moved:
Motion No. 1
That Bill C-51, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing lines 42 to 45, on page 2, with the following:
"4.(1) The Governor in Council, on the recommendation of the committee of the House of Commons that normally considers agricultural matters, shall designate one of the commissioners to be chief commissioner and another commissioner to be assistant chief commissioner."
Mr. Speaker, this is the second time I rise in the House to speak to Bill C-51. The bill was discussed at length in committee, mainly so that we could provide some clarification.
The House will recall that the purpose of this bill is to clarify some procedures with respect to contracts concluded by the Canadian Grain Commission with grain elevator operators and producers.
I will first comment on the amendment I proposed to improve Bill C-51. The amendment in question does not affect the main thrust of this bill. According to the government, the bill will impose greater responsibility on grain producers to secure payment for their grain from elevator operators and grain dealers licensed by the Commission. The government is telling producers: Look, you know how this works. We now have to make some adjustments to make things work more smoothly.
The amendment I am proposing to Bill C-51 is along the same lines, in that its aim is to provide for more effective and, above all, more transparent operations.
The proposed amendment affects the government body that is involved in all these operations, the Canadian Grain Commission-and more specifically, section 2 of the bill which concerns the appointment of the chief commissioner and the assistant chief commissioner of the Canadian Grain Commission.
The section reads as follows:
The Governor in Council shall designate one of the commissioners to be chief commissioner and another commissioner to be assistant chief commissioner.
Before the amendment provided in Bill C-51, the governor in council only designated the chief commissioner. Bill C-51 adds the appointment of the assistant chief commissioner to this section. The motion I am presenting this afternoon in the House would involve the Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food in the process.
As amended, the section would read as follows:
The Governor in Council, on the recommendation of the committee of the House of Commons that normally considers agricultural matters, shall designate one of the commissioners to be chief commissioner and another commissioner to be assistant chief commissioner.
The governor in council appoints the seven commissioners of the Canadian Grain Commission. Of course, if you want to be naive-I remember very well how the commissioners were appointed under the previous government. I have some friends who sat on the Immigration Commission, and I can assure you that the Conservative Government did not appoint any Liberals. These were well-paid jobs. You were paid to work not too hard for five or six years, depending on the appointment.
The Liberal Party will be no exception. In appointing these commissioners, it will make sure to select good red commissioners, making partisan appointments. What we would suggest is to enhance slightly the role of the MPs sitting on the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. Our proposal is that, within the committee, which is-need we remind you-dominated by the Liberals, the Liberal Party could nominate a chief commissioner and an assistant chief commissioner. The Liberals are in the majority on the committee, but at least we would get the impression that the opposition parties had a say in deciding which of the seven commissioners would make the best chief commissioner.
I sometimes wonder if committees are not used a little bit like so-called occupational classes in a school, where you stick less-gifted or motivated students who nevertheless have to attend school.
But here, if we want our committees to have a degree of credibility, we must give them responsibilities and roles to play. With this motion, the Bloc Quebecois would give them some role to play and slightly reduce this shameless partisanship.
As it currently stands, the clause allows these appointments to be made unilaterally by the Governor in Council, that is, by the government.
You will understand that it is out of concern for transparency that I am suggesting that the government consult the appropriate committee so as to appoint the best qualified people to run the Canadian Grain Commission.
I think it is only fair to say that the credibility and importance of the commission are well established. That is why is must raise above any partisanship and the best qualified individuals, regardless of their political colour or affiliation, must be put in charge of it. Such a unilateral approach has often led to unfortunate situations in the past.
A competent person can be appointed to be chair, only to be replaced by someone who is a little closer to the party forming the new government. I imagine that certain very political positions can only go to people who agree with the government's policies and can implement them. But I do not feel that CGC positions fall in this category.
Furthermore, when someone is fired for partisan reasons, the tab for breaking this person's contract is often picked up by taxpayers. If this person worked on implementing initiatives, we hope that the whole process will not come to a stop while we wait for someone else to be appointed and start carrying out the new policies.
Several people came to testify before the Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, and I remember very well one witness who was very interesting and especially quite eloquent. A lady told us her story. She said that she used to sit on the CGC and that she was fired when the former Conservative government took office. Until we find evidence to the contrary, the Liberal Party resembles the Conservative Party in all respects. It will not hesitate either to get rid of someone even if that person is doing a good job.
The members opposite will respond that they do not engage in such practices. If all their decisions in situations such as this are devoid of partisan considerations, they should be happy to shout it from the rooftops today. As nothing lasts forever, they should think about their successors who will have total faith in them.
Incidentally, this approach would also avoid many recriminations since representatives of all political parties would have their say on who is appointed to these two positions, in the Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food.
In closing, I urge once again all members, at least all members of the Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, to vote in favour of this motion.