Perhaps I can put a little context around the amendment and signal where we're going on division 29 as the official opposition. We are opposed to this initiative, but I want to say specifically that we are essentially 25 minutes before closure and are dealing with another omnibus bill, a part that would create a new administrative tribunal mechanism that has really nothing to do with the budget. But that's just like how the Mr. Justice Nadon thing was dealt with on the back of the last omnibus budget bill, trying to retroactively bless that.
Here we are caught because in a sense one could support a shared services model. We've seen that in Ontario. We've seen that in British Columbia. There's much to be said in favour of it if there is any level of trust in trying to achieve administrative efficiency and cost savings by grouping tribunals together in some fashion and providing shared services for them. As I say, that has been done elsewhere and we applaud those initiatives.
What is concerning to so many people, of course, and to so many tribunals with which I've consulted, and administrative law professors is that there's a need for administrative independence for these agencies. That's why they were created in the first place and there's a great fear of them on the part of this government, since this individual who's the subject of this amendment, this administrator, essentially is going to be accountable to the Minister of Justice, the same Minister of Justice who has appointed cronies to the Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation and unbelievable patronage.... It gives us pause that there would be this kind of initiative to deal with at this time.
For that reason, my says that the individual should hold office during good behaviour for a term of up to five years, but may be removed at any time by the Governor in Council for cause. That's the reason for the amendment. Simply put, there's a great fear that the ability to appoint an administrator at pleasure, as the government would wish to do, for a term of five years, would simply create another patronage pool for this government. That's the reason for the amendment, Mr. Chair.