Mr. Speaker, the government House leader pointed out that today marked his first speech in the House as leader, and I congratulate him.
A moment ago, our colleague told us it was his first speech as leader of the official opposition, and I congratulate him as well.
I cannot claim equal freshness, because I am the senior House leader in this Parliament. I shall attempt to use that experience wisely to point out a number of flaws that strike me at first glance, in the bill tabled by the government House leader.
Regarding the basic elements of the reform, we must salute the government's desire, which was also the desire of the previous government, to move forward on the appointment of an ethics counsellor responsible to the House of Commons.
The Liberal Party has had this goal in its platform since 1993. We support it and we have demanded this change many times ourselves.
However, it is clear to everyone that, for 10 years, the government has been hiding behind the more or less informed advice of an ethics counsellor reporting directly to the Prime Minister's office.
If the government really wants this ethics commissioner project, with the commissioner answerable to Parliament, to have all the scope it ought to have, we feel that the government must also commit to a review of the decisions reached by Howard Wilson. On several occasions, he has supported the government, if not saved its skin, although lacking the necessary status and independence.
An ethics counsellor is all very well and good, but there needs to be a review of the decisions made by the previous one, who in a way simply assumed that title without having the necessary independence.
The government ought also to ensure that a public investigation is carried out, in order to cast light on the whole sponsorship issue, if it wants to start off with a clean slate.
As for the committees, the government wants to improve their situation, increase their budgets and enhance their authority. The Bloc Quebecois subscribes to these noble objectives, but the government still needs to realize that it is a matter of attitude.
When the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development made a unanimous recommendation to review the employment insurance program because it had seen all the suffering created across Canada by the government's cuts, the government brushed aside this unanimous recommendation.
What point would there be in increasing budgets, means, research capacity, resources and what have you for committees if the government's attitude is to reject a recommendation that does not suit it, reject it totally, regardless of the fact that it is unanimous, in other words even when government MPs are on side with members of the opposition?
The government wants to improve voting. It wants to create three categories, or lines, of votes. This strikes me at first glance as an attractive idea. There will be free votes, partially free votes, and others with no freedom whatsoever. So that may perhaps have some merit.
How, though, can such a reform have any value at all, as long as the government continues to persist with its negative attitude toward the House of Commons?
The best example of this is very recent. While the Prime Minister of Canada assumes ownership of a plan to enhance the role of members of Parliament, to reform our institutions and improve the system in general, the Minister of Foreign Affairs is telling us that there is no question of the government waiting on any studies, or a House debate and vote, on the missile defence shield because this is too important an issue to delay until the conclusions of such studies would be available.
What is the point of conducting studies and trying to empower Parliament? Everyone, the press, our fellow citizens, is told that we are going to improve things for members of Parliament, by increasing the accountability of these men and women who are elected to represent their fellow citizens, when in fact the government could care less and, at the first opportunity, tells us there is no point in expecting these things and that we must decide now.
My goodness, is this reform just so much grandstanding, or is it the result of a deep-rooted desire on the part of the government to improve the role of this House? If that is the case, the Prime Minister ought to immediately call his Minister of National Defence and Minister of Foreign Affairs to order. They are going in exactly the opposite direction to the fine intentions expressed in the document before us today.
Committees will be allowed to examine appointments. Great. That is all very well; nominations of Supreme Court justices—we will look at those. But if a committee asks to see Alfonso Gagliano—who is up to his ears in a scandal—the government stubbornly refuses. That is what the committees want. They want to have before them those they have asked to appear. They want to be able to question the responsible public servants; they want to be able to question ministers guilty of mismanagement.
If there is no will to change the culture of the Liberal government in depth, it will be a waste of time. I hope that the leader of the government will take note of these recommendations and send them on to the Prime Minister's office.
We will know that he has done so if the Prime Minister calls his two ministers to order—the Minister of Defence and the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
