Debates of Oct. 29th, 2002

Supply

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

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.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank and congratulate my colleague from Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière for his excellent speech. He was with me in the House this morning to witness the little play that the government House leader put on stage for us. He played on words, to a certain extent, talking about the so-called automatic character of the referral to committee process.

Now, I know that my colleague from Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière is deeply attached to the French language and that he knows his grammar very well. Standing Order 111 (2), to which the leader was referring, says, and I quote:

The committee, if it should call an appointee--

Could he tell us whether he thinks that something can be at the same time automatic and conditional with the use of the word if? Does he not agree also that, when the word if is used in the Standing Orders, it makes things conditional and not automatic, which would destroy the argument presented by the government House leader this morning?

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

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.

[Gilles-A. Perron, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech by my friend from Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière. What caught my attention mostly was when he outlined the Prime Minister's powers, starting with commander in chief all the way down the ladder. This reminded me that we are not very far from a dictatorship, even though we live in a country where we have all the elements necessary to make a very good dictatorship. But this is not my point.

I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about free votes in the House. I would like him to tell me what would be, what are or what could be the reasons for asking for such votes.

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

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.

[Ethel Blondin-Andrew, Liberal, Secretary of State (Children and Youth)]

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

The motion calls upon the government to refer most appointments to Commons committees for detailed scrutiny. At first glance the proposal does seem attractive. After all, which of us does not want to remove even the slightest hint of patronage or cronyism in the appointment process? Which of us would not support the extension of greater democracy or expanding the powers of MPs in committees?

However, as they say, the devil is in the details, and so it is with this motion.

The motion that originally was brought forward would actually weaken our standing orders concerning government appointments. Our standing orders require that all non-judicial order in council appointments be tabled in the House so that committees can review the person's qualifications and competencies if they choose to do so. This applies to all deputy ministers, ambassadors, consul generals and the heads of crown corporations and most regulatory boards such as the CRTC.

By the way, we have for the first time in the history of the CRTC an aboriginal person by the name of Ron Williams sitting on the board. He is a Métis and a former entrepreneur who owned a cable company. He has all the competencies needed and required to be totally qualified to sit on the CRTC. That created a balance that was needed on that regulatory board. We have tried to achieve that with all of the others. I highly recommend the process.

Appointments to the National Energy Board, the Canadian Transportation Agency and even some quasi-judicial appointments are tabled in the House on the basis of House precedent, such as the appointments to the Immigration and Refugee Board.

I want to talk about the regulatory boards. I come from an area steeped in resource development. We have great need for the work of these regulatory boards. We need those appointments to be made efficiently and quickly because industry does not wait for the government system or machinery to come into place or the bodies to fall into place in order to do what they have to do. I will give an example.

On the land and water boards and the Mackenzie Valley Environmental Impact Review Board we have the capacity to do what is needed for many of the industry partners that want to move ahead with development. One example is the huge move in the diamond resource development area. Two mines went through an environmental process and they needed to do that in concert with those regulatory boards. The land and water boards issue water licences. They cannot wait for us to go through a machinery of government process here to appoint people to do the work they need to do. They also issue land permits. They cannot wait for that purpose either.

We have been able to achieve a certain balance in gender and regional appointments, including those target groups that would never otherwise get a chance: aboriginal people, minorities, and women. We also have to create a balance so that we do not have a board totally full of lawyers or scientists. This is the way in which we see the process bear out the facts of what is needed.

The standing orders are more comprehensive than what the Bloc proposed in its motion yesterday. The Bloc motion does not include the appointments of deputy ministers or any quasi-judicial bodies. The Bloc motion put on notice yesterday did not go as far as others on the opposition's side might wish. For example, it did not recommend requiring parliamentary review of judicial appointments nor did it require parliamentary approval of appointments.

I have concerns with such proposals as they could result in an American-style approach to reviewing appointments; basically a witch hunt, a muckraking process mired in irrelevant, unnecessary details, and investigations of those unnecessary details.

I want to ask members of the House if this is what they want, especially having spent any time at all watching the nomination hearings in the United States that often are used simply to score political points. It is very politically driven.

Sadly, such hearings send important messages to ordinary citizens, but not the ones legislators might wish. The main message is this: Let a person's name stand for an important appointment and the person and his or her family may suffer public humiliation and embarrassment in front of millions of fellow citizens for wanting to do a public service, for wanting to contribute to one's country and its citizens. These are well-intended motives. As a result, many highly qualified candidates are discouraged from letting their names stand for consideration. What a terrible loss of potential talent.

I ask the House, is this what we want in our country? Of course I am not the first to ask this question, It was studied in some detail by the McGrath committee, which investigated ways of increasing the involvement of MPs in the appointment process.

At the time, the committee took a long, hard look at the American experience and found problems with it. There was considerable variation from committee to committee in the intensity and thoroughness of the review that existed. It was very arbitrary. There were almost no written standards. There was a wide variation in the documentation required for a nomination and the staff resources available to study it. The committee found that while a large number of appointments potentially could be subjected to public hearings and scrutiny, the reality was that committees often devoted most of their time to those nominations most likely to garner the greatest publicity.

We must think of that. That is abhorrent. In effect, the system was weighted in favour of media circuses, high profile media circuses that can take on a life of their own and where we lose the essence of what the process is all about in the first place.

For these reasons and many more, the committee recommended that we not follow the U.S. example. We are a country. We have our own ways.

Instead, smaller steps were recommended, some of which have found their way into our Standing Orders. As a result, MPs and committees now have wider powers to examine appointments and nominations of interest to them. For example, Standing Order 110 requires that all non-judicial order in council appointments be tabled within five sitting days following their appearance in the Canada Gazette , and appointments are deemed to have been referred to the appropriate standing committee for review. Standing Order 111 gives committees up to 30 sitting days to review the “qualifications and competence” of appointees or nominees and requires ministers to provide to committee members the curriculum vitae, that is, the CVs or resumés, of the appointees should they be requested.

As members can see, the House of Commons already has many procedures in place allowing MPs to undertake detailed scrutiny of appointments.

Finally, we need to ask ourselves why we should fix a system that is not broken: “it ain't broke, don't fix it”. After all, the reality is that Canada's system for making appointments has worked admirably, by anyone's standards. In this regard we would do well to note the comments of Transparency International, the world's leading international organization dedicated to rooting out corruption in government and business.

Since issuing its first report in 1995, it has ranked Canada as the G-8 nation with the lowest level of perceived corruption, and among the seven best in the world. Clearly we are doing something right, so we need to ask ourselves if this is the time to take an entirely new and unnecessary approach. I think not. This is particularly true of judicial appointments, which would run the risk of degenerating into fiascos if we followed the U.S. approach.

What would this do to our system of justice and the respect it is held in by Canadians for its impartiality? Would it improve the already high quality of persons serving on our highest court? Would it expose nominees to cheap political shots that would discourage those well-qualified individuals unable to stomach the thought of a public inquisition, which is so unnecessary? Of course, we could probably make some improvements to our current procedure. After all, democracy is a work in progress. Members should work with the government so that we can make existing procedures work even better.

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

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?

[Ethel Blondin-Andrew, Liberal, Western Arctic, NT]

Madam Speaker, I think was very clear in the position that I put forward. I used the American example only to show where we should not go and what we should not do. I did not in any way consider the fact that I was promoting those views.

In fact what we have already works. The procedures and the information that we have gathered have worked their way into the Standing Orders and they work very well.

I will not get into the kind of political mischievousness that appears to be occurring over there right now. We have the serious business at hand of dealing with those appointments, and I have stated the reasons why.

My riding is one that is steeped in development and it depends on having those people in place. We cannot wait for or waste time on cheap political shots like that to get the process in place that we need to deliver the goods. For 25 years we have been doing billions of dollars worth of development in my area, which depends on these regulatory boards. We do not need this kind of nonsense.

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

Madam Speaker, I am extremely surprised to see a minister of the Crown rise in the House to say that debating democracy in this country is a waste of time, that it is not an important issue. It blows me away.

It seems that her speech was already written and she did not change it as a result of the amendment proposed by my colleague from Mercier. So I want to ask her a question.

Does she agree that committees should review appointments made by the Prime Minister before these appointments are confirmed? Is she willing, yes or no, to allow committees to have their say before the appointments are made?

[Ethel Blondin-Andrew, Liberal, Western Arctic, NT]

Madam Speaker, in Standing Order 111 we have a process there. Standing Order 110, for example, requires that all non-judicial order in council appointments be tabled within five sitting days. That is one provision. The other provision is Standing Order 111. It gives committees up to 30 days to review the qualifications.

[An hon. member]

That's after.

[Ethel Blondin-Andrew, Liberal, Western Arctic, NT]

On the one hand, the members are talking about expanding democracy with members--

[An hon. member]

What about before the appointments?

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

I would ask the House to show the same courtesy to the member who has the floor. When people are shouting, the Chair cannot hear the answer being given.

[Ethel Blondin-Andrew, Liberal, Western Arctic, NT]

Madam Speaker, on the one hand the hon. members are suggesting that MPs have more powers and that we have more expanded democracy in our parliamentary system. On the other hand, they talk about the kind of process that they think is right for everyone. We have something in there that the committees will deal with, that the House will deal with in terms of a parliamentary review. Is that not what they want? Is that not what they are suggesting?

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise today to speak on the motion originally put forward this morning by the Bloc, which states:

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.

I understand that the motion has had an amendment moved to it which was accepted this morning and which would have the appointments referred before they are made final. Regardless of the amendment, as the hon. House leader explained earlier today, the Bloc's motion would actually weaken the Standing Orders, as it would exclude a number of appointments from being considered in Parliament.

Today's debate allows us to highlight these important procedures in the Standing Orders, as these procedures support our role as parliamentarians in holding our governments to account.

As was mentioned earlier today, these rules in the Standing Orders originated with the McGrath report of 1985. As hon. members are aware, the McGrath committee was an excellent all party committee that proposed substantial changes for the House of Commons. Many of the recommendations of the McGrath report have been adopted, to the benefit of all members of the House.

With respect to the scrutiny of government appointments, the procedures under our current Standing Orders are consistent with the recommendations of the McGrath report. The McGrath committee clearly struggled with this issue, as it noted that this issue was by far the most difficult of all the subjects the committee considered. The committee noted that during its hearings it asked many witnesses about scrutinizing order in council appointments. The report stated:

All agreed it was a difficult problem for both members and ministers, but none came up with any positive suggestions as to how we might proceed.

The McGrath committee set out four principles that guided its recommendations on the role of Parliament with government appointments: that the primary purpose of a nomination procedure is to seek the best possible people; that it is important that the public see appointments as more than simply political patronage; that there are good reasons for excluding certain appointments from any political scrutiny; and, that some appointments warrant different degrees of scrutiny.

I believe that these are very sound principles and that they are as relevant today as they were in 1985. The McGrath committee also rejected adopting the American model, where Senate confirmations are used for appointments. The committee rejected this approach since it has the potential of becoming a media and partisan circus and some qualified candidates would be discouraged from accepting public office because of the confirmation process.

For those members who are calling for the American model to be adopted in Canada, I would ask them to be cautious with such an approach, just as the McGrath committee was, as we do not wish to politicize our senior government appointments.

Turning back to the McGrath report, the committee focused on the following types of appointments: deputy ministers, heads of crown corporations, heads of regulatory agencies, House of Commons officers, and agents of Parliament such as the Auditor General or the privacy commissioner. In all cases and for all appointments, the recommendations of the McGrath committee were consistent: that appointments are to be tabled in the House of Commons, providing committees the authority to review the appointments. The one recommendation that was slightly different concerned the appointments to regulatory agencies. The committee noted that there was little executive control over these agencies and a certain amount of distance between the agencies and the ministers was necessary. The committee recommended that only appointments of nominees to the following agencies should be tabled: the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, the Canadian Transportation Agency and the National Energy Board.

As the House is aware, the Standing Orders we currently have are consistent with the recommendations of the McGrath committee. These reforms recommended by the McGrath committee were consistent as well with the other recommendations on empowering members of Parliament.

Today's motion put forward by the Bloc is consistent with the intent of the recommendations of the McGrath committee. The Bloc's motion is also consistent with the current Standing Orders. Fortunately our Standing Orders are even more comprehensive than what the Bloc has proposed today, but today's debate at least allows us to highlight this important feature of our parliamentary procedure which supports the role of the House in holding the government to account. The Standing Orders already cover appointments and the Bloc motion is not acceptable as it would politicize the system even more.

[Loyola Hearn, Progressive Conservative, St. John's West, NL]

Madam Speaker, I listened to the speech given by the hon. member. Certainly the government is prepared to justify the way it makes appointments. Nobody would criticize the government making appointments if the government did it fairly and squarely, and appointed people who were competent and had the trust of everybody else in the House. However we have seen what the government does. The Prime Minister said on July 19, 1997:

You appoint people of your party. I'm not going to name people who are not Liberals.

Many times we do not know who these people are. There are many qualified independent people out there who could serve on boards. The government should immediately place a moratorium on political appointments for a period of two months. In these two months we could establish the necessary parliamentary structures. Once these structures are in place then the candidates who are appointed to high office would be appointed not only with the consent of government, but with the support of the House and the people of the country.

I ask the member to comment on that because it is not my statement. It is from the government House leader in February 1985.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his comments. I am not sure that I understand the point that he was trying to make. All of us who are in government, regardless of party, always attempt to ensure that the best people possible are appointed to fill important jobs.

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

Madam Speaker, I am always a bit surprised when a member argues that asking parliamentarians to review appointments would politicize the process. Quite the opposite, it would depoliticize it, since what we have right now is a political process, with only one person, the Prime Minister, making the appointments. My question, however, is more specific than that.

The member and some of her colleagues must be using the same standard speech, because she mentioned, as they did, Standing Orders 110 and 111. Earlier this morning, the government House leader told us that appointments were automatically reviewed by committees. Let me ask the member the following question: If that is so, how does she explain the fact that Standing Order 111(2) states that “the committee, if it should call an appointee—” The provision is in the conditional. How does she explain the fact that the conditional is used in the provision being referred to by the government members, who argue that appointments are automatically reviewed? How does she reconcile the two?

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I listened intently to the question. We are all trying to ensure that the government is held accountable and that the best people possible are receiving appointments to these important agencies. The work that the modernization committee has done to which the House leader referred to this morning is continuing to move us in that direction.

[James Rajotte, Canadian Alliance, Edmonton Southwest, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to pose a question to the member. Aside from the appointments that are listed in the Bloc motion, we know the Prime Minister, regardless of who the Prime Minister is, appoints the Senate, the cabinet and Supreme Court justices. The three branches of government are almost, indirectly or directly, appointed by the Prime Minister. Is the member comfortable, again regardless of which party is in power, with one person having so many powers of appointment in a democratic nation?

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have had two occasions on the standing committees on which I have sat. Currently we have the ability to review appointments if a committee chooses to do that.

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette-Et-La Mitis, QC]

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.

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

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.

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette-Et-La Mitis, QC]

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.