Réal Ménard

[Daffodil Month, April 6th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, over the years, the daffodil has become the symbol of the Canadian Cancer Society's cancer awareness campaign. This flower, symbolizing life and hope, will be on sale during the month of April to raise funds to fight cancer.

In addition to helping fund cancer prevention activities, the money raised will help fund important research for all types of cancer, provide comprehensive information about cancer care and treatment, support people living with cancer and their families, provide training and education for volunteers and promote healthy lifestyles and strategies for preventing this terrible disease.

If we all work together, cancer can be beaten.

[Committees of the House, April 5th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, sometimes in the House, the parliamentary secretaries can be a little vague. This would not be the first time.

In my opinion, it is the role the official opposition, like that of all the opposition parties in the House, to be vigilant about the appointments made. I do not believe a definitive solution has been found just because it was dealt with in committee. It is the prerogative of the opposition parties to initiate a debate such as this. Not only is it the prerogative of the opposition parties, it is their duty.

I repeat that we must return to the crux of the debate. This is not a personal attack. I myself met with Glen Murray in Winnipeg. I know that he did a good job as mayor and that he is a responsible man. However, nothing in his professional background makes him an expert on environmental issues. As a result, we see a connection between his membership in the Liberal Party and the position he has been offered.

[Committees of the House, April 5th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with what our colleague just said. It is true that the Prime Minister has unfortunately broken the promises he made during the election campaign. It is true that it is the institution of Parliament that is tarnished as a result of partisan appointments. We must get back to basics, that is, to the role played by individual members. They show what they can do in parliamentary committees and here in the House.

Two more things could be done to enhance the role of members. The first would be to increase the amount of time spent on private members' business. As we know, the Standing Orders have been revised to put an end to the lottery system and make it possible for each member to introduce a private member's bill at least once every Parliament.

I wonder whether the time has not come to think of abolishing the Friday question period and spend the entire day studying private member's bills. That would be a way of increasing the amount of time spent on them.

There is an imbalance between the amount of time allotted to the government for House business and the amount allotted to ordinary members. If we could get the support of the Conservatives and government members, and if my good friends the neo-Bolsheviks agreed to consider the idea of increasing the amount of time for private members, we could deal on Fridays with three, four, five or six private member's bills.

The official opposition motion that we are discussing leads to questions about the role played by members of Parliament, respect for the institution, and respect for parliamentary committees, in this case the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development.

[Committees of the House, April 5th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her question and I can understand her feeling a bit discouraged by what is happening today. Obviously it is ultimately the institution that is threatened.

We work in good faith in committee. We want to give it our best and help ensure that things go well.

It is distressing to see the government be so pathologically stubborn. I think that she is right to feel disappointed. We share her disappointment because the House's time could have been used for other purposes. At the same time, it is the opposition's role to act as a watchdog.

Once again, the government should have relied on the very able judgment of the committee, which had everything it needed to take an objective, informed look at this appointment.

[Committees of the House, April 5th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to take part in the debate on the motion introduced by our official opposition colleagues during routine proceedings.

I must say that the motion is somewhat important since, ultimately, it invites us to reflect on the role parliamentarians must play within civil society and, above all, on a particular way of proceeding.

I am speaking on behalf of my Bloc Québécois colleagues when I say that we are not calling into question the personal merits of Glen Murray, the former mayor of Winnipeg who doubtless served his constituents well. What we are questioning is the fact he has become the chair of a round table on the environment, when there is no indication that his professional experience or individual expertise has prepared him for such a position of leadership, consultation and consensus building.

This is in no way a personal attack; this is an attempt to call attention to the government's practice—unfortunately all too common—of giving positions of responsibility to individuals who ran for the government party during a federal election. We have two comments about this.

First, when he became leader of the Liberal Party, the Prime Minister called for a democratic renewal. He promised to enhance the role of Parliament. Clearly, such a commitment affects the work of the House as well as that of its committees. MPs spend a great deal of time in committee.

As a member of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, our colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie has become very knowledgeable about environmental issues. However, that committee did not support the appointment of Glen Murray. It informed the Prime Minister that, despite a personal appreciation of Glen Murray, certain individuals in civil society were more qualified in environmental issues than the former mayor of Winnipeg. Once again, this debate must not focus on personal issues, but rather on the level of expertise.

The Prime Minister cannot talk about enhancing the role of parliamentarians and then completely ignore the recommendation by the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development. That is, incidentally, one of the most dynamic committees of the House and has produced some very good reports in the past. All of its members, regardless of political background, are greatly concerned about the environment. Their concerns are shared by numerous Canadians. We know that the environment is one of the areas of concern that has grown considerably in importance in recent years.

My second comment relates to the government's propensity, its regrettable bad habit, of appointing former Liberal candidates. How many times have we had examples of that in our ridings, for instance in relation to returning officer appointments. When I was a returning officer myself, I had two experiences of dealing with candidates who had of course not been elected in the general election because that was the wish of my fellow citizens.

We do not feel it is desirable to give preferential treatment to people who are closely associated with a political party. Everyone has a right to acquire some experience within a political party or even to openly identify with a particular party, but this must not be used as a springboard to accede to certain positions of responsibility.

If, for instance, Glen Murray had been a former head of Greenpeace, if all his career had been devoted to working on behalf of the environment, then there would not have been any problem.

I will give the example of the former leader of the NDP. When he was appointed director of the Canadian Centre for Human Rights and Democratic Development, there was a consensus in this House on his appointment. The former leader of the NDP, and now the member for Ottawa Centre, had in fact been involved in those issues all his life. It is understandable that people, even those with partisan affiliations, have made a name for themselves campaigning for something in the past.

With all due respect for Glen Murray, whose skills, merit and integrity I do not question, I am sorry to say that there is nothing in his career path to suggest that he should be in charge of coordinating environmental matters.

It is important to enhance the role of committees. When I was elected in 1993, I was a fiery thirtysomething. Lucien Bouchard, who was our leader at the time—one of the greatest premiers of Quebec, as everyone in this House knows—told us at our first caucus meeting that we would discover that it is in committees that MPs truly make their mark. There is no hiding in committees. Either you know your stuff or not. That is where we see how good parliamentarians are.

Parliamentarians spend a lot of time in committees. If I am not mistaken, the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development meets at least twice a week, if not three times. I have known my colleague to have five committee meetings in one week, when Charles Caccia was chair.

If the role of parliamentarians, who spend a lot of time in committee, is to be given its due, their recommendations have to be taken into account. It would be basic courtesy for a Prime Minister to accept the recommendation of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development in which the three opposition parties were not prepared to support the appointment of Glen Murray as the co-ordinator, the chair of the round table on the environment, considered to be of some importance in an advisory capacity.

I was an MP when Sheila Copps, who was Minister of the Environment, wrote all parliamentarians on the subject of this round table. It is regrettable, once again, that the role of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development has been given short shrift. We can only hope for an end to the overly incestuous relationship among Liberal allegiances, involvements in civil society and the link between the two.

Individuals' ability is not an issue. If people are competent, we are happy to support their involvement and responsibilities at various levels. However, if their career path does not include performing certain duties, their candidacy for the Liberal Party is no reason for their appointment to positions of responsibility.

Again, it is nothing personal, but we cannot but hope that, in the future, a stop is put to this all too ready reflex, democratically unhealthy and offensive to Parliament, to appoint unsuccessful candidates to positions of responsibility, considering their responsibilities.

[Committees of the House, April 4th, 2005]

I thank my colleague for her question. I am glad to some extent that I have enthralled her and that I have, deep down, made my first female conquest.

More seriously, I say to her that, if the number of victims who are entitled to compensation were increased, this would mean in reality that care and financial support for these people would be extended. Hepatitis C has different levels. Victims are not all in the same phase in the illness and, depending on the phase considered and the progress of this terrible illness, of course, care is different, as the annual and monthly payments should be.

I believe that the important thing is to have common solidarity. No one asked to receive tainted blood; this was within the government's responsibility for public health. For this reason, I think that this is an issue of historic redress.

I know that all members of the Bloc Québécois have followed with great compassion and interest an issue that we did not imagine we would face a few years ago. I know that the former health minister, Thérèse Lavoie-Roux, Pierre-Marc Johnson and other ministers were summoned to appear. Because of certain legal realities, they were unable to testify on this issue, but the fact remains that this historic mistake must be corrected.

[Committees of the House, April 4th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, before I speak to the motion, let me extend, on behalf of all of us, my best wishes for a happy birthday to the member for Témiscamingue, whose age I will keep a secret.

The motion today is extremely important. It was considered extensively in the Standing Committee on Health. It was introduced by our colleague, the Conservative health critic. Concerning the debate on hepatitis C and the victims who contracted this illness as a result of blood transfusions in public institutions—hospitals—it is true that the parliamentary secretary is quite right in inviting us not to be partisan on an issue such as this. However, it is too easy for the government to say that it is now in favour of this cause and that it is bound by a number of technical details that we will be able to discuss in a moment.

We cannot help, however, but to point out that, back in 1997, when Justice Krever presented his report, the Bloc Québécois critic for health was the hon. member for Drummond. In 1997, the government should have followed up on the first recommendation from Justice Krever, who is not a parliamentarian and, therefore, is not partisan and who took a scientific look at series of data. Hon. members will also remember that the provincial health ministers were subpoenaed as Crown witnesses. There was a serious, scientific investigation process. After two years of investigation, the Krever commission called for compensation, no fault compensation, to be paid.

Those of my hon. colleagues who were here at the time—I know that the hon. member for Québec was here—and myself will not soon forget the following scene: a former Liberal member who had changed allegiance at the time when the first Liberal budget was brought down because the government had failed to abolish the GST crossed the floor and laid a flower on the desk of Allan Rock, the then health minister, inviting him to increase the compensation. Had there been a will to resolve this debate in 1997, the government had the means to implement its policies.

Granted, this is a unique issue. We are not talking about taxation, social housing, the war on poverty or sports, but about human lives. As time goes by, week after week, month after month, the number of victims increases and we can assess the magnitude of the government's mistake.

Earlier, I heard the parliamentary secretary say that they did not have the relevant information concerning the actual number of victims. I am sorry, but I remember perfectly well the debate we had in this House, and it was not about the number of victims. The argument put forward by Mr. Rock, who was the health minister at the time, which was also the argument of the member for Sudbury and every Liberal health minister from 1993 to 2004, was that screening technologies were available during the period to which they did not want to extend the compensation.

It had nothing to do with determining the number of victims, but it had everything to do with the government arguing that the screening technologies were available and that public health agencies and agencies responsible for the blood supply system should have used them. From an historical point of view, we must keep this argument in mind. It is our duty, as parliamentarians, to be extremely vigilant with regard to this issue. I am grateful to our Conservative colleague for that, and I think the Bloc Québécois has also always been extremely vigilant in matters such as this one.

The purpose of the motion in the parliamentary committee is to bring the government to right an historical wrong. Personally, I think that the government should apologize to the victims.

The Minister of Health should have seized the opportunity provided by today's motion to make a statement.

Today, for example, I spoke with someone from the Canadian Hemophilia Society. This is not just any organization; it has an official role to play as a representative in this matter. It so happens that the Canadian Hemophilia Society was not even aware of the nature of the discussions between the lawyers representing the victims infected before 1986 and those representing the victims infected between 1986 and 1990.

I understand that the legal process in which we are engaged imposes certain limits on the government. However, it is totally unacceptable that an organization such as the Canadian Hemophilia Society, which is authorized to speak on behalf of victims of tainted blood, is not kept informed of what is happening with regard to this issue.

I understand that the funds totalling slightly more than $1 billion that were put in trust no longer belong to the Government of Canada for administrative purposes. The managers of this trust act independently.

It is true that when these issues were debated in the House, we wanted such a mechanism to be put in place to prevent any form of political interference.

This does not, however, mean that it is not within the mandate of the Minister of Health to assess the situation from time to time and provide the lawyers involved in these negotiations with some very specific directions. I do not, moreover, believe that a number of the members here are any more informed.

It is one thing to have an independently administered program, as we have been calling for wholeheartedly, but it is quite another to keep parliamentarians out of the loop as far as progress is concerned.

I remember the take note debate we had just before the holidays. The Bloc Québécois, through its leader, the hon. member for Roberval, a man who very rarely descends to political partisanship, proposed to the other parliamentary leaders that a take note debate be held.

At that time, I asked the minister if he could provide us with guarantees that this matter would be settled by June. He was confident that it could. Even this past week, I asked the parliamentary secretary whether a cabinet memorandum had been submitted on this and what the status was.

Now it is April and I have learned that things are barely moving. Even if lawyers are not the fastest and most zealous members of our society, the situation is still this: here we are in April and the negotiations have scarcely begun.

What comfort can we find, then, in the commitments made during the take note debate held before the Christmas break? The wish had been expressed that this matter be settled before the summer adjournment in June. Yet the lawyers have barely begun their discussions.

This is where Parliament can bring some pressure to bear. The minister must give the lawyers a very clear mandate including performance obligations—we know what that means in legal language—so that, by June, official conclusions will be reached and the fund made accessible to the pre-1986 and post-July 1990 victims. This would remedy an historic wrong that has gone on far too long.

The Prime Minister should have risen in the House today to apologize to the victims on behalf of his government. Naturally, the Minister of Health was not present in the House. He is new, a young recruit. He was elected in the most recent election, in 2004. Of course, he was not here before, but, in the name of ministerial solidarity, he should have risen in this House. He would have brought greater credit to his office had he apologized to the House.

It would not be the first time. Brian Mulroney apologized to the Japanese community for the suffering it endured in the second world war. I repeat, quick follow-up was required, but Allan Rock gave an exceedingly technocratic speech. It was devoid of any hint of sympathy for the victims infected before 1986 and after 1990.

Again, I recall clearly an hon. member, whose name escapes me, who was a member of the rat pack when the Liberals were in opposition. Former Prime Minister Jean Chrétien excluded this member from caucus. This member had wanted to follow through and have the Liberals act on their promise to abolish the GST, which the journalists interpreted as “Give Sheila Time”. We have not forgotten that the former Canadian Heritage minister went public with a statement that, if the Liberals did not abolish the GST, she would resign. In politics, making commitments means keeping them.

In conclusion, today is an important day for the victims. The opposition has done its job. I do not doubt that there is compassion among the Liberals, on the government side. I am thinking about my committee chair, the hon. member for Oakville, and other members of the Standing Committee on Health who agree that what is needed in terms of historical redress is to broaden compensation.

The government made a historic error in the form of a terrible insensitivity. The Minister of Health allowed himself to be guided by terribly technocratic considerations. Nonetheless, I do not doubt that among the Liberals there are some people who want to redress this historic error.

The best thing the Minister of Health can do—and he is said to represent the left in the Liberal Party—is to give urgent information and directives to his lawyers to ensure that by summer adjournment, roughly the second week of June, the lawyers have sealed an agreement. We have to be able to tell the victims that we are finally going to make good on recommendation number one of the Krever inquiry and that all hepatitis C victims will receive compensation regardless of when they contracted the disease. In this situation we certainly cannot accuse people of being the authors of their own misfortune.

When you go to the hospital it is reasonable to expect the blood supply system to be safe. I must add, for historical purposes, that at the time, the Red Cross was in charge of the blood supply. The Red Cross had a very good international reputation. We all felt secure in the fact that this was the agency in charge. We were comforted by the fact that the Red Cross was in charge of these operations.

You know what happened next. Unfortunately, the supply was tainted. However, once again, the government was simply far too slow in acting on recommendation number one in the report of the Krever inquiry.

Today, we would have expected the Minister of Health to stand up, apologize to the victims and make a clear commitment on the mandates given to the lawyers. I am sure that all the members in this House will continue to follow this case and pressure the government as long as we do not receive a guarantee that money will be available for all hepatitis C victims.

[Civil Marriage Act, March 21st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak to Bill C-38. I cannot help but think that, somehow, we are witnessing a bit of history unfold and times change.

If I am not mistaken, this is our 10th debate in the House on the rights of gays and lesbians. During each of these debates, we hear the same arguments, sometimes as questions, but other times as prejudice, unfortunately.

The government deserves credit for this bill. We must recognize that it takes a great deal of courage to introduce legislation on civil marriage between same sex couples, not just because this is a minority government but also because many people feel very strongly about this subject.

I also cannot help but think that we are able to discuss such a bill today thanks to people such as Svend Robinson, Michael Hendricks, René Leboeuf and activists who, throughout Canada and particularly Quebec, spoke out to make homosexuality normal, respectable and deserving of the support of parliamentarians.

One might wonder why men and women of homosexual orientation would want to marry. The bill responds to legal issues in the aftermath of a reference to the Supreme Court. It also follows on numerous challenges before appeal courts as well as courts of first instance. There are, of course, some legal realities behind this bill.

They are not, however, the fundamental reason why we, as parliamentarians, must support this bill. I have had an opportunity to discuss this with my colleague and friend, the hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, and I thank him for his work on this.

The first reason why this bill must be supported is, it seems to me, a matter of citizenship. I do not believe that homosexual men and women have different reasons for wanting to marry. Nor do I believe that motivations other than those for heterosexuals are involved in the debate.

We all know what it means to be in love. Two people feel right together. They see no one but each other, think only of each other, want to plan a life together. It makes no difference whether the two are homosexual or heterosexual.

People of homosexual orientation, like myself, consider marriage to have to do with fidelity, a shared life, mutual commitment, and support, all very important values.

Some day, our friends the Conservatives, those from the churches and others opposed to the bill, must explain to us how same sex couples' access to the most important lay institution after the schools is likely to weaken marriage. That is what I do not get about this debate.

I can understand that some people may be uncomfortable when they see two men or two women holding hands. I can understand that the homosexual reality is less present in some communities. Certainly, in a major centre like Montreal, Vancouver, Toronto or Halifax, it is virtually impossible to live one's life without knowing someone who is homosexual.

Today's debate is basically focussed on values.

Gays and lesbians are calling for the right to marriage, but there are no statistics on this. To think, until the last census we did not even know how many gays and lesbians there were in Canada. We certainly do not have accurate statistics on the number of people wanting to get married. However, one thing is certain, our responsibility as parliamentarians is to pass the bill that will give them this possibility, so that those wanting to get married can do so.

In my life, I have had three long-term relationships: the first when I was 20, the second when I was 25, and the third began a few years ago. Each time, in my experience as a gay man, I never felt as though the highs or lows of my relationships were any different than those of my twin brother, René, who is undeniably heterosexual—not polygamous, but heterosexual.

All that to say that some arguments do not stand up to scrutiny. The Supreme Court reference includes a paragraph which is very important, in my view, to our debates. It is paragraph 46 and it reads:

The mere recognition of the equality rights of one group cannot, in itself, constitute a violation of the rights of another. The promotion of Charter rights and values enriches our society as a whole and the furtherance of those rights cannot undermine the very principles the Charter was meant to foster.

Why is this paragraph so important? The Supreme Court clearly stated that there is no “conflict of rights”.

When this debate began in 2002, 2003 and 2004, they tried to have us believe that if you were driven by a sense of religion, you could not subscribe to the idea of equality for gays and lesbians. I believe this is absolutely not true. No matter how a person expresses their spirituality, or identifies themselves with religion, I think that in this House we can vote for what I call a supreme value, a value at the core of charters, rights and freedoms, in Canada and Quebec, and that is the right to equality. It is unacceptable to have two categories of people, who pay taxes, who take part in democratic institutions, who participate in community life, who are professionally involved and who do not have the same rights.

We heard the argument that recognizing the right of homosexual persons to marry would open the door to polygamy and polyandry, which would cause the disintegration of all marital relationships or committed relationships as part of a family.

I do not think that that is an honest argument because, frankly, is there one person who believes that the courts in B.C., Ontario, Quebec and elsewhere could have ruled that the lawmakers had to recognize same sex partners, had it not been for the right to equality?

The right to equality excludes polygamy and polyandry. Why? Because this concept that men could have more than one spouse is completely contrary to the right to equality. Women are considered to be so distinct that their relationships have to be legitimized, and using these as a mere bargaining chit within a broader type of relationship is completely contrary to the right to equality. I do not think that anyone in this House could find a court ruling or decision, in any way, shape or form, suggesting that the right to equality legitimizes polyandry and polygamy.

I will conclude with a wish: that this bill be referred as soon as possible to the Standing Committee on Justice, Human Rights, Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, a special committee or a committee of the whole.

I hope that all parliamentarians will support this bill, which is a step in the direction of equality, gives respectability to homosexuality and in no way threatens families and the right to loving commitment.

[Auditor General Act, March 21st, 2005]

Yes, because her appointment was supported by all parliamentarians. I think I can safely take it upon myself to say that Sheila Fraser has no enemies in this place. She is held in high esteem by everyone. This is a woman who has managed to exceed the expectations we had upon her appointment. In a sense, she is a clairvoyant. I think that all parliamentarians in this House will agree on that.

However, there are limits to what she can do. Even though, as everyone knows, she is a very enterprising and efficient woman, there are limits to what she can do, since there are a number of crown corporations that she cannot investigate. Bill C-277, introduced by the hon. member for Repentigny, would give the Auditor General the means to investigate and review, with her keen eye, Canada Post—of course, we have reasons to think it would be interesting to know more about what Canada Post is doing—the Bank of Canada, the Public Service Superannuation Plan, the Canada pension plan and the Canadian Race Relations Foundation.

One of the objectives of the hon. member's bill is to allow the Auditor General to act as auditor or joint auditor of crown corporations, which, until now, have not been subjected to her control.

I hope I am conveying fairly accurately our colleague's view when I say that, should his bill become law, what would make him particularly proud is the fact that the Auditor General would be able to follow very closely what is happening with the foundations. For the benefit of those who are watching us, I should point out that, over the past seven years, the federal government has transferred a little over $9 billion generated with Quebeckers' taxes.

At a press conference, the hon. member for Repentigny clearly said that the purpose of his bill was not to question the merits of these foundations, although we never agreed with them. It is the foundations themselves that are targeted, not their mandate or relevance. It is the mechanism through which the government is pursuing, with taxes paid by Quebeckers and Canadians, public policies without parliamentarians having any control over these initiatives.

As I was saying, over the past seven years, close to $9 billion has been transferred to foundations. I want to be a little more specific for the benefit of our viewers. What are we talking about here?

For example, the Canadian Foundation for Innovation, which conducts industrial research and so forth, was established in 1997. It has received $3.6 billion from Parliament, Treasury Board and the Department of Finance.

There was a problem with the Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation, which was created in 1998 and which has received $2.5 billion. If I remember correctly, all the parties in the National Assembly were uncomfortable with the idea that the federal government could intervene by granting educational scholarships, for excellence in education, since it does not have the relevant or appropriate jurisdiction to do so.

The Canada Health Infoway, created in 2000, has received $1.2 billion. In 2000, its first year, Genome Canada received $375 million. In the most recent budget tabled by the Minister of Finance, its funding was increased, as we all know.

The Aboriginal Healing Foundation, created in 1998, has received $350 million. Sustainable Development Technology Canada, created in 2001, has received $350 million. The Canadian Health Services Research Foundation, established in 1997, received $152 million in its first budget, but if I recall correctly, additional funds were allocated during the 2000 first ministers' conference.

Consequently, the hon. member for Repentigny did not tackle some sort of commonplace occurrence. There are billions of dollars going to foundations. So what is the dispute about, what is the basis of the problem? It is that both the Treasury Board and the Department of Finance take for granted that the moneys allocated to the foundations were actually spent by the government. Examples have been brought to our attention thanks to the vigilance of the Auditor General. We have learned that, in certain cases, money lay dormant in bank accounts for years. What is more, as we speak, although foundations were created back in 1999, 2000, 2001 or 2002, we know that the money has not always actually gone where it was intended, whether for research, bursaries, aboriginals or whatever. However, the federal government considers these as expenditures on its books.

This leads to two problems. As far as bookkeeping is concerned, it is dishonest. As far as policy is concerned, it lacks transparency. As far as Parliament is concerned, it is unacceptable, because accountability is obviously lacking.

In some countries this is cause for revolution. I wonder, in our parliamentary history—the hon. member for Repentigny knows the answer since he was a popular history teacher—what was the ministerial accountability in 1848? It was precisely that parliamentarians should monitor the budgets meticulously and with a sense of detail. Throughout our constitutional history, no one has been prepared to give up or cut down on the prerogatives of parliamentarians for that type of control.

The prerogatives of parliamentarians were given up, not subtly, but surreptitiously—there is no other word for it—and it was accepted as normal that the foundations should not have to come under the close scrutiny of parliamentarians.

We must thank the hon. member for Repentigny, and his assistant, for all the vigilance he demonstrated with this bill he introduced in this House. Out of pure respect for the prerogatives of parliamentarians, the best thing that could happen would be for this bill to receive support from all parties, and for it to be sent to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts for improvement, if necessary.

In my opinion, Parliament would be better for it and better equipped in terms of public accounts. This will be a lasting contribution by the hon. member for Repentigny to the development and future of our work.

[Auditor General Act, March 21st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to Bill C-277, introduced by our likeable and endearing colleague from Repentigny. Today is a historic day in certain respects, as there is great hope that it will see this bill passed, without presupposing what the House intends to do, of course.

The hon. member for Repentigny, who is our critic for the Treasury Board and public accounts, has been very well advised to introduce a bill which, frankly, adds transparency, integrity and even broadness of outlook to our legislative process. His goal is to ensure that, as parliamentarians, we have total control over the funds allocated by the government. We are not talking about private foundations. I realize that, in very specific cases, foundations would still be able to use private mechanisms. But, for the most part, we are dealing with creatures of Parliament established by acts of Parliament, with respect to which it is appropriate, fair and wise that parliamentarians be able to follow how this funding is used.

As I understand it, the bill introduced by the hon. member for Repentigny has three main purposes. This is a very well-thought-out and relevant bill, as were all the other bills he has introduced in this House. He is a very prolific member in terms of legislation.

First, reference is made to the Auditor General, Sheila Fraser, whom everyone holds in high esteem. Can the Auditor General be considered an officer of the House?