Speech (House debate)

{
    "time": "2018-10-23 18:50:00",
    "attribution": {
        "en": "Mr. David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre, NDP)",
        "fr": "M. David Christopherson (Hamilton-Centre, NPD)"
    },
    "content": {
        "en": "<p class=\"procedural\" data-HoCid=\"5593364\"> moved: </p>\n<blockquote><p data-HoCid=\"5593365\" data-originallang=\"en\"> That, in the opinion of the House, a special committee, chaired by the Speaker of the House, should be established at the beginning of each new Parliament, in order to select all Officers of Parliament. </p>\n</blockquote><p data-HoCid=\"5593366\" data-originallang=\"en\">Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to present this motion. It is a pretty simple motion, actually. It is a matter of fixing something that is wrong right now, that our officers or agents of Parliament, the words are interchangeable, are hired by the executive in the process that is used.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"5593367\" data-originallang=\"en\">My motion is deliberately worded so that I am not calling on the government, today, to implement it this Parliament, because, quite frankly, I have been around long enough to know that is not going to happen. I deliberately placed a model in here. I want to say that I am not married to that model either. The principle is what matters to me. The principle is that Parliament should hire Parliament's agents. It is that simple.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"5593368\" data-originallang=\"en\">I have to say that I am really looking forward to arguments against this motion, simply because I cannot think of any that hold any merit. I am very much looking forward to the debate that will ensue with those who do not think that Parliament should stand up for its own rights.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"5593369\" data-originallang=\"en\">I am going to make reference during, and also after, my initial remarks to a Public Policy Forum report that was just issued in April this year. What is interesting is that I had already drafted my motion by the time this report came out, which calls for something similar.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"5593370\" data-originallang=\"en\">First of all, I want to introduce the report very briefly:</p>\n<blockquote><p data-HoCid=\"5593371\" data-originallang=\"en\"> In this report, the Public Policy Forum (PPF) analyzes the current and evolving role of agents at the federal and provincial levels to provide recommendations on how oversight and guidance in the administration of policies can be improved while maintaining their autonomy within Canada\u2019s Westminster system. </p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"5593372\" data-originallang=\"en\"> Supported by an advisory group of former agents, senior public servants and other experts, PPF conducted 20 interviews and organized three roundtable discussions between October and December 2017. </p>\n</blockquote><p data-HoCid=\"5593373\" data-originallang=\"en\">I do not want to take the time to mention everyone involved in this report, but just to give colleagues a taste of the calibre of the people who were involved in it. There is going to be at least one name that will twig with everybody, I suspect. I am just going to pick some of them: Margaret Bloodworth; Robert Marleau, former Clerk of the House of Commons; Jodi White; David Zussman; Richard Dicerni; Paul Dub\u00e9; Janet Ecker; Christine Elliott; Graham Fraser; the amazing Sheila Fraser, who alone should be enough for the House to follow the recommendations; Edward Greenspon; Bonnie Lysyk; John Milloy; Kevin Page, whom we all remember, and for the work he is still doing at the University of Ottawa; James Rajotte, a well-known member to colleagues; and Wayne Wouters, former Clerk of the Privy Council. That is the calibre of people who were involved in this report.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"5593374\" data-originallang=\"en\">Their number one recommendation out of nine is the following:</p>\n<blockquote><p data-HoCid=\"5593375\" data-originallang=\"en\"> The creation of new agents is the purview of Parliament and legislatures, not the executive. </p>\n</blockquote><p data-HoCid=\"5593376\" data-originallang=\"en\">The third recommendation states:</p>\n<blockquote><p data-HoCid=\"5593377\" data-originallang=\"en\"> Legislators must be responsible for the appointment of agents, with the aim of having all-party support for the final selection. The Privy Council Office and the Prime Minister\u2019s Office should withdraw entirely from the appointments process. A special parliamentary committee should consider the kinds of selection processes operating in provinces such as Alberta and Saskatchewan. </p>\n</blockquote><p data-HoCid=\"5593378\" data-originallang=\"en\">May I add that the United Kingdom, the mother ship, is really radical in who takes the lead in hiring the U.K. Parliament's auditor general. Guess who it is? It is the public accounts committee, the home committee to our auditor general. How can that not make sense?</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"5593379\" data-originallang=\"en\">Before we get to the principle of why we should be doing this, members need to look at the incompetence on the part of the current government in making appointments and at all the messes and botch-ups it has made through all of it. I expect that all of those details are going to come out over the next couple of hours of discussion, which will be split over a couple of days.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"5593380\" data-originallang=\"en\">The report I made reference to had something to say about the process the government followed too: </p>\n<blockquote><p data-HoCid=\"5593381\" data-originallang=\"en\"> The shambolic nature of the appointments process has done nothing to elevate the standing of agents in the mind of legislators, public servants and the public. </p>\n</blockquote><p data-HoCid=\"5593382\" data-originallang=\"en\">Further, as one round table participant said, one only has to look at the botched effort to appoint former Ontario Liberal cabinet minister Madeleine Meilleur as the Official Languages Commissioner, in 2017, to see how not to handle the appointment of an agent of Parliament.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"5593383\" data-originallang=\"en\">If we take a look at the current process, it technically meets the law in that this House has to give its final approval with a vote. However, under the current system, the government does the entire hiring process, short of letting the two other leaders know what its intention is. </p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"5593384\" data-originallang=\"en\">I just happen to have a sample of that. This is a letter to the leader of the NDP. We will see who knows the rules over there. </p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"5593385\" data-originallang=\"en\">It states, \u201cI am writing to seek your views regarding the proposed nominee for the position of Chief Electoral Officer.\u201d I am pulling out bits of this. I love this. It goes on, \u201cFollowing an open and transparent and merit-based selection process, I propose the nomination of\u201d, Mr. X, \u201cas the next Chief Electoral Officer.\u201d I do not feel it is necessary to mention his name.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"5593386\" data-originallang=\"en\">That was on April 3. On April 27, the NDP leader got another letter from the <a data-HoCid=\"214296\" href=\"/politicians/justin-trudeau/\" title=\"Justin Trudeau\">Prime Minister</a>, which stated, \u201cI am writing in follow-up to the letter from the government of April 3 regarding the position of Chief Electoral Officer. Your feedback was appreciated. Please be advised that the government will not be proceeding with the nomination, as the principal nominee has been withdrawn.\u201d </p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"5593387\" data-originallang=\"en\">We can tell it is a form letter, because it says, \u201cFollowing an open and transparent and merit-based selection process, I propose the nomination of St\u00e9phane Perrault as the next Chief Electoral Officer.\u201d</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"5593388\" data-originallang=\"en\">That took months and months and months, and it was still screwed up in the end. </p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"5593389\" data-originallang=\"en\">This is basic civics. We all know that there are three branches that govern in Canada. First, there is the legislative branch. That is us. That is Parliament, which is every MP who is elected. Second, there is the executive. That is the <a data-HoCid=\"214296\" href=\"/politicians/justin-trudeau/\" title=\"Justin Trudeau\">Prime Minister</a> and cabinet. Finally, we have the Supreme Court, whose primary function in relation to us is to make sure that the laws that are passed are consistent with the Constitution. </p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"5593390\" data-originallang=\"en\">Some will recall that when we elect a Speaker at the beginning of Parliament, the Speaker is ceremoniously dragged, as if reluctant to take the very position he or she just spent days, if not weeks, actively running for. Why is that? We have to go back to the beginning, when Parliament first came into existence. All or any of the powers Parliament had came from the monarch. The monarchs, kind of like some of our former prime ministers, did not like it when people opposed them or took away any power they had. They had to remember their place.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"5593391\" data-originallang=\"en\">Therefore, the Speaker would be the one to report to the monarch on what Parliament had said, and it was not unusual in the early, early days for Speakers to lose their heads. Therefore, it was not a position a lot of people wanted because they had to go in front of the monarch, who may or may not be in a good mood. My point in raising that is to show the separation of those powers. This is not a complicated constitutional issue, in my view.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"5593392\" data-originallang=\"en\">The Supreme Court hires its own staff. We would not think of deciding for the court who its nominees should be, give it a phone call the night before and say, \u201cAfter consultation, do you agree with this name?\u201d That is all that happens here. We would never think of doing that with the Supreme Court and the court, of course, would never think of hiring our agents. I remind all of us that Parliament is supreme, not the government. Parliament decides who the government is. That is the power of Parliament. </p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"5593393\" data-originallang=\"en\">The executive is a separate, distinct branch and power base of its own. We currently have this ridiculous, unacceptable overlap. In the case of our agents, whether it is ethics, languages or the Auditor General, the government does the advertising, the interviews, the short listing and picks a name from its own short list, phones the opposition leaders and says, \u201cConsistent with the law, this is consultation. Do you agree?\u201d That is unacceptably absurd. Why would we allow that? </p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"5593394\" data-originallang=\"en\">I am looking at all fellow MPs when I say that we are parliamentarians. We are the ones who make up this legislature. Why do we allow the executive to control the hiring process of our officers and agents of Parliament? Why would we do that? Some might say we do that because the executive does it so well. It is going to be fun if anybody tries that defence, because I can say that not just me but there are a whole lot of other people who are ready to go on that one. Is it because the executive has the means? We control the purse. We can give the Speaker all the money we feel necessary to run the selection process. I run out of ideas after that. It always was. It is never much of an answer for anything really, to just say \u201cit always was\u201d. This is an attempt to plant a seed, hopefully for the next Parliament, when somebody will grab it, bring it to light, give it life and have the next Parliament do this. </p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"5593395\" data-originallang=\"en\">Knowing how tough it is to get a government to change in midstream and how late my number was coming up in the term, I thought that all I really want to achieve, if I can, is a majority vote of parliamentarians who accept and respect that we should control the process of hiring our officers of Parliament. My goal is hopefully to get that majority and if I cannot, I would tell those who do not support this to get ready to defend, because the New Democrats are going to make it an issue.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"5593396\" data-originallang=\"en\"> I do not know what the official opposition is going to do. It will be interesting to see. Part of my thinking is that the Conservatives do not want to give up power because they see themselves going back across the aisle and they would like to have that power for themselves, but, by the same token, they want to oppose the government so here is a chance to stand with the angels. It will be tough. It will be interesting to see how it unfolds.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"5593397\" data-originallang=\"en\">At the end of the day, this is about respecting ourselves, respecting Parliament and taking back that which is ours.</p>",
        "fr": "<p data-HoCid=\"5593364\" data-originallang=\"en\"> propose: </p>\n<blockquote><p data-HoCid=\"5593365\" data-originallang=\"en\"> Que, de l'avis de la Chambre, un comit\u00e9 sp\u00e9cial pr\u00e9sid\u00e9 par le Pr\u00e9sident de la Chambre devrait \u00eatre constitu\u00e9 au d\u00e9but de chaque l\u00e9gislature afin de s\u00e9lectionner tous les agents du Parlement. </p>\n</blockquote><p data-HoCid=\"5593366\" data-originallang=\"en\">\u2014 Monsieur le Pr\u00e9sident, je suis heureux d'avoir l'occasion de pr\u00e9senter cette motion. Il s'agit en r\u00e9alit\u00e9 d'une motion assez simple qui vise \u00e0 r\u00e9parer une proc\u00e9dure qui ne fonctionne pas. En effet, \u00e0 l'heure actuelle, les agents \u2014 ou mandataires, les termes sont interchangeables \u2014 du Parlement sont embauch\u00e9s par le pouvoir ex\u00e9cutif.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"5593367\" data-originallang=\"en\">J'ai pris soin de formuler ma motion de mani\u00e8re \u00e0 ne pas demander aujourd'hui au gouvernement de la mettre en oeuvre au cours de la pr\u00e9sente l\u00e9gislature, car, en toute franchise, je si\u00e8ge ici depuis assez longtemps pour savoir que cela n'arrivera pas. J'ai intentionnellement introduit un exemple \u00e0 suivre, mais je tiens \u00e0 dire que je n'y suis pas ind\u00e9fectiblement attach\u00e9. Seul le principe compte pour moi. Ce principe est fort simple: les agents du Parlement devraient \u00eatre embauch\u00e9s par le Parlement.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"5593368\" data-originallang=\"en\">Je dois admettre que j'ai bien h\u00e2te d'entendre les arguments qui seront pr\u00e9sent\u00e9s contre cette motion, car j'ai peine \u00e0 en imaginer un qui serait valable. Il me tarde de d\u00e9battre avec les d\u00e9put\u00e9s qui ne croient pas que le Parlement devrait d\u00e9fendre ses propres droits.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"5593369\" data-originallang=\"en\">Pendant mon entr\u00e9e en mati\u00e8re et dans le reste de mon discours, je citerai un rapport du Forum des politiques publiques publi\u00e9 en avril dernier. Fait int\u00e9ressant, j'avais d\u00e9j\u00e0 r\u00e9dig\u00e9 une \u00e9bauche de ma motion au moment de sa publication, et j'ai constat\u00e9 qu'il recommandait une mesure semblable.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"5593370\" data-originallang=\"en\">Voici tout d'abord une br\u00e8ve pr\u00e9sentation du rapport en question:</p>\n<blockquote><p data-HoCid=\"5593371\" data-originallang=\"en\"> Le Forum des politiques publiques (FPP) a \u00e9tudi\u00e9 le r\u00f4le actuel et futur des agents du Parlement afin de recommander des mesures visant \u00e0 am\u00e9liorer la fa\u00e7on dont on \u00e9value et oriente l'administration des politiques, tout en maintenant l'autonomie et l'ind\u00e9pendance des agents au sein du syst\u00e8me de Westminster au Canada, tant au niveau f\u00e9d\u00e9ral que provincial. </p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"5593372\" data-originallang=\"en\"> Appuy\u00e9 par un groupe consultatif form\u00e9 d'anciens agents, de hauts fonctionnaires et d'autres experts, le FPP a r\u00e9alis\u00e9 une vingtaine d'entrevues et organis\u00e9 trois tables rondes entre octobre et d\u00e9cembre 2017. </p>\n</blockquote><p data-HoCid=\"5593373\" data-originallang=\"en\">Je ne prendrai pas le temps de mentionner toutes les personnes qui ont particip\u00e9 \u00e0 l'\u00e9laboration de ce rapport, mais je souhaite donner aux d\u00e9put\u00e9s un aper\u00e7u du calibre des intervenants. Je crois que tout le monde reconna\u00eetra au moins un nom parmi ceux que voici: Margaret Bloodworth; Robert Marleau, ancien greffier de la Chambre des communes; Jodi White; David Zussman; Richard Dicerni; Paul Dub\u00e9; Janet Ecker; Christine Elliott; Graham Fraser; l'extraordinaire Sheila Fraser, dont la pr\u00e9sence devrait, \u00e0 elle seule, convaincre la Chambre de suivre les recommandations; Edward Greenspon; Bonnie Lysyk; John Milloy; Kevin Page, dont nous nous souvenons tous, notamment pour le travail qu'il accomplit encore \u00e0 l'Universit\u00e9 d'Ottawa; James Rajotte, ancien d\u00e9put\u00e9 bien connu \u00e0 la Chambre; et Wayne Wouters, ancien greffier du Conseil priv\u00e9. Cela nous donne une id\u00e9e du calibre des personnes qui ont contribu\u00e9 \u00e0 ce rapport.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"5593374\" data-originallang=\"en\">Voici la premi\u00e8re de leurs neuf recommandations:</p>\n<blockquote><p data-HoCid=\"5593375\" data-originallang=\"en\"> La cr\u00e9ation de nouveaux postes d'agent rel\u00e8ve de la comp\u00e9tence du Parlement et des Assembl\u00e9es l\u00e9gislatives et non du pouvoir ex\u00e9cutif. </p>\n</blockquote><p data-HoCid=\"5593376\" data-originallang=\"en\">La troisi\u00e8me recommandation se lit comme suit:</p>\n<blockquote><p data-HoCid=\"5593377\" data-originallang=\"en\"> Il doit incomber aux l\u00e9gislateurs de nommer les agents, afin d'obtenir le soutien de tous les partis au choix final. Le Bureau du Conseil priv\u00e9 et le Cabinet du premier ministre devraient se retirer compl\u00e8tement du processus de nomination. Un comit\u00e9 parlementaire sp\u00e9cial devrait examiner les types de processus de s\u00e9lection en place dans des provinces comme l'Alberta et la Saskatchewan. </p>\n</blockquote><p data-HoCid=\"5593378\" data-originallang=\"en\">J'ajouterais que le Royaume-Uni, notre m\u00e8re patrie, adopte une ligne tr\u00e8s dure \u00e0 l'\u00e9gard de l'entit\u00e9 \u00e0 qui incombe la d\u00e9cision d'embaucher le v\u00e9rificateur g\u00e9n\u00e9ral de son Parlement. De qui s'agit-il? Il s'agit du comit\u00e9 des comptes publics, soit le comit\u00e9 d'attache de notre v\u00e9rificateur g\u00e9n\u00e9ral. Comment peut-on penser que cela n'est pas sens\u00e9?</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"5593379\" data-originallang=\"en\">Avant de passer \u00e0 la raison pour laquelle nous devrions agir ainsi, les d\u00e9put\u00e9s doivent examiner l'incomp\u00e9tence du gouvernement actuel en ce qui a trait aux nominations ainsi que tous les probl\u00e8mes et les g\u00e2chis qu'il a caus\u00e9s dans l'ensemble du processus. Je pr\u00e9sume que tous ces d\u00e9tails seront r\u00e9v\u00e9l\u00e9s au cours des prochaines heures de discussion, qui s'\u00e9chelonneront sur quelques jours.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"5593380\" data-originallang=\"en\">Le rapport que j'ai mentionn\u00e9 indiquait aussi quelque chose au sujet du processus que le gouvernement a suivi: </p>\n<blockquote><p data-HoCid=\"5593381\" data-originallang=\"en\"> L\u2019incoh\u00e9rence du processus de nomination n\u2019aide pas \u00e0 am\u00e9liorer la r\u00e9putation des agents dans l\u2019esprit des l\u00e9gislateurs, des fonctionnaires et du public. </p>\n</blockquote><p data-HoCid=\"5593382\" data-originallang=\"en\">De plus, comme l'a mentionn\u00e9 l'un des participants \u00e0 une table ronde, on n'a qu'\u00e0 regarder le fiasco de la nomination de Madeleine Meilleur, ancienne ministre lib\u00e9rale de l'Ontario, en tant que commissaire aux langues officielles, en 2017, pour savoir ce qu'il faut \u00e9viter en nommant un mandataire du Parlement.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"5593383\" data-originallang=\"en\">Si on examine le processus actuel, en principe, il respecte la loi, \u00e9tant donn\u00e9 que la Chambre doit donner son approbation d\u00e9finitive par un vote. Toutefois, au titre du syst\u00e8me actuel, c'est le gouvernement qui est responsable de l'ensemble du processus d'embauche, outre le fait de mentionner aux deux autres chefs de parti quelles sont ses intentions.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"5593384\" data-originallang=\"en\"> Il se trouve que j\u2019en ai un \u00e9chantillon. Voici une lettre envoy\u00e9e au chef du NPD. Nous verrons qui conna\u00eet les r\u00e8gles l\u00e0-bas. </p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"5593385\" data-originallang=\"en\">La lettre dit ceci: \u00ab Je vous \u00e9cris pour vous demander votre avis sur le candidat propos\u00e9 au poste de directeur g\u00e9n\u00e9ral des \u00e9lections. \u00bb J\u2019en lis seulement des extraits. J\u2019adore cela. La lettre se poursuit: \u00ab \u00c0 la suite d\u2019un processus de s\u00e9lection ouvert, transparent et fond\u00e9 sur le m\u00e9rite, je propose la nomination de [monsieur X] au poste de directeur g\u00e9n\u00e9ral des \u00e9lections. \u00bb Je ne pense pas qu\u2019il soit n\u00e9cessaire de mentionner le nom.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"5593386\" data-originallang=\"en\"> C\u2019\u00e9tait le 3 avril. Le 27 avril, le chef du NPD a re\u00e7u une autre lettre du <a data-HoCid=\"214296\" href=\"/politicians/justin-trudeau/\" title=\"Justin Trudeau\">premier ministre</a> qui disait ceci: \u00ab Je vous \u00e9cris pour donner suite \u00e0 la lettre du gouvernement dat\u00e9e du 3 avril concernant le poste de directeur g\u00e9n\u00e9ral des \u00e9lections. Vos observations sont appr\u00e9ci\u00e9es. Veuillez noter que le gouvernement n\u2019ira pas de l\u2019avant avec cette nomination, car la principale candidature a \u00e9t\u00e9 retir\u00e9e. \u00bb </p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"5593387\" data-originallang=\"en\">On peut dire qu\u2019il s\u2019agit d\u2019une lettre type, parce qu\u2019elle dit: \u00ab \u00c0 la suite d\u2019un processus de s\u00e9lection ouvert, transparent et fond\u00e9 sur le m\u00e9rite, je propose la nomination de St\u00e9phane Perrault au poste de directeur g\u00e9n\u00e9ral des \u00e9lections. \u00bb</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"5593388\" data-originallang=\"en\"> Cela a pris des mois et des mois, et en fin de compte, le r\u00e9sultat a quand m\u00eame \u00e9t\u00e9 d\u00e9solant.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"5593389\" data-originallang=\"en\">On conna\u00eet les fondements de notre soci\u00e9t\u00e9. Nous savons tous qu'il y a trois pouvoirs au Canada: le l\u00e9gislatif, c'est-\u00e0-dire nous qui avons \u00e9t\u00e9 \u00e9lus d\u00e9put\u00e9s; l'ex\u00e9cutif, soit le <a data-HoCid=\"214296\" href=\"/politicians/justin-trudeau/\" title=\"Justin Trudeau\">premier ministre</a> et le Cabinet; la Cour supr\u00eame, dont la fonction premi\u00e8re \u00e0 notre \u00e9gard est de veiller \u00e0 ce que les lois que nous adoptons soient conformes \u00e0 la Constitution. </p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"5593390\" data-originallang=\"en\"> Certains se souviendront que, lorsque nous \u00e9lisons un pr\u00e9sident, au d\u00e9but de la l\u00e9gislature, celui-ci est tra\u00een\u00e9 de fa\u00e7on rituelle, comme s\u2019il \u00e9tait r\u00e9ticent \u00e0 occuper la position qu\u2019il vient de solliciter pendant des jours, voire des semaines, en se portant candidat. Pourquoi en est-il ainsi? Pour comprendre, nous devons nous transporter \u00e0 l'\u00e9poque o\u00f9 le Parlement a vu le jour. Les pouvoirs du Parlement lui venaient tous du monarque, et, un peu comme certains anciens premiers ministres du Canada, les monarques n\u2019aimaient pas que les gens s\u2019opposent \u00e0 eux ou veuillent r\u00e9duire les pouvoirs royaux. Le peuple devrait se rappeler sa condition inf\u00e9rieure.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"5593391\" data-originallang=\"en\">Or, c\u2019\u00e9tait le Pr\u00e9sident qui allait informer le monarque des d\u00e9cisions du Parlement, et il n\u2019\u00e9tait pas inhabituel, au tout d\u00e9but, que le Pr\u00e9sident le paie de sa t\u00eate. Par cons\u00e9quent, peu de gens convoitaient ce poste, vu l'obligation de se pr\u00e9senter devant le monarque, qui n\u2019\u00e9tait pas toujours de bonne humeur. Si je rappelle cette \u00e9poque, c'est que je veux souligner l\u2019importance de la s\u00e9paration des pouvoirs. Il ne s\u2019agit pas d\u2019une question constitutionnelle compliqu\u00e9e, \u00e0 mon avis.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"5593392\" data-originallang=\"en\"> La Cour supr\u00eame embauche son propre personnel. On ne songerait pas \u00e0 d\u00e9cider \u00e0 sa place qui devraient \u00eatre ses candidats, ni lui t\u00e9l\u00e9phoner la veille d'une \u00e9ch\u00e9ance pour lui dire \u00ab apr\u00e8s consultation, \u00eates-vous d\u2019accord pour que cette personne soit nomm\u00e9e? \u00bb Pourtant, c'est ainsi que l'ex\u00e9cutif agit avec le l\u00e9gislatif dans notre cas. Nous n\u2019envisagerions jamais de faire une chose pareille avec la Cour supr\u00eame et, bien s\u00fbr, elle n\u2019envisagerait jamais d\u2019embaucher elle-m\u00eame les agents du Parlement. Je rappelle \u00e0 tous que le Parlement est souverain, mais pas le gouvernement. Le Parlement d\u00e9cide qui forme le gouvernement. C\u2019est le Parlement qui a ce pouvoir.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"5593393\" data-originallang=\"en\"> L\u2019ex\u00e9cutif est un organe particulier, distinct, et poss\u00e8de son propre pouvoir. Nous avons en ce moment ce chevauchement ridicule, inacceptable. Dans le cas de nos agents, qu\u2019il s\u2019agisse du commissaire \u00e0 l\u2019\u00e9thique, du commissaire aux langues ou du v\u00e9rificateur g\u00e9n\u00e9ral, les responsables gouvernementaux s'occupent de l'affichage, m\u00e8nent les entrevues, font le tri des candidatures, choisissent un nom, t\u00e9l\u00e9phonent aux leaders de l\u2019opposition et leur disent: \u00ab Conform\u00e9ment \u00e0 la loi, il s\u2019agit d\u2019une consultation. \u00cates-vous d\u2019accord? \u00bb C\u2019est inacceptablement absurde. Pourquoi le permettrions-nous? </p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"5593394\" data-originallang=\"en\"> Je regarde tous mes coll\u00e8gues d\u00e9put\u00e9s lorsque je dis que nous sommes des parlementaires. Nous sommes ceux qui composent cette l\u00e9gislature. Pourquoi permettons-nous \u00e0 l\u2019ex\u00e9cutif de contr\u00f4ler le processus d\u2019embauche de nos agents et mandataires du Parlement? Pourquoi le ferions-nous? Certains vous diraient que c\u2019est parce que l\u2019ex\u00e9cutif le fait si bien. Ce serait plaisant que quelqu\u2019un tente de se servir de cet argument, parce que je peux vous dire que ce n\u2019est pas que moi, mais une foule de gens qui sont pr\u00eats \u00e0 y r\u00e9pondre. Est-ce parce que l\u2019ex\u00e9cutif en a les moyens? Nous contr\u00f4lons la bourse. Nous pouvons donner au Pr\u00e9sident tout l\u2019argent que nous croyons n\u00e9cessaire pour mener le processus de s\u00e9lection. Je manque d\u2019id\u00e9es apr\u00e8s cela. Est-ce parce que cela a toujours \u00e9t\u00e9 ainsi? Ce n\u2019est jamais une r\u00e9ponse valable pour quoi que ce soit que de dire \u00ab cela a toujours \u00e9t\u00e9 ainsi \u00bb. Je tente de planter une graine pour la prochaine l\u00e9gislature; quelqu\u2019un pourrait alors reprendre l\u2019id\u00e9e, la mettre en lumi\u00e8re, lui donner vie et amener la prochaine l\u00e9gislature \u00e0 la concr\u00e9tiser.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"5593395\" data-originallang=\"en\"> Sachant \u00e0 quel point il est difficile de faire changer de cap \u00e0 un gouvernement \u00e0 mi-parcours et voyant \u00e0 quel moment tardif j\u2019interviendrais, j\u2019ai pens\u00e9 que tout ce que je pouvais esp\u00e9rer obtenir, c\u2019est un vote d\u2019une majorit\u00e9 de parlementaires acceptant et reconnaissant que nous devrions contr\u00f4ler le processus d\u2019embauche des agents du Parlement. J\u2019esp\u00e8re obtenir cette majorit\u00e9 et, si j\u2019\u00e9choue, je dirai \u00e0 ceux qui n\u2019appuient pas l\u2019id\u00e9e de pr\u00e9parer leur d\u00e9fense, car les n\u00e9o-d\u00e9mocrates en feront un enjeu.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"5593396\" data-originallang=\"en\"> Je ne sais pas ce que l\u2019opposition officielle fera. Il sera int\u00e9ressant de le voir. Je crois en partie que les conservateurs ne voudront pas c\u00e9der ce pouvoir, car ils se voient l\u2019exercer une fois de retour de l\u2019autre c\u00f4t\u00e9 de la Chambre, mais, en m\u00eame temps, ils veulent s\u2019opposer au gouvernement, et il y a donc une possibilit\u00e9 qu\u2019ils se rangent du bon c\u00f4t\u00e9. Ce sera d\u00e9chirant. Il sera int\u00e9ressant de voir comment les choses se d\u00e9rouleront.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"5593397\" data-originallang=\"en\"> En fin de compte, il s\u2019agit de nous respecter nous-m\u00eames, de respecter le Parlement et de reprendre ce qui nous appartient.</p>"
    },
    "url": "/debates/2018/10/23/david-christopherson-1/",
    "politician_url": "/politicians/david-christopherson/",
    "politician_membership_url": "/politicians/memberships/1373/",
    "procedural": false,
    "source_id": "10325753",
    "h1": {
        "en": "Private Members' Business",
        "fr": "Affaires \u00c9manant Des D\u00e9put\u00e9s"
    },
    "h2": {
        "en": "Officers of Parliament",
        "fr": "Les agents du Parlement"
    },
    "document_url": "/debates/2018/10/23/",
    "related": {
        "document_speeches_url": "/speeches/?document=%2Fdebates%2F2018%2F10%2F23%2F"
    }
}