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.
Government Response to PetitionsRoutine Proceedings
October 29th, 2002 / 10:05 a.m.
Halifax West Nova Scotia
Liberal
Geoff Regan LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to five petitions.
Andrew Telegdi Liberal Kitchener—Waterloo, ON
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-271, an act to amend the Citizenship Act (revocation of citizenship).
Mr. Speaker, there are over six million Canadians who are citizens by choice, not by birth. They came here believing that Canada would be a place where they could be safe and secure because their civil rights were enshrined in our Constitution and protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
It is doubly ironic that the revocation process in the Citizenship Act does not provide for their security of citizenship. This flawed process does not allow for the normal judicial process for establishing guilt or innocence by the judiciary with appeal rights based on matters of fact and law.
Further, it politicizes the process by allowing cabinet to make the final decision to remove citizenship, in secret, with no representation for the person whose citizenship is being revoked.
The bill I have introduced today will remedy this situation by placing the citizenship revocation process under the normal judicial process with appeal rights, where it will be administered according to the principles of fundamental justice.
It is high time that we end the secondclass citizenship status of Canadians who have chosen Canada as their home.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Maurice Vellacott Canadian Alliance Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, SK
Mr. Speaker, a number of petitioners draw to the attention of the House that hundreds of thousands of Canadians suffer from debilitating diseases such as Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, diabetes, cancer and so on. They point out that Canadians do support ethical stem cell research but do not support embryonic stem cell research because of more apparent benefits from adult stem cell research.
The petitioners therefore call upon Parliament to focus its legislative support for adult stem cell research to find the cures and therapies necessary to treat the illnesses and diseases of suffering Canadians.
Geoff Regan LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
Questions on the Order PaperRoutine Proceedings
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)
Is that agreed?
Richard Marceau Bloc Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, QC
moved:
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.
Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to be sponsoring the first opposition motion presented by the Bloc Quebecois during this second session of the 37th Parliament. This honour is even more appreciated because the subject matter of today will hopefully launch a vigorous debate involving each and every one of us in this House.
Over the last few years, the more perceptive observers of the federal political scene have noted that the role and the functions of members of Parliament have been increasingly eroded. This government certainly had a part to play in the loss of the nobleness that once was attached to our profession. The concentration of power in the executive branch, and more specifically in the hands of the Prime Minister, has led to decreased influence of the backbenchers on both sides of the House.
This is a stark statement, and the shock is even greater. Democracy in Canada is sick, sicker than it has ever been, it would seem. To put it more precisely, we can say that Parliamentary democracy in Canada is affected by this malaise, which makes it impossible for us to perform some of the duties the people of our ridings have entrusted to us. Fortunately, we seem to still have a bit of time to be able to reverse engines and regain control over the meaning and value of our commitment to public service.
The media and numerous academics are currently involved in examining the endemic loss of importance by the House of Commons and are engaged in an open debate on how the influence of MPs has been reduced, despite their being elected representatives of the people.
There have been some comprehensive and well documented works published on this matter, one of the most interesting and most current of these being Governing from the Center by Professor Donald Savoie of the Université de Moncton. The vision he offers of the situation could not be any more lucid, and comes from a man with close ties to the federal cabinet in the days of first Mulroney mandate.
According to Professor Savoie, Canada has fallen into a form of presidential regime, but without the advantage of what the U.S. system has in its principle of checks and balances.
Similarly, the author describes the role of the Prime Minister as no longer being primus inter pares but one of absolute power, the power to step into any area and to dictate, over the head of the person holding the portfolio, the direction the government will take on a given issue.
Professor Savoie's rigorous and highly documented conclusions tend to demonstrate the erosion of Parliament, the legislative branch, compared to the executive, and the omnipotence of the head of the government, through his direct control over caucus and the agenda of the houses of Parliament. The author goes so far as to state that, in certain cases, the wishes of the cabinet and the orientation of the government can be overthrown by nothing more than the wishes of the Prime Minister and of his immediate entourage.
As a further demonstration of the irony of the situation, we might use the example of Abraham Lincoln, the President of the United States between 1861 and 1865. At a cabinet meeting, he was the only one voting in favour of a motion, with all other cabinet members opposed. His reaction was to announce, “Yeas: one; Nays: eight. The Yeas have it!” It is no exaggeration to believe that the Canadian federal cabinet is operating along those lines today.
As a matter of fact, the former finance minister and hon. member for LaSalle—Émard has come to a similar conclusion. Last week, at a meeting with Osgoode Hall students in Toronto, he made a strong plea for an in-depth reform of our parliamentary institutions and of the exercise of power.
What he termed a democratic deficit and made abundantly clear, in connection with his well publicized campaign to replace the current Prime Minister, is nevertheless the same conclusion as the one the Bloc Quebecois reached over two years ago in its discussion paper entitled “Chantier de réflexion sur la démocratie”, a study of democracy launched by our leader, the hon. member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie.
Besides, and in the same vein, several weeks ago, the Quebec government undertook a broad consultation process with the Quebec society about its institutions and its democratic system. There also, a loss of the power and importance of elected officials has been identified. So the estates general on the reform of democratic institutions, chaired by Claude Béland, will really sound out the population, and no option will be excluded.
Getting back to the federal level, the reality is getting such that, as the hon. member for LaSalle—Émard rightly pointed out, the only viable solution for a member wanting to get legislation close to his or her heart enacted is to relentlessly and effectively lobby the Prime Minister's Office, and thus to answer our colleague's question, “Who do you know in the PMO?”
The centralization and concentration of decision-making power in the Prime Minister's Office and in the hands of the Prime Minister himself are very bad for the health of democracy.
The most direct and probably telling consequence of this reality is no doubt the transformation of the House of Commons into a rubber stamp for approving whatever the Prime Minister wants, and the initiatives led by cabinet members who have received the imprimatur of the Prime Minister's Office. In other words, Parliament would become nothing more than the government's rubber stamp.
In theory, we know that, in the British parliamentary system, the House of Commons is there to counterbalance and control the government in its decisions and in how it manages the state. Yet, the situation has deteriorated to the point where the opposite is true, to the point where it is now the government that, in reality, controls the House of Commons and its committees.
This shift has led to increased dissatisfaction among members of Parliament, who feel less involved in the process of government and less valued as Parliamentarians. The current political situation within the Liberal Party of Canada—now that the Prime Minister has announced that he will step down in February, 2004—seems to be lessening, to some extent, the frustration that Liberal members have been feeling. As a result, they do not fear the consequences as much as they used to, if they take a stand against the official position of the Prime Minister and his advisers.
Members who under the current regime have no hope at all of one day sitting at the cabinet table, or of being given the chairmanship of a parliamentary committee, or of having some type of official government duties, now have the courage to take a stand and openly criticize their own government on occasion. This situation is likely the healthiest one we could imagine, even though it is guided, unfortunately, by the personal ambition and prestige of those involved, rather than by any democratic concern.
Nonetheless, the Prime Minister seems to be getting what he deserves. His moral and political authority over the government and the party he leads is now being undermined by the regime that he himself built. When one tries to control everything, it breeds discontent.
Liberal backbench members, first the member for Louis-Hébert, then the member for Ajax and then the member for Winnipeg South, are no longer shying away from criticizing the government, with the Prime Minister at the top of their lists. They are breaking from the traditional partisan solidarity that their disconcerting submissiveness allowed the Prime Minister and his advisers to take for granted until recently. Unfortunately, they are the exception.
Dozens of members on both sides of the House are discouraged, when it comes to their role and their duties.
Frustration reaches its peak on the opposition side when members know from the start that their proposals, which are generally very constructive, will be defeated by their Liberal opponents who are under orders to blindly object to any initiatives not originating from the Prime Minister's Office.
The Liberal government is using the House of Commons and its forums as an extension of its executive arm, thereby polluting the climate of discussion, negotiation and debate that should exist in this place.
Powerless, Liberal backbenchers witness their own humiliation, often orchestrated by non-elected individuals who draw legitimacy from their obedience and loyalty to the Prime Minister. This is how Liberal members come to vote, blindly, on issues that are often crucial, without even appreciating the impact of their action.
I have seen in this House Liberal members forced to vote against their conscience in the debate on the compensation of hepatitis C victims. That is unacceptable.
By obediently following the course mapped out by the ministers, themselves bound by the Prime Minister's Office, they just keep rubberstamping the PM's whims.
Out of respect for my hon. colleagues, I will not dwell on the thankless role they are made to play, nor will I enumerate all of these unfortunate behaviours. However, I hope some will appreciate what I am saying. I am thinking for instance of the openmindedness and insight exhibited from time to time by the hon. members for Ottawa—Vanier, Lac-Saint-Louis, Davenport and Sarnia—Lambton, to name but a few.
In light of all this, it would seem that oral question period is ultimately the last bastion of parliamentary efficiency, and this is only because of the media attention surrounding this high point of the day. Without the media, the relevance of this House would be even more compromised.
On the topic of this key element of the parliamentary system and the government's arrogance, one has no trouble understanding the joke about question period being only about questions, not answers.
As a result, media coverage is ensured because of the sensational nature of the event, which captures the public's attention, and not because of its impact on the government. Liberal members are becoming little more than pawns in a game to manipulate the public, nevertheless leaving the wisest players with a bitter taste in their mouth.
Several approaches have been suggested over the years to counter the growing alienation of members of Parliament from their basic functions. Reforms that can be described as major or even revolutionary have been suggested, but they never materialized.
For example, it has often been suggested that the present electoral system be changed to a more proportional type of system, with all the variations we know and can imagine. Thought was even given to replacing the British parliamentary system with a presidential or quasi-presidential system, although this idea was not thoroughly considered and its implementation was not encouraged.
Others have come up with less sweeping suggestions. In this respect, the reforms the hon. member for LaSalle—Émard described to the students at Osgoode Hall, in Toronto, are hardly innovative, although they are a good starting point.
More independent parliamentary committees would certainly make a better job of examining bills and would be more responsive to the public's needs and concerns. The public interest would be better served. It could even contribute to a better examination of the many government appointments made every year.
We should keep in mind that the governor in council, that is the Prime Minister, makes appointments by order in council for over 3,500 positions, that is about 1,000 judges, about 100 heads of missions abroad, particularly ambassadors and high commissioners, and 500 full time employees and 1,900 part time employees in a whole range of agencies, boards, commissions, Crown corporations and federal departments.
Among these appointees there are deputy ministers, heads and members of organizations, CEOs and board members of crown corporations as well as returning officers. Their responsibilities are varied and range from making quasi-judicial decisions to developing recommendations in the field of socio-economic development, and managing large corporations, to name but a few. The Prime Minister's powers of appointment are quasi-imperial.
The Bloc Quebecois' motion is aimed at restricting this power of appointment and increasing the government's transparency and accountability. The motion says:
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.
The acknowledged purpose of the motion is to allow members of Parliament, on behalf of the people they represent, to review more carefully and intervene directly in the appointment process of certain high-ranking government officials.
Recent history has shown what a futile exercise the review of government appointments by parliamentary committees has been. I would not want to suggest that we again go over the murky circumstances under which the previous public works minister, Alfonso Gagliano, was expelled from cabinet, but his immediate appointment as Canada's ambassador to Denmark baffled and surprised everybody, and probably frustrated many diplomats who were highly qualified for the job. The diplomatic credentials of the disgraced minister were highly questionable, and the fact that this colourful character on the Canadian political scene was on his way to their country raised many eyebrows among the Danish media and government.
As members will recall, at the time, it took a broad consensus from across Canada and in the House of Commons to compel Alfonso Gagliano to appear before the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs. Moreover, we will also recall that the committee chair, no doubt on the orders of the PMO, prevented members from fully grilling Mr. Gagliano.
If committees were more independent and had broader powers, such a situation would never occur again. The same goes for the appointment of top government officials. The appointment of CEOs and managers of crown corporations and federal agencies should always be based on merit and competence.
In his report tabled in the House of Commons on February 6, 2001, then Auditor General Denis Desautels urged the government to improve the way Crown corporations were managed. He also reported flaws within the boards of directors and the audit committees and in the very role played by the government in the strategic orientation of the Crown corporations. The Auditor General also said that these flaws persisted, even if they had been flagged again and again in the past in his reports and in other external studies and documents.
On this subject, Mr. Desautels said:
Crown corporations account for a significant portion of government activity and play an important role in the policy making process of the country. As public sector organizations, it is of the utmost importance that Crown corporations be well managed to guarantee that public money is well spent.
To be well managed, Crown corporations must be headed by people who are more than competent. Unfortunately, political patronage sometimes prevails. Some observers would have liked us to mention the judicial appointments to the Appeal Court and to the Supreme Court of Canada in this motion. I did it in a motion, Motion M-288, that was tabled last Friday in the House of Commons.
I urge my colleagues opposite to support the Bloc Quebecois reform, to support the Bloc Quebecois motion on accountability, to assume their true duties and to vote in favour of including the relevant committees in the nomination process for many other positions at the top of many Crown corporations.
Paul Crête Bloc Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC
Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my hon. colleague on his speech. I believe he has given the House an opportunity to hold a very relevant debate that will allow us to show the public that it is possible to bring in a breath of fresh air and eliminate political patronage.
I wish to come back to the example he gave, that of Mr. Gagliano. When Mr. Gagliano was named ambassador to Denmark, we could at that time have passed a definitive judgment on his involvement in the sponsorship scandal, which would have triggered a public inquiry. In terms of the appearance of justice, it is clear that it was unacceptable for this person to be named Canada's representative abroad, when important doubts still lingered.
Would the hon. member's motion not allow us to have an even broader debate on the whole issue of appointments? One or two years down the road, we could have significant statistics allowing us to see if the problem is very deep-rooted, as many of our fellow Canadians believe. So, in the vast majority of appointments, we would be able to know if the person chosen were a member of the government family, of the Liberal family. After this first screening, we would appoint the person who presents the best profile.
I would like to know if my colleague believes that, if this motion were passed, we could have a still broader debate allowing us to clean up this unacceptable situation.
Richard Marceau Bloc Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, QC
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. Indeed, to have a democracy that works and institutions that are respected by the population in general, it must be ensured that the people who are appointed to head these institutions are recognized as having the skills necessary to hold these positions.
However, in the case of the appointment of Jean Carle to the Business Development Bank of Canada, or of Jean Pelletier as the head of VIA Rail, for example, we know full well that these people were not appointed because of their skills, but because they were friends of the Prime Minister and had worked in his cabinet. It is time we were treated as adults, as the member for Mississauga Centre was today quoted in a newspaper as saying.
I would invite my colleagues from all parties in the House not to ask the government to treat us as adults. We must treat ourselves as adults, take our responsibilities and reclaim powers that were given to the Prime Minister, powers that rightfully belong to members of Parliament in committees and in the House of Commons.
I ask members of the House, including members opposite, in particular the member for LaSalle—Émard and those who support him, to take action instead of just talking, and to support the motion of the Bloc Quebecois, which would allow us to take responsibility for ourselves, as we must do, because otherwise, we will remain the eunuchs that we are.
Antoine Dubé Bloc Lévis-Et-Chutes-De-La-Chaudière, QC
Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate the member for Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier for his speech and most of all for the initiative he took this morning by introducing this motion--
Antoine Dubé Bloc Lévis-Et-Chutes-De-La-Chaudière, QC
--despite the protests of the House leader. As all members have noticed, we are dealing this morning a huge legislative void, for which this government is responsible. Fortunately, we have this debate. The party in power obviously has nothing new to propose, at least for the time being.
Since we are given the opportunity in this debate, and we hear a lot about it in the news, we will discuss the issue of secret ballots in committees. I would like the hon. member who introduced this motion to explain his position on this point.
Richard Marceau Bloc Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, QC
Mr. Speaker, to a certain extent, the government House leader is undermining this debate about the choice of committee chairs by a secret ballot.
The Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs is currently considering this possibility. The liberal federal government, through its House leader who is acting as a strategist, is stonewalling and filibustering to prevent members of Parliament from choosing committee chairs by a secret ballot.
Today, the member for Mississauga Centre said in a newspaper that a vote is an important thing and that she would support the motion now before the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. However, aware of the fact that several government backbenchers are supporting this motion, the government House leader decided to get tough with them and to turn the screws to deny them a free vote on the issue.
I am happy to be able to tell the truth and repeat what the member for Mississauga Centre said, namely that she is not being treated as an adult by this government. She is tired of being treated like a child. She is right and I agree with her.
Yves Rocheleau Bloc Trois-Rivières, QC
Mr. Speaker, I would also like to congratulate my hon. colleague from Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier for his initiative and the passion he used to convince the Bloc leadership to put forward this motion today.
I have two questions for him, one that has to do with the past and one that is related to a more current issue. Let me begin with the more current issue.
We know that, as a matter of internal policy I guess, the Liberal Party of Canada used taxpayer dollars to very politely invite the former member for Verdun--Saint-Henri--Saint-Paul--Pointe Saint-Charles to take a very comfortable seat in the Canadian Senate.
Pursuant to a decision made behind closed doors by the apparatchiks surrounding the Prime Minister, the former member of Parliament is now sitting in the Senate. As the member for Saint-Maurice put it, the riding was practically handed over to the current member for Verdun—Saint-Henri—Saint-Paul—Pointe Saint-Charles on a silver platter, and she only had to make a personal decision.
I would like the member for Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier to tell us how such a phenomenon fits in the Canadian culture.
My second question has more to do with the past.
SupplyGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)
I am sorry, but I have to interrupt the hon. member, because we are running out of time. We have to give the main speaker the opportunity to reply. The hon. member for Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier has the floor.
Richard Marceau Bloc Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, QC
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Trois-Rivières for his question, because he identified something very important, that is, the excessive growth of the Prime Minister's powers, for which there are no checks and balances in the Canadian system.
The Prime Minister appoints the judges to the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal and the Superior Court, he appoints senators, ambassadors and consuls general. He appoints lieutenant governors, and there are no checks and balances. He also appoints returning officers.
We have a quasi imperial, almost presidential system, but without the checks and balances inherent in pure presidential systems, such as the one they have in the United States.
This is a serious flaw. It shows how dismal the situation in Parliament and in federal political life has become in Canada.
Don Boudria LiberalMinister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I would love to be able to say that I listened with interest to the hon. member's comments, but let me say something that Sir Winston Churchill once said and that was deemed parliamentary, which means that it will still be the case today. He said, “I should think it hardly possible to state the opposite of the truth with more precision”. This comment is not unparliamentary.
Don Boudria Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
I was quoting Sir Winston Churchill.
The motion before us today reads:
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--
As it was tabled yesterday, the motion of the hon. member for Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier is redundant, since it quite accurately reflects what is currently provided under the Standing Orders of the House of Commons. In fact, it is so similar that we wondered if it should be withdrawn and replaced with another motion, since it is asking us to do what is already being done. I will get back to this.
Standing Order 110 provides that 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 certain non-judicial post, not later than five sitting days after the order in council is published in the Canada Gazette .
Therefore, this document is automatically tabled in the House after five sitting days. I am the minister who signs these documents; it is my duty as government House leader. I am well aware of the fact that this is done, because we table such documents in the House on a regular basis. I am not the only one who is saying that it is being done and I will get back to this later on.
Standing Order 110 also provides, and I quote, “The same shall be deemed to have been referred to a standing committee specified... for its consideration”. It is deemed to have been referred to the committee.This is done automatically. Again, and I am repeating it for the benefit of the member opposite, this is deemed to have been done immediately.
Standing Order 111 provides that committees have up to 30 sitting days to examine the qualifications and competency of the appointee or nominee. Hon. members automatically have this right.
Of course, the decision of whether or not to call an appointee or nominee to appear before the committee is up to the committee. The hon. member just made a not so eloquent plea, but a plea nevertheless, asking that the committee have greater autonomy, and now he is telling us that the committee should not have the power to decide which witnesses it wants to hear. The comments made by the member opposite are totally contradictory.
In any case, the issue is referred to the committee. It is done automatically after five days. Therefore, the motion is totally redundant.
Standing Order 111 also requires that the curriculum vitae of the person be provided to the committee. Not only is the appointment automatically referred to committee after five days, thereby giving the committee 30 days to study the matter, the committee also has the curriculum vitae of the candidate, which allows it to decide whether or not to call the witness to appear before the committee in question.
Therefore, the House of Commons already has the procedure in question in place. I wish I could say that it was this government that established these procedures, but they predate our government, which has been in office since 1993. These procedures have been in place in the House for 15 years. They have been in place for so long that I used to have hair when they were introduced, which was some time ago.
Virtually all appointments that are not judicial appointments are tabled in the House. The member did not refer to judicial appointments in his motion. I am not among those who would like to see justices of the Supreme Court of Canada dragged before committees, as is done in the United States. I think that would be a bad idea, and I presume the member agrees with me, since he did not mention it in his motion.
The government believes that parliamentary scrutiny supports the selection of qualified candidates for senior government positions. This is a commitment that we confirmed in our 1993 red book.
Since we were elected in 1993, approximately 4,300 appointments have been tabled in the House. My predecessor, the former member for Windsor West, and I signed for 4,300 of these appointments which were tabled in the House and automatically referred to committee. What the hon. member is asking, we have done 4,300 times. One would think, not after once, or twice or three times, that after 4,300 times the hon. member would get it but inevitably he has not, or whomever researched this motion and put it under his name failed to do so.
Committees have had the opportunity to review each of these 4,300 appointments and the committees have been free to choose how they exercise that authority.
In the unlikely event that some members are tempted to doubt what I just said, surely the member opposite will believe his colleague, his party's critic for foreign affairs, the member for Mercier. I quote. Even though her name is given in the quote, since it is unparliamentary, I will not repeat it:
The member for Mercier—this is the headline from the release—asks that Alfonso Gagliano appear before the foreign affairs committee
She could have said the hon. Alfonso Gagliano, out of respect for parliamentary traditions, however. Here is the text of her release:
The Bloc Quebecois critic for foreign affairs and member for Mercier—followed by her name—moved a motion today calling for the former minister—to appear before the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade—
Here is what she did in the next paragraph, and again, I am quoting:
She invokes Standing Orders 110 and 111—and this is still in her words—which stipulate that the committee may call a person appointed by order in council to appear within thirty sitting days following the date the appointment was tabled, in order to examine the person's qualifications and competence to perform the duties of the post to which he or she has been appointed or nominated.
This is not me who said this, this is the member for Mercier. And that is not all. Finally, the member for Mercier, also in her release, expresses satisfaction. Here is why, and I quote:
The hon. member—I am not reading out her name—indicates that the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade has, since 1997, received 11 invitations to appear in connection with appointments by order in council and none of these was met by a refusal.
She expressed satisfaction that, in 100% of the cases in which the committee members had requested the attendance of an individual, the individual in question had attended. She was pleased with that result. She was pleased with the fact that standing orders 110 and 111 had been complied with, these orders requiring—as I have already pointed out—that nominations be automatically referred to the committee, and that in 100% of the cases when they had been invited to appear, particularly by the foreign affairs committee, people had in fact appeared.
She was pleased that the system had worked 100% of the time, and surely would continue to do so. Then, guess what? Within a few days, the hon. Alfonso Gagliano was also summoned to appear before the parliamentary committee.
We can see just how redundant and empty the Bloc Quebecois deputation here is when it is incapable of presenting on an opposition day anything that is not redundant or has already been addressed by the government.
I found what the hon. member had to say this morning concerning the power of the PMO. I will deviate from my text here to address this. It is most interesting.
I recall a time—as you do perhaps, Mr. Speaker, with your objectivity toward such matters—a time in the past, when there was a certain government in Quebec. one might say with PQ leanings, that summoned its officers overseas to it, and required them to bow the knee to sovereignty. The premier required support for sovereignty in exchange for job security.
People will remember those actions by the separatist government of Quebec.
Don Boudria Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
I hear the hubbub on the other side. Of course, it is because they have trouble swallowing this reality. It is very hard for them to do. Today they are claiming to be lily white, but their dark deeds of the past are well known to everyone.
Antoine Dubé Bloc Lévis-Et-Chutes-De-La-Chaudière, QC
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to ask you whether the words dark deeds, as used by the government House leader, is parliamentary.
SupplyGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)
It really depends on the context in which the words are used. In this case, I do not believe that it is unparliamentary.
The hon. government House leader may continue.
Don Boudria Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
Mr. Speaker, some members will remember the McGrath committee report. I was in the House when the report was tabled in 1985. I was not a member of the McGrath committee but the committee at the time made recommendations regarding the role of Parliament and government appointments.
It took a long time before the then prime minister, the Right Hon. Brian Mulroney, decided to establish such a rule, a rule that would provide for a mechanism by which parliamentary committees could review all non-judicial order in council appointments. The rule that we have now applies to deputy ministers, ambassadors, consuls general, and heads of most regulatory bodies and crown corporations. Canadians can be confident that the best appointments are being made by the government.
Those appointments have stood the test of scrutiny. In the vast majority of cases parliamentarians do not even ask for these people to appear before the parliamentary committee. Why? They are not questioning the competence of these people because they know that they are competent.
Earlier, the member opposite talked about the quality of appointees. He claimed that these people were appointed only because they were friends of the government.
On 134 occasions since 1993, we have advertised either in the Canada Gazette or in newspapers to try to recruit candidates for several positions that were subsequently filled through order-in-council appointments. Again that goes to show the great transparency of this government and of the Prime Minister, who has done such a good job on this issue and on all the other issues.
The motion in question is consistent with the Standing Orders. It essentially asks us to do that which we are doing. It is difficult for us to say that we are against that which we are doing already. I wonder why it is that the official opposition, perhaps not that party as much, refuses to have committees sit. It is on a work-to-rule campaign, working about 45 minutes a day during question period and refusing to do any other work around here.
Sooner or later the media and others will hold it to account for that and hopefully its constituents will also. In the name of so-called parliamentary modernization it has decided it does not want to work. How that constitutes modernization is beyond me. To that we can add that on the seven allotted days where our Standing Orders provide that the opposition can raise issues in the House of its liking, its solemn duty to air the grievances of the people before the sovereign as it were, we have today a motion repeating the existing Standing Orders of the House.
This is the best testimony, that we have had in a long time, that we are having good government in Canada. We cannot, even by offering an opposition day, convince the opposition to find something to criticize us. It has not been able to generate criticism of the government at all on a designated opposition day, a date that it has had for weeks. It has had weeks to think of something to criticize the government and after a week or more, what has it produced? It produced a motion that the House be in favour of a Standing Order that already exists. That is the only criticism of the government that it has been able to muster.
Of course I am in favour of the Standing Order that already exists and that has been used consistently without failure, according to the member for Mercier, the hon. member's seatmate in the House.
It is hard to understand but I am happy that the opposition, particularly the Bloc, does not have any particular criticism to direct at the government. In this day allotted to the Bloc to criticize the government, it has not found one single issue on which to criticize the government.
Instead it chose to propose a motion saying that certain provisions should be included in the Standing Orders, but these provisions already exist and are used constantly as another member of the Bloc, the member for Mercier, proudly pointed out.
We are pleased with the fact that members of the Bloc Quebecois have no criticism to express. They have nothing to say against the government. If they cannot find anything on which to criticize the government, they will certainly want to skip their turn in question period later today. In that case, our members will gladly take their place since they have several issues to raise, issues that Canadians want to see addressed in the House.
The Bloc motion that we have before us is a repetition of our existing Standing Orders and nothing else. It does not increase anything that we already have. It says that our traditions and conventions need to be upheld. This is a sign to me that the people across the way have been unable, after several days of research, to find one thing on which to criticize the government.
I am sure that my cabinet colleagues, our Prime Minister, and our caucus in its entirety, would thank them for this vote of confidence that they are expressing in this motion today.
Richard Marceau Bloc Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, QC
Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me congratulate the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons on his acting talent.
To say with a straight face that there is no concentration of powers in the Prime Minister's Office takes more acting talent than I could ever have. Strangely enough, and quite fortuitously, our motion proposes something similar to what the member for LaSalle—Émard himself proposed last week in Toronto.
Is the Leader of the Government in the House saying that the member for LaSalle—Émard was wrong in his analysis and his proposals? Is he saying that the member for LaSalle—Émard, a member of Parliament since 1988, does not understand how the House works? Is he saying that the member for LaSalle—Émard is totally out of touch with parliamentary reality for having made these proposals?
He cannot have it both ways; either the member for LaSalle—Émard was right when he said we must do something and suggested possible actions, or the member for LaSalle—Émard was totally wrong. Would the Leader of the Government in the House tell us which it is? Was the member mistaken, yes or no?