Debates of Oct. 29th, 2002

Supply

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

We have seen everything now, Mr. Speaker

In fact, the hon. member opposite just confirmed what I had previously said, which is that they had prepared themselves very poorly for this opposition day. Proof in hand, they have just confirmed their plagiarism. The hon. member opposite and the Bloc had so few issues to raise that, by their own admission, they extrapolated from a speech made by a Liberal member as a way to prepare themselves for their allotted day. And on top of that they did not even do a good job of it.

I have read carefully the speech made by the hon. member for LaSalle—Émard and of course they misrepresented it. The hon. member for LaSalle—Émard never said in his speech that the House should adopt Standing Orders110 and 111 that we already had. That is what the hon. member opposite is asking us to do today.

Not only they have done their research poorly but we just heard that they did not do any at all. They simply picked up a story in a newspaper about a member on the other side of the House. They could not even write it correctly and they took it as a basis for the motion they presented to the House. It is even worse than what I thought.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis-Et-Chutes-De-La-Chaudière, QC]

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.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I went through all of this a moment ago. I am sorry if, for some reason, the hon. member did not understand what I said. As a matter of fact, appointments are referred to committee, and I just explained how it is done.

Since 1994, 4,300 appointments of this nature have been automatically referred to parliamentary committees. The minister responsible, generally myself or my predecessor, when somebody else had this job, signs the document within five days.

After the document has been signed and it has been tabled by my parliamentary secretary, who does an excellent job, by the way, it is deemed referred to committee. The word deemed means the procedure is automatic and does not require a vote. The appointment is simply deemed referred to committee.

I am explaining this in greater detail to the hon. member, and I urge him to read Standing Orders 110 and 111. He will realize it will be embarrassing later on today, when he takes the floor to ask the House to vote for something that is already in existence.

[Yves Rocheleau, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleague from Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, who said that the government House leader was a born comedian.

Personally, I would like to see him as the subject of a sketch in one of the future installments of La petite vie , because what is going on here as we speak is really fit for La petite vie . Given his experience, the leader really has to be happy-go-lucky to interpret parliamentary procedure the way he does.

There is an impending danger for democracy in this great Canada, known as the very best country in the world. Do not forget that more people refrained from voting in the last election in this alleged great country than those who voted for the Liberal Party.

There is a problem. The government House leader reminds me of the Creditists who said “We are standing on the edge, and with Social Credit, we will take a step forward”. This is what the government House leader is inviting us to do.

I would like to ask him this. Does he agree that there is still a problem? In the case of the most recent appointment to the Supreme Court of Canada, where all the dealing seems to have been done on aweekend, the announcement was made public around 9 or 10 o'clock in the morning, when Madam agreed to--

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

The hon. Leader of the Government in the House of Commons.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite is asking me a question about the new justice of the Supreme Court of Canada.

Of course, judges cannot be criticized in the House after they have been appointed. This is against our rules and we except that no one would do so. Moreover—

[Yves Rocheleau, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I never criticized the judge in question. I am criticizing the appointment process. I am asking the House leader whether he agrees with the appointment process, where there is no consultation of members of Parliament or any other authority of the Canadian government as to the appointment of a justice to the Supreme Court. This is left entirely to the discretion of the Prime Minister and his office.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

This is a point of debate. The hon. Leader of the Government in the House of Commons.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to answer the last question and to comment on the statements made by the member.

At the beginning of my speech, I clearly indicated that I was against hearings on judicial appointments. We do it for other appointments, under the Standing Orders. We all agree that it is already in the rules.

Besides, the motion does not provide for hearings on the appointment of judges, not to mention justices of the Supreme Court. The United States holds such hearings. As far as I know, almost no other jurisdiction in the world that makes Supreme Court appointments hold hearings, as the United States do. I do not see why we should imitate the Americans.

The hon. member argued that the appointments are made solely by the Prime Minister. It is not true. The Prime Minister relies, of course, on cabinet. Cabinet is consulted on such issues, as are the justice minister and all of the ministers. That is how things are done.

I am not in favour of having televised public hearings that delve into the private lives of justices of the Supreme Court, and so on, as we have seen in the United States. The member's colleague may agree with me, since he did not mention it in his motion. I would not go for that; I am totally against it.

The current process is a good one. Can it be applied to other appointments? It depends on parliamentary committees. It is up to them. But we currently have a process in place and it is effective.

[John Williams, Canadian Alliance, St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to the debate of the member of the Bloc Québécois and the great protestations by the government House leader about how wonderful the current system is. He made specific reference to Standing Order 110 and talked about how these appointments were automatically referred to the standing committee and therefore we did not need to vote in the House. I fully agree with the government House leader because it states that they shall be deemed to have been referred to a standing committee. The only problem, of course, is that they are referred after the decision has been made and the decision is not reviewable.

I will be splitting my time, Mr. Speaker, with the hon. member for Calgary East.

What is the point of a committee reviewing the appointment after the government has made the decision, it is an actual fact and that is the way it will be? We could talk about it until the cows come home but the government will not listen. The whole system is about getting in a huddle in a corner behind closed doors, making a decision, some Liberal hack gets a job, then it is referred to a committee. What are we supposed to do about it? We can do nothing because there is no opportunity in the Standing Orders for us to do anything other than talk about it.

The government House leader has told us that Standing Order is great, that there is control and supervision and that we have input in these appointments. We have no input on these appointments, none whatsoever.

It is interesting that we are having this debate today and that the Bloc is putting forward a motion that states that we should review appointments of ambassadors, consuls general, heads of regulatory bodies, Crown corporations, et cetera. We have to ask ourselves why the Bloc is coming forward with this motion today, with ambassadors being first.

Of course, one ambassador comes to mind immediately. That is the ambassador to Denmark, a former member of the cabinet and the House, who made a very quick exit from this place. He disappeared from here and popped up as our ambassador to Denmark, Perhaps it was under a cloud but we have never been able to ascertain that, so I have to be careful what I say. However there are serious allegations against the way his department managed the advertising contracts, a $40 million program under his watch.

The current Minister of Public Works has told us that there are 13 police investigations. The Auditor General absolutely trashed the administration of that program. Every rule in the book was broken, money disappeared, and now we have police investigations. One day the minister is gone and he pops up in Denmark, and we wonder why the Bloc has brought forth a motion that says perhaps we should review these appointments. Of course we should review them. We should have reviewed the appointment of the ambassador to Denmark long before he left the country. It is an embarrassment to the country that an ambassador would have a cloud hanging over his head and yet be representing the country. It is shameful.

The Bloc's motion is very much in order. The days are over when the government can huddle in a corner behind closed doors, come up with a name and say that this person will be our Supreme Court judge, or the head of a Crown corporation in charge of the railways, transportation, ships or whatever the Crown corporation happens to be and that he is a wonderful guy because he contributes to the Liberal party. Those days should be gone completely.

The government House leader has drawn the comparison that we could have either this non-transparent system of doing it behind closed doors or have the American system where everything is on television, front and centre. I think there is something else in between. That is why I have Motion No. 79 on the Order Paper which states:

That, in the opinion of this House, appointees and potential appointees to the positions of Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada and Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada should receive parliamentary scrutiny, and that Standing Orders 110 and 111 of the House of Commons should be amended to include such appointees and potential appointees.

They are the exact same standing orders referred to by the government House leader which say we need to change the system to one where parliament has a role to play in vetting appointments, especially ambassadors under a cloud, as well as the justices and chief justice of the Supreme Court. Today they do not apply the law; they interpret the law and even create law. They strike down laws that have been passed by this place, the highest court in the land, yet those people down the street think they are the highest court. They are not. This is the highest court in the land, yet the government has abdicated its responsibility so that when the judges down the street say that a law does not meet the test, we just acquiesce, fall over and say, “Okay, I guess they are right”.

This House determines what society shall have, what it wants and what it needs. We are the ones who provide it. It is not the Supreme Court justices down the street. We are not supposed to fall down prostrate at their feet every time they make a pronouncement that offends society. We need to review the people who get appointed to that place before they take a seat down there so that we can find out if their morality reflects the morality of society. That is fundamentally important.

As the government House leader said, the Minister of Justice, the Prime Minister and a few bureaucrats huddle in a corner, maybe check with the law society, come up with a name and it is foisted upon us, this the highest court in the land. It is an affront to us. We say why is this and why do we not change the rules?

The member for LaSalle—Émard has made a proposal that if he ever gets to the big chair, the Prime Minister's chair, he will change Parliament and give us more authority. I say, and I think I was quoted in my local paper as saying, wimps to them, because we have the authority today. The member for LaSalle—Émard proposed that if he became the Prime Minister he would give us some extra authority. He would allow us to vote freely. We can vote freely today. There is nothing that he has proposed that we do not have today, if we choose to exercise that authority.

If we want to change Standing Order 110, and if we want to say that we want to examine ambassadors, consuls general, heads of regulatory bodies and Supreme Court justices before they take their positions, we have that authority. However, the wimps on that side of the House say that whatever the Prime Minister wants is what the Prime Minister gets. They acquiesce, prostrate at his feet. That is why this place is dysfunctional.

Here we have a potential prime minister saying, “I will allow you to exercise the little bit of authority that you have”. We have a huge amount of authority. We are the highest court in the land, yet because of the government majority that bows down and gives the Prime Minister whatever he wants, we are ineffective. The country knows it and that is why people say we are dysfunctional. That is why Pierre Trudeau said that 100 yards from this place MPs are all nobodies. It is because the Prime Minister has all the authority.

I congratulate the Bloc for bringing forward this motion today. I would hope that, since that side of the House is talking about parliamentary reform, we recognize that parliamentary reform simply means taking command of the powers that we already have and exercising them to ensure that this is a better society and that the House works to deliver the services to society that it wants. This includes ensuring that the people who are given the authority to make the rules and make the decisions on behalf of the country are accountable. Need I say more?

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I say to my hon. colleague from the Alliance Party that although we tend not to agree on too many things, I definitely agree with his summation of the debate. I too thank the Bloc for bringing forward this important motion.

As the member knows, the committees are stacked with Liberals. They have the majority. If there are Liberals who want to vote for a particular opposition motion, the Liberals can stack the committee if they wish with people who are more favourable to the whip's charges.

If we are going to vet nominations, for example the head of the CBC, we want that person to appear before the committee to show what qualifications he or she has and what he or she plans to do with the CBC under his or her leadership. How would the member change the committee format so that we do not have a biased perception, one side over the other, so that we have a clear vetting of the individual's qualifications to ensure that we indeed get the best person for the job?

[John Williams, Canadian Alliance, St. Albert, AB]

It is very simple, Mr. Speaker. First of all every crown corporation has a mandate, a public policy, the CBC included, that this is what the organization is created to do, to implement a public policy. We could ask the proposed appointee, “How well can you fulfill this mandate? Are you the best person for the job?” We hear the testimony. We interview and listen to the witness. Then all the members of the committee, including the Liberal members, the government side, would cast a vote yea or nay. The problem today is that members on the government side do not cast a vote yea or nay. They check with the Prime Minister and ask how they shall vote. They vote according to the Prime Minister who has the majority of votes on every committee.

That is the point. We have the authority. The member for LaSalle—Émard proposes that we have more authority, just a little bit more. We have tons of authority; we just have to exercise it. We truly have to be representatives of the people who elected us. If we did that, the system would work.

[Richard Marceau, Bloc, Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from the Canadian Alliance for his well put together speech.

As the tendency in our system is toward a greater concentration of power in the hands of the Prime Minister, should we not, as parliamentarians, act right now to establish clear rules, as proposed in the motion before us today, that would enable us to stop this transfer of power to the Prime Minister? Government members are often inclined, out of ambition or out of habit, to pass their responsibilities on to the executive, meaning to the Prime Minister.

Would supporting this motion not be an effective way of curbing this natural tendency of government members?

[John Williams, Canadian Alliance, St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the Bloc on bringing forward this motion because it is time we started talking about the powers that we have but we do not use. Standing Order 110 says “a minister of the crown shall lay upon the table a certified copy of an order in council” and so on, but this of course is after the fact. We could quite easily put in “a proposed order in council” which would mean that we would deliberate it before the fact.

There is only one organization that can change the standing orders and that is this House. It is not the Prime Minister. It is not the government House leader. The House could put that word into Standing Order 110 to make it a “proposed order in council” rather than after the fact.

We have that authority so why do we not just do it, courtesy of the support from the government members, and get the job done and get on with it? It would be simple. We do not have to wait for the member for LaSalle—Émard to say he will let us do this and this, but not the big stuff. No, he will reserve that for himself. We need to exercise our authority.

[Deepak Obhrai, Canadian Alliance, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to speak to the motion brought forward by the Bloc. All members in the House, including the ones on the government side, know that the motion is very important.

When we come to the House as new members of Parliament, we come with a dedication and commitment that we are representing the people of Canada and that in this House we have the power to bring forward issues from our constituents. Lo and behold, it is not very long before we learn that we really do not have much power in this House.

The tragedy is that we go around the world preaching democracy to other countries. We tell them what they should do, but we seem to be slowly eroding democracy in our own institutions. Over the years patronage and cronyism have served the governing party well. That is why it likes to call itself the natural governing party of Canada. What a joke.

Sitting over here, we know that slowly but surely the actions of the government have come to the point where the concentration of power in the Prime Minister's Office is talked about by everybody today, including Liberal members of Parliament and including one of the Liberal leadership contenders.

I just listened to the House leader trying to defend his position. What can we expect from the House leader? It helps him and his government send their friends overseas and put their friends into positions. Then they can count on them for their leadership support and for their fundraising efforts. Blatant patronage and abuse have been going on for some time. Who does it help? Them. The Prime Minister is not willing to change. They will say it is opposition rhetoric again. It is not the opposition rhetoric again. It is being said by a member of Parliament who finds himself sitting over here trying to do things and being stonewalled.

Why can the Parliament of Canada not speak on behalf of the people of Canada? Why not? The Parliament of Canada is not made up of the Liberal Party. It is made up of five parties of members of Parliament sitting here who would like to bring forward issues that Canadians want to be discussed. Is that what is happening? No. What is happening is a total manipulation by the Liberal Party in promoting its agenda.

There was the spectre last year of ministers crossing the ethical lines, including at some point, and we do not know whether it is true, the Prime Minster himself, and he said it is because the ministers have become complacent. Of course they have become complacent. There is nobody to hold them accountable. They have a majority. They can manipulate the system. They have slowly been doing that over the years to the point where today even Liberals, including one of the Liberal Party leadership candidates admit that the PMO has too much power. One would wonder why the frontrunner, who could easily take it, is now saying that the Prime Minister's Office has so much power. It is because Canadians are saying that enough if enough.

If the government carries on with this farce Canadians will talk, and the way they will talk is by not going out and voting. We all know that has been the trend. If we do not listen to Canadians they will simply say it by not voting. Then we will stand here saying that we have the mandate from the people of Canada to come and speak here. I am saying that we will not have that mandate if we carry on and not give confidence back to the people of Canada that the Parliament of Canada is relevant.

This motion is one of those attempts by my colleague from the Bloc to make the governing of the country accountable to where it should be, to the people of Canada. That is the essence and the point of democracy.

When I came here I proposed four private members' bills to the House and not even one of them has been made votable. Nobody wants to discuss them.

I have had support for my break and enter bill from the police associations and Canadians from all across the country but, guess what? Because the justice minister is not interested it is manipulated and lo and behold nobody discusses the issue. It is done and out the window.

How many hours and how many consultations have we had? Many colleagues on this side have brought in private members' bills? Where have they gone? The government side has also brought in private members' bills. The frustration is not only on this side. It is also on that side. I hope today some of them will realize that they do not have to be worried or afraid of the Prime Minister. He is going in the year 2004. I ask them to stand up and say what Canadians want them to say, which is to give Parliament back to the people of Canada, away from the PMOs office.

I have travelled outside the country and have met many great ambassadors but I have also met those who were appointed through patronage. I find it amazing that those patronage appointments who represent Canada are still biased. Who do they represent? They represent their party, not the people of Canada.

I will be very happy to vote in favour of this motion because all we are doing is trying to speak on behalf of the people of Canada.

[Roy H. Bailey, Canadian Alliance, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, one of the dangers we have in Canada in saying that we are democratic, lies in the fact that the majority of Canadians did not elect the government for many elections. Will the percentage of people actually voting not continue to drop unless there are some very serious changes made in the House?

[Deepak Obhrai, Canadian Alliance, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, time after time Canadians exercise their right to vote but lose their confidence when they see we no longer can represent them. They have only one way to speak. The majority of the people speak through silence. They just go away. As my colleague has alluded, that is what is happening. The government is not sitting there with a majority of the vote.

Many democracies have seen that danger and have put rules in to force people to come out to vote. In Australia, for example, the people have to vote. We want to stand with confidence over here that we are representing the people of Canada. However, if there is no power, as it is happening slowly in the country, we are losing the goodwill of the people of Canada, and it is important that we retain that goodwill.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis-Et-Chutes-De-La-Chaudière, QC]

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.

[Deepak Obhrai, Canadian Alliance, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is on the record that the government is appointing its friends to these positions which should be non-partisan positions. We take pride in saying that our civil service, our administration arm, is independent of the legislative arm, but the government is overriding that.

My colleague from the Bloc is absolutely right. Not only does the ambassador to Denmark come into play but even the WTO ambassador, Mr. Marchi, was a patronage appointment. As a matter of fact when my colleague and I visited Geneva, he was over there telling me that he had taken the Alliance on before and that he could take us on any time. I told him that he was no longer in the House of Commons, that he was an ambassador representing the people of Canada.

Yes, that erosion of confidence carries on when patronage appointments are made. What the motion does is it tries to take that away and says that the people of Canada must be allowed to speak through the committee and through their elected officials. Perhaps the WTO ambassador was the right choice but if he had come in front of the committee he would have received the legitimacy that he needs.

[Val Meredith, Canadian Alliance, South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, does my hon. colleague feel that the government backbenchers are the ones who are allowing the government to force their agenda and to force the situation on the House of Commons because they do not stand up, do not think for themselves and do not represent their constituents, but allow the Prime Minister and the cabinet to think for them?

[Deepak Obhrai, Canadian Alliance, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, being on the committee where we have these parliamentary secretaries, whom I love to call the whips because they come in with their whips, I have witnessed what my hon. colleague has said. The backbenchers backtrack and by backtracking they give away their power. They have done a marvellous job in getting their Prime Minister to start off in office so they can run the agenda. They have done it. They have the Prime Minister retiring so they do have the power, as my colleague said, and I hope they will utilize it.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to speak today to what I consider a very important motion brought forward by the Bloc Quebecois.

I think most Canadians would be quite surprised that the perception of the separatist party bringing forward a most democratic motion for the entire country is one that is worthy of debate. I thank the Bloc very much because I know it is rooted in social democracy. I know it has many policies similar to that of the NDP. I want to thank it for taking the opportunity to use its day in order to raise this very important issue.

It is not too difficult to understand why we are having the debate when we see in Quorum today that the finance minister said in the Ottawa Citizen “MPs should elect governor general”. Why does that same finance minister not say that we should peer review and have a serious look at supreme court judges and the chairmen of various boards?

Recently we saw the member from Malpeque, P.E.I., who I consider to be a very good friend of mine, become the Solicitor General. He admits that he is a farmer by trade and a very proud farmer, but is now, by the appointment of the Prime Minister, the number one top cop in the country. I would never ever stand up in the House to say to the Prime Minister that he cannot appoint people into his cabinet whom he or his ring of people deem fit. What this particular motion talks about are those people on all the boards and agencies outside of the House, one of those, of course, being the Senate.

We have long known that Conservative and Liberal governments have used the Senate for what I call a den of iniquity in terms of putting their people there in order to get things passed. I will not come down too hard on the Tories because I think they are starting to change their tune on this, but Brian Mulroney forced the GST through the Senate by stacking the Senate with his friends to do one thing and one thing only: pass the dreaded GST when it went through the House of Commons. The Liberals in the Senate were going to hold it up but it was then turned around and the GST was passed.

[Scott Brison, Progressive Conservative, Kings—Hants, NS]

A great tax and a great Canadian, Brian Mulroney.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NS]

My colleague from Kings—Hants says that it is a great tax. However just the mention of an increase in that tax and we would have the wrath of Canadians on us like a pack of dogs to a raw piece of meat. If the Conservatives believe that it is a great tax, then why not raise it once or twice to pay for things like military expenditures, health care, education, et cetera?

However, mention the GST to Canadians and they will be on us like anything. It is not a great tax. It was a tax forced upon Canadians by the Conservatives. However what did we hear from members on that side of the House? They said that if they were elected they would get rid of it. Here we are nine years later and the GST is still here.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

I hesitate to interrupt my friend but he has diverted somewhat from the subject at hand. Talking about the GST at this point in time is not relevant in the eyes of the Speaker.