House of Commons Hansard #17 of the 37th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was appointments.

Topics

SupplyGovernment Orders

6:05 p.m.

Liberal

Jim Karygiannis Liberal Scarborough—Agincourt, ON

Madam Speaker, my colleague across the way talked about cheap political tactics. I am just wondering whatever happened to the Reform/Alliance, when every member was going to be free to vote. They came here and we have seen what happened: the whip stood up and asked that anyone who wanted to vote otherwise. They even got rid of that. I am just wondering who is here and how dare they talk about cheap political process when they actually practise it.

SupplyGovernment Orders

6:05 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Keith Martin Canadian Alliance Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC

Madam Speaker, there is only one political party that has taken a leadership role in democratizing and reforming the House and that was the Reform Party and is the Canadian Alliance. We are the party that stood up and came to power in 1993 to bring forth documents like “Building Trust II” to be able to implement and proffer solutions that would make Canada more democratic.

We have never heard anything from that side over there, any suggestions whatsoever, to democratize this House. We have heard promises but there has been no action. For crying out loud, the member should take a look at what we have offered in this party to democratize the House and he should be thankful that we are here to make sure that he can do his job because he certainly cannot do it himself.

SupplyGovernment Orders

6:05 p.m.

Liberal

Carole-Marie Allard Liberal Laval East, QC

Madam Speaker, I thank you for giving me the opportunity to express my views on this motion. I find it surprising that the Bloc would use its allotted day to ask for changes that have already been made in our Standing Orders.

The fundamental question being asked today is how should governments go about appointing the many people who are needed to ensure the proper administration of the country and ensuring that candidates are chosen for their qualifications and not out of whim or patronage? In this kind of debate, I think it is impossible to please everybody.

In the 1980s, I was a journalist. We had a Progressive-Conservative government in Ottawa then, and the debates were the same. Naturally, it is easy for the Bloc to ask for anything and everything, because it will never hold power.

We answered these questions when we amended the Standing Orders, our rules in this House.

Extensive consultations were held to find a mechanism that would allow for a more active participation in the examination of appointments. Several recommendations were made and were included in the Standing Orders of the House. Thus, the ability of members of Parliament to examine many of the appointments mentioned in today's motion was increased.

For example, in accordance with the current Standing Orders:

A Minister of the Crown shall lay upon the Table a certified copy of an Order in Council, stating that a certain individual has been appointed to a... non-judicial post, not later than five sitting days after the Order in Council is published in the Canada Gazette. The same shall be deemed to have been referred to a standing committee specified at the time of tabling, pursuant to Standing Order 32(6), for its consideration during a period not exceeding thirty sitting days.

During this period, the minister may be asked to provide the resume of the appointee, to show his or her ability to carry out the duties.

Committee members may ask that the appointee or the nominee appearsbefore them to answer their questions on the subject.

Where the Government intends to appoint an Officer of Parliament, the Clerk of the House or the Parliamentary Librarian, the name of the proposed appointee shall be deemed referred to the appropriate standing committee... not more than thirty days following the tabling of a document concerning the proposed appointment.

The committee then has thirty days to make a motion to ratify this person's appointment.

The purpose of the Bloc Quebecois motion is, therefore, met by the Standing Orders we already have. The Standing Orders are, in fact, even more complete than the Bloc motion, in that they apply not only to the appointments listed in the motion, but to all order in council appointments.

SInce this government came to power in 1993, it has proposed some 4,300 appointments. I strongly recommend that any members unfamiliar with the procedure take the time to get familiar with House of Commons Procedure and Practice by clerks Marleau and Montpetit.

As I have already pointed out, the wording of the Bloc Quebecois motion is still more limited than the Standing Orders. I would like to stress that point and also to make a detailled comparison.

The motion proposes that the appointments of ambassadors, consuls general and heads of regulatory bodies and Crown corporations should automatically be referred to committees. The Standing Orders provide for this, but as well includes all Deputy Minister appointments, which the Bloc Quebecois motion does not specify. The Standing Orders do.

The motion also refers to administrators of regulatory bodies such as the CRTC, the Canadian Transportation Agency and the National Energy Board.

Some quasi-judiciary appointments are proposed based on House precedent, namely appointments to the Employment Insurance Board of Referees, the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, and the Canadian Human Rights Commission. There is no mention of these whatsoever in this motion.

The present Standing Orders are, therefore, in line with the motion presented today. They are, however, more thorough, because they do not apply only to the appointments listed in the motion, but to all appointments by order in council.

Why are we being asked to address this motion today? We also need to ask ourselves whether we want to adopt an American-style system, which will politicize the appointment process and lead us to the media frenzies my colleagues have already mentioned.

The McGrath committee, which proposed changes to the Standing Orders, analyzed this system. They told us it was not desirable in Canada—

SupplyGovernment Orders

6:15 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)

Unfortunately, there is no time left for the member to finish her speech.

It being 6.15 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply.

The vote is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?

SupplyGovernment Orders

6:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

SupplyGovernment Orders

6:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

No.

SupplyGovernment Orders

6:15 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)

All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.

SupplyGovernment Orders

6:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.

SupplyGovernment Orders

6:15 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)

All those opposed will please say nay.

SupplyGovernment Orders

6:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

SupplyGovernment Orders

6:15 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

SupplyGovernment Orders

6:15 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the following division:)

SupplyGovernment Orders

6:15 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)

I declare the amendment lost.

The question is on the main motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

SupplyGovernment Orders

6:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

SupplyGovernment Orders

6:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

No.

SupplyGovernment Orders

6:45 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

SupplyGovernment Orders

6:45 p.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.

SupplyGovernment Orders

6:45 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)

All those opposed will please say nay.

SupplyGovernment Orders

6:45 p.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

SupplyGovernment Orders

6:45 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)

In my opinion the yeas have it.

SupplyGovernment Orders

6:45 p.m.

An hon. member

On division.

(Motion agreed to)

The House resumed from October 23 consideration of the motion that Bill C-4, an act to amend the Nuclear Safety and Control Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee; and on the motion that this question be now put.

Nuclear Safety and Control ActGovernment Orders

6:45 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the previous question at the second reading stage of Bill C-4.

Nuclear Safety and Control ActGovernment Orders

6:45 p.m.

Liberal

Marlene Catterall Liberal Ottawa West—Nepean, ON

Madam Speaker, I think you would find consent that those who voted on the previous motion be recorded as voting on the motion now before the House with the Liberal members voting yes.

Nuclear Safety and Control ActGovernment Orders

6:45 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)

Is that agreed?