I don't have it in front of me, but my amendment would be “as he failed to respond to the concerns of the committee with respect to demonstrating the qualifications necessary to fulfil the requirements expected of the position of chief commissioner of the Canadian Grain Commission”.
That's along the lines of Bruce Johnson's motion.
I would move that amendment. If Brian wants to argue competence, if competence goes to the issue of being independent of the government, that's my concern. We've seen the op-ed piece, which is promoting legislation that is not yet the law and does in fact sway public opinion along the lines that the minister wants it swayed.
The history of this government, the record of this government, is absolutely clear: anybody who stands up to the Prime Minister is fired. What we need in these positions, as chief commissioner of the Grain Commission, or head of Canada's nuclear regulatory authority, or head of the Canadian Wheat Board, is people who are going to be strongly independent of the government. The article that appeared in several western papers leads me to believe this chief commissioner would be more of a spokesman for the government than an independent regulator administering the Canada Grain Act, so that's where I'm coming down on it.
If the record of the government weren't so bad, that it just puts people in place who speak its line, then we could look at it differently. But the record is terrible, so we have no choice but to oppose this appointment.