Mr. Speaker, the government House leader appears incapable of understanding the motion that is in front of us.
In section 3, we see “...shall be presented to the House at the next earliest opportunity as a report of that Committee.” In section 4, we see “which shall stand in the name of the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons under Notices of Motions”. That is where the House of Commons then votes on the appointee for the position of officer of Parliament.
What part of this does she not understand? She said she read the motion and understands the motion, yet she rejects it based on this.
Here is the hopeful thing: if her main contention is that this motion prevents MPs from voting on the appointee and if that is her problem with the motion, then I am happy to remove that problem for her, because the motion in several instances talks about how once it comes from the subcommittee, it comes back here for a concurrence motion and the entire House of Commons votes on it.
In my 20-minute speech, I mentioned five or six times that Parliament hires and Parliament fires the officers of Parliament. That is who they work for. That is what the motion confirms.
As for the process as it is right now, I cannot believe that the government is expressing confidence in its appointments process. Ask Madeleine Meilleur how that went. Ask about the delay upon delay of all of these appointments. I read the list of the upcoming appointments that are yet to be made, and most of them have been vacant for months and months.
The Auditor General, the Ethics Commissioner, the Commissioner of Lobbying, the Information Commissioner, the parliamentary budget officer, the language commissioner are all delayed because of the government's inability to appoint people properly. The most recent example shows what a disaster it was.
This motion allows for a vote in Parliament. Does the government House leader understand that? If she does, will she not support it? It is a simple question.