Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-60 at report stage. My colleague from Frontenac has indicated we have reached the motions in Group No. 5. Curiously, it is a point I like to criticize the government on. The motions in Group No. 5 refer to the way the government can organize the human resources in these agencies, that is, how it appoints people to the agency.
I must say right off that the federal government tried the same thing in another bill, the one on fisheries, because it tried to create the fisheries tribunal and make it quasi legal, a quasi tribunal. In that instance I mentioned government fronts. Once again, it is the same thing: a patronage haven.
When the minister claims the right to appoint people himself and to define, extend and renew mandates, what are we talking about? How does this differ from hiring someone from the public service? At least this person becomes apolitical, he will have to work under all future governments, regardless of their colour. But in this case, they take money and make absolutely sure that this will be a place that provides a job for the friends of the party. My colleague from MĂ©gantic-Compton-Stanstead made this point very clearly.
Here we are approaching Christmas, two weeks away from it. The Liberals are trying to ensure a fine Christmas present for their friends by pushing us to debate this bill. They want to be sure that there is something under the tree for their friends, once the bill is passed, like the gift of future jobs. It is time to get real.
My hon. colleague from Frontenac has raised some goods points. We will never say it often enough today: when the Bloc Quebecois sends its soldiers to the front, them come prepared and, as a good
soldier, the hon. member for Frontenac has done an excellent job in this matter. I can see him smile, but he is modest.
I would like to come back to a few points. If the federal government wanted to be consistent and say: "This is not a Christmas present for our friends", would it be prepared to accept that the agency be made up of people, if nothing else, appointed by the Standing Committee on Agriculture?
Why refer to this committee?-I notice the parliamentary secretary responsible for agriculture is joining us. We have had the opportunity to work with him. He is from Nova Scotia-Someone described it earlier as a patronage haven, but I will address that later. But I want to make sure to catch the attention of the hon. member, because there are still a few good Liberals. We must not lump them all in the same category. Since the good ones are so few, when we catch one, we better make sure they hear what our expectations are.
As I was saying, to prevent the proposed agency from becoming a patronage haven, why would its members not be appointed by the advisory board?
The parliamentary secretary opposite has had to face us in committee. The people opposite know they are in majority any way in the various committees, but at least official opposition members and the other members of this House can have a say. That is what I call transparency; that is what I call having faith.
My second point is the following. Why not ensure that candidates are selected from within the various communities and that the appointments to be considered in committee are made by the community. Let me explain.
If we are looking at an inspection system for fisheries, for instance, the fisheries community would submit to the Standing Committee on Agriculture a list of recommended candidates who have knowledge and expertise in that area. I am sure a joint fisheries-agriculture committee can be struck at that time for the specific purpose of considering who should be appointed to the agency.
Why oppose such an amendment? Perhaps to make sure that the only requirement for getting appointed to the board of this agency is to be a card-carrying member or friend of the Liberal Party.
Let me now move to another point that needs to be addressed. This agency is supposed to be a Canada-wide agency. Since Canada is made up of ten provinces, why not have specified, for each province, in the formula for determining how many administrators or inspectors will be involved, a percentage that would take the relative demographic importance of the province into account. Why not?
In just a few minutes, we were able to make three suggestions to improve the perception, the political philosophy behind all this.
We realize that it may be reasonable to try to ensure that, in Ottawa, the left hand knows what the right hand is doing. We cannot go against virtue and oppose the idea that the various inspection systems are being consolidated under a single agency, since we currently have a fisheries division, a food division, and a drug division in the health sector. The idea makes sense, but the problem is how these changes will be implemented.
The work done by the hon. member for Frontenac regarding this issue will have to be taken into consideration, if we want to improve the bill to make it good for all Quebecers and Canadians, including those in Nova Scotia, whom the parliamentary secretary, who is listening carefully, represents.
If the government does not support the amendments or motions moved by the hon. member for Frontenac, what will Canadians and Quebecers think of the bill?
They will think: the more things change, the more they stay the same. In Canada, we switched from the Conservatives to the Liberals. But what has changed? What has changed is that the friends of the Conservatives have lost their jobs; they have been replaced by friends of the Liberals.
The bill is a means to appoint Liberal Party friends who are in waiting. Indeed, not all the Liberal friends got jobs, and they are getting impatient.
The government has an opportunity to clean up the situation and to rebuild the credibility of the bureaucratic system. It has an opportunity to restore public confidence through the people who will represent the public and who will work for it.
But if, once again, the government lets go of such an opportunity, what will people think? If they are friends of the Liberal Party they may think they will receive a nice Christmas present, but if they are ordinary citizens they will probably think the government is pulling another fast one on them.
I pointed out earlier that the government is doing the same thing with the Fisheries Act. The Bloc Quebecois is opposing this, again thanks to the information provided by the hon. member for Frontenac, who prepared the amendments very well. The Bloc Quebecois will once again oppose the bill.