Thank you, Mr. Chair.
This is one I've wrestled with quite a bit.
In reading it carefully, I see that the government is calling for a former judge or a former member of a federal or provincial board, commission, or tribunal. I would argue, Mr. Murphy, that actually opens up quite a broad range to draw from. I'm thinking of public utilities boards, or actually anybody who has a demonstrated expertise in conflict of interest, financial arrangements. That actually makes it quite broad.
So the Bloc amendment--which is what we're actually debating; we're not really debating the merits of the government's Bill C-2 so much--seeks to delete all of the qualifications, lines 5 through 20. There would be no reference to qualifications at all. You would simply have the Governor in Council choosing a person, and then consultation with all the political parties and a vote in the House of Commons.
That leaves it wide open so that a majority government could choose the Prime Minister's nephew who couldn't get a job anywhere else; do that consultation process; listen to all of the opposition parties say no, we don't like that person; put it to a vote in the House; and win the vote in the House because they're the majority. We would then wind up with a person who wasn't qualified or suitable in any way. It would be patronage personified. It would be institutionalizing the very patronage that we're trying to avoid here.
I don't mind having the government's language in Bill C-2. I would rather there weren't specific reference to a former judge. I am comfortable with proposed paragraph 81(2)(b) in the clause, which says, “a former member of a federal or provincial board, commission or tribunal....” I'm going to propose, as a compromise, a subamendment that would delete only proposed paragraph 81(2)(a), and leave the rest. In other words, we would be deleting lines 7 through 10, rather than lines 5 through 20.