Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, QC
Mr. Speaker, I find it scandalous that a Quebec MP can rise in this House and refer to the fact that the Quebec scene has been filled with scandals, but not be able to name a single one of them. That is scandalous.
Richard Marceau Bloc Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, QC
We can certainly list some on the federal level: Auberge Grand-Mère, Placeteco.
Speaking of the government's ethics, Tremblay—Guittet Communications received more than $2 million from the Canada Information Office and Public Works Canada. Mrs. Michelle Tremblay of that company has been involved in all Liberal election campaigns since 1988.
Communication & Stratégie also obtained more than $2 million from the CIO in order to organize federal ministerial visits to Bloc Quebecois ridings. The head of that company is Serge Paquette, who ran for the federal Liberals in the Laurentides riding.
Another buddy of the Liberal Party of Canada, Richard Mongeau, was legal counsel for the CIO, as well as its head of communications at the same time. He has since been appointed to a judgeship.
Groupe Everest and Lafleur Communications both received contracts of several million dollars, either from the CIO or from Public Works and Government Services Canada through its “initiatives sponsorships” program, and all these companies have contributed tens of thousands of dollars to the Liberal Party of Canada's campaign chest.
Richard Marceau Bloc Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, QC
I could go on. This is the kind of attitude the Canadian Alliance motion is aimed at avoiding. This is the kind of feeding from the public trough that the Liberal Party has demonstrated, this is the kind of proprietary feeling about public funds that the Alliance motion is aimed at doing away with.
This is why I am calling upon the Liberal Party, and this member in particular, to vote and to respect the Liberal campaign promise of 1993.
Serge Marcil Liberal Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC
Mr. Speaker, it is really something to see how self-righteous they are in the House, when earlier they were demanding proof that nothing is going on in Quebec City with appointments.
How is it that the husband of Pauline Marois was appointed president of the Société générale de financement?
Let the Bloc Quebecois explain to the public how they indirectly broke the law on the funding of political parties introduced by René Lévesque by inviting Mrs. Marois to a dinner to raise campaign funds?
I could provide a number of examples. Why was Mr. Larose appointed—