Debates of Feb. 7th, 1995

Government Organization Act (Federal Agencies)

[Pierrette Ringuette-Maltais, Liberal, Madawaska—Victoria, NB]

Mr. Speaker, indeed, I can see that the hon. member was unable to answer my questions on political patronage in the Parizeau government. Perhaps I could also point out to our colleague from the Bloc, when he talks about the other place, at a time when-

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

The hon. member for Charlevoix, on a point of order.

[Gérard Asselin, Bloc, Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Québec-Est was engaged in a debate. The hon. member for Madawaska-Victoria rose during the period for questions and comments. The hon. member for Québec-Est should be the one who concludes the debate. This is turning into a debate between two members.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Order. Obviously, if, during the ten minute period for questions and comments, other members had indicated an intention to ask questions to the hon. member for Québec-Est, who had the floor, I would have recognized them. I asked if there were any questions or comments. I looked around and the hon. member for Madawaska-Victoria was the only to rise. Consequently, she still has the floor.

[Pierrette Ringuette-Maltais, Liberal, Madawaska—Victoria, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for recognizing me. The Bloc member answered my question by alluding to the other place. However, I can tell him that it is his supporters, the separatist PQ party in Quebec, who formally opposed any change to the Senate during the last national referendum on the Constitution. Come on, be serious!

The hon. member should look at what goes on in his own party before commenting on what takes place within other parties.

[Jean-Paul Marchand, Bloc, Québec-Est, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member still does not realize that we are not interested in changing the way the other place operates. We just want to get rid of it. We want to get rid of the other place because it is just a waste of money, like most patronage appointments in the federal system.

If the federal government, if the Liberal Party really wanted to improve the system to reduce the debt, it could have used this bill to reduce the number of agencies without reducing efficiency. It could have used it to really reduce the number of members of boards of directors and committees.

In fact, the government could have introduced all these measures in one fell swoop, if it had been so inclined. Not so. They are doing this piecemeal to give us the impression they are working very hard. There will be subsequent legislation to implement another 125 cuts in a matter of weeks or months. Just to give the impression that, my goodness, this government is really working, although the fact is they are not doing much to reduce patronage. Instead, they are doing everything they can to get money out of the pockets of the needy, those who have no resources at all, like the people in substandard housing and the unemployed. These people are being hit, but careful how you treat the friends of the party. Once again, I want to make it clear to the hon. member that as far as the other place is concerned, we do not want to change it. We just want to get rid of it.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to what the hon. member was saying, and I must say that the hon. member has a very short memory. As a professed separatist although he is a Franco-Ontarian, he probably remembers Denis de Belleval who was a well-known PQ minister but nevertheless accepted the offer of an order in council appointment from his good friend Brian- we all know who that is-to the board of directors of VIA Rail. I wonder whether the hon. member remembers those appointments.

Perhaps he also remembers, and I am sure the name will ring a bell, a woman in North Bay who had been appointed to the board of directors of CN Rail. When her appointment was announced, the North Bay Nugget interviewed her and asked:

"Madam, why do you think you were chosen as a member of the board of CN Rail?". She answered: "I come from North Bay, a railroad town, and my grandfather was a well known railroader in the maritimes". The individual's name was Marie Marchand of North Bay.

[Jean-Paul Marchand, Bloc, Québec-Est, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as far as Mr. de Belleval is concerned, I cannot speak for him, since this was one of the appointments that were made under Mr. Mulroney's Conservative government.

It all goes to show that following the example of the Conservatives is not necessarily the best way for the Liberals to improve things in this country, and in fact, if we look at what the government is doing now, the Prime Minister is about to go further than the former Conservative Prime Minister, Mr. Mulroney, ever did. That is the problem. Meanwhile, they are making all these cosmetic changes but people are not easily fooled. They realize that the Liberal government is doing exactly what the Conservative Party used to do.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Fraser Valley West-the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency.

[John Godfrey, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to address the matter of the second reading of an omnibus bill concerning the elimination and streamlining of federal agencies.

In July of last year the Minister for Public Service Renewal announced the decision to eliminate 21 agencies, boards and advisory bodies and 275 governor in council and ministerial appointments.

The bill before members today is part of that initiative to eliminate and streamline 15 agencies and 150 governor in council appointments.

The July announcement represents a partnership initiative among federal ministers involving the ministers of finance, fisheries and oceans, government services, health, industry, national defence, national revenue and public works.

As we headed into the last election the Liberal Party of Canada recognized that one simple question stood out in the minds of Canadians: What kind of a country do we want for ourselves and for our children?

Among the qualities we identified, we recognize that we want a country whose governments are efficient, innovative and co-operative, not only with each other but with other sectors as well.

The red book states that as a government we have premised our agenda on an integrated and coherent approach to economic, social, environmental and foreign policy. As a government we want to explore innovative and creative solutions to old problems, looking at them from a new perspective. And as a government we know that it is necessary to tend to one's own housekeeping.

We have therefore chosen a plan of action that will help us streamline government activities, make government less cumbersome and therefore develop better government and to adapt the structure of government to provide improved services to the public. To do this, we have to determine whether specific government programs, agencies, boards and advisory bodies actually deliver results over time.

The omnibus bill which is before the House for second reading today is an important and progressive part of that process. Our aim is to establish better, more efficient and more effective government. The passage of this bill will bring us closer to that goal.

Today's climate is one of change. Canada as a nation, the federal department, the agencies and crown corporations for the

Department of Canadian Heritage and the myriad components of government cannot escape this one inevitability, change. Three factors contribute to this atmosphere of change.

First, fiscal restraint is forcing us to rethink the way that governments do business. The reduction of the deficit is in the interest of all Canadians and constitutes a priority of our government.

Second, the global village of which Marshall McLuhan wrote so prophetically in 1962 has become a reality. In particular, the globalization of world markets creates a new context for business and trade, a context which is increasingly important to Canada which is becoming more and more dependent on exports. This context demands that the machinery of government be up to date, finely honed and highly effective, capable of responding to an international economic environment in which transactions take place instantaneously.

Finally, the relentless evolution of new technologies impels us to revisit the means by which we distribute products and services among the population. Canada, which has repeatedly overcome challenges of geography and climate, particularly today, is no stranger to revolutions in communications.

The red book has articulated our commitment to simplify public sector structures and streamline operations wherever possible to respond to today's changing environment. We also want to encourage creativity and innovation in meeting challenges, not as problems but as opportunities.

Toward these ends, my colleague the minister has undertaken this exercise which promises to bring efficiency gains. It is an exercise that will maximize the opportunity for the good governance of the work that agencies, boards and advisory boards do.

Our goal is clear: to modernize the machinery of state with a view to rendering government more efficient and more responsive to the needs of the citizens which it serves.

The Department of Canadian Heritage along with the agencies and crown corporations of the Canadian heritage portfolio participated in this renewal exercise. As a result it was a very collaborative, open process. There was a collegial tone to the consultations with full agreement achieved so that the boards could continue their work efficiently, effectively and with smaller numbers.

A November 26 article in the Montreal Gazette asked the following question: When governments are strapped for cash can they afford to support culture? I can assure this House that culture is one of our strongest allies in building a stronger and more unified nation.

As the red book states, culture is the very essence of national identity, the bedrock of national sovereignty and national pride. At a time when globalization and the information and communications revolutions are erasing national borders, Canada needs more than ever to commit itself to cultural development.

The government's intention has not been to weaken Canada's national cultural institutions but to streamline them and to make them more effective and efficient. I support the July initiative to eliminate and streamline agencies in an equitable fashion and support the continued development of culture in Canada.

The government's initiative to eliminate and streamline agencies underscores the reality that better more effective government does not necessarily mean more government, or that this concept is incompatible with the need to work with less. We can work with less without affecting quality. Canadians have proved that throughout our history.

Our intention is clear: to modernize the machinery of government. That means reducing the parts to streamline our activities where applicable and thereby optimize the success of board appointments. This provides some assurance to Canadians by placing the onus on governments to make good appointments, appointments that are necessary and that are made on the basis of competence.

As a result in the area of Canadian heritage I support such measures as reducing the size of the Canada Council, as well as the boards of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, the federal museums and the National Film Board to name a few. Together these reductions will account for 85 government in council positions and 10 ministerial appointments.

This process of streamlining will not adversely affect the development, support of, or dissemination of Canadian cultural expression. Culture is not simply an expression of the artistically inclined or spiritual abstract. Culture infuses every dimension of society. There is an inextricable connection between the cultural sector and its contribution to the economy.

I am among those who cannot imagine a society, a viable and vibrant society, without culture. Our challenge goes beyond that of mere economic stability. Our challenge is to protect the sector whose role and vocation is to give a sense of what it is to be Canadian, to be a witness to our collective consciousness. In fact, I am among those who believe that as a society it will be our culture that will affirm our position and strength in the community of nations in today's global village.

It is incumbent upon us therefore to go forward to maintain the gains that we have made as a nation. We must adapt to the new realities that confront and challenge us and move forward on a solid foundation of effective and responsive government.

This is our most profound challenge. I believe that our government is helping to position Canada and Canadians not just to meet that challenge but to surpass it.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Jan Brown, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, am I not going to have an opportunity to speak this afternoon?

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think there is a member who is seeking unanimous consent to revert to the bill that has now just been called for the vote.

Perhaps the House would agree to suspend for two or three minutes while party members negotiate this issue. Perhaps we could come back at exactly 5 p.m. with a recommendation.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Order. I wonder if the House would be disposed to give unanimous consent? In all truthfulness, I will also take those few moments to consult with the table officers further.

Is there unanimous consent to suspend the sitting for four or five minutes?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(The sitting of the House was suspended at 4.56 p.m.)

The House resumed at 5 p.m.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think you will find unanimous consent that the House not see the question as having been put some moments ago and we simply resume the debate on the bill that was before the House until the question was put.

[Jan Brown, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I do thank all of my colleagues in the House for their indulgence. I am embarrassed and will continue.

I rise today to speak to Bill C-65, an omnibus bill designed to streamline or eliminate a number of federal agencies. This bill legislatively dissolves seven agencies that have outlived their purposes and purports to restructure the boards of 15 other agencies or commissions.

As per its normal course of action, the party in power has done nothing more than mount a finely orchestrated public relations campaign. It is highly rhetorical, evidencing little substance.

This bill fails to take into account the dismal fiscal realities we live in. It fails to address the issue of accountability, making the activities of these boards and agencies open and accountable to the Canadian taxpayer. On this issue of our dismal fiscal reality we are now hearing what Canadians want and most certainly what they do not want.

People in this country are outraged that our government has been in an out of control spending mode for two decades. Our nation is like a Hollywood front, all glitter and glass purchased on borrowed money with nothing of substance holding it up.

It is a stunning picture of the reality of this House that Parliament has not directly acted to cut expenditures since the minority Parliament of 1972-74. Even in that situation where the government lacked a controlling majority, the House of Commons achieved only two small cuts amounting in total to $20,000.

To give a sense of proportion, since the current procedure for committee review of estimates was initiated in 1969, Parliament has authorized about $2 trillion worth of expenditures. This means Parliament has made cuts that represent only one-millionth of one per cent of total expenditures it had approved.

I oppose this bill, however I have to acknowledge the miserable attempt to legislatively eliminate seven already defunct federal organizations. I understand more agencies will be dissolved and I look forward to seeing those changes implemented.

What truly concerns me about this bill is the lack of commitment by the government to really effect change in those boards that remain functioning. Its downsizing efforts are encouraging, but I believe any comprehensive review of these boards must include a review of how appointments to those boards and agencies are made, and a complete review of their budgets and spending.

According to the government's own figures this bill will eliminate a mere 150 GIC appointments and save a paltry $1 million.

Surely this bill could have aspired to embrace more significant change. This whole exercise becomes a waste of time when other appointments are springing up as these are disappearing. A case in point is the new tourism commission with a new budget of $50 million and no agenda. It is brand new and has no agenda.

Rather than merely changing the title of chairman to chairperson of each board, I believe the minister for public service renewal should have included clauses in this bill to make these boards and agencies open, accountable and responsible.

Criteria should be developed and implemented to prevent the patronage process from taking over future GIC appointments. To demonstrate the changes necessary, let us briefly look at the current state of the councils and agencies affected by this bill.

The Canada Council had a $100 million dollar budget last year. Do we know if this money was well spent? Is the council being held accountable? We have no idea regarding the effec-

tiveness of the council. It was not part of the government's review, but it should have been.

It is even more interesting that the current chairman of the council appointed in May 1994 is Donna Scott, a former provincial Liberal candidate in Ontario. Is she the best candidate for the job? I do not know. We do not know.

As Susan Delacourt of the Globe and Mail recently discovered, it seems the Liberals have a two-tiered process for appointments. There is one for qualified candidates and one for faithful Liberals.

Patronage is not only limited to the Canada Council. Several other agencies in this bill have been affected. Let us look at the National Capital Commission.

The NCC's decisions are mired in secrecy and there seems to be universal demand that it be more open. Yet the current Minister of Canadian Heritage has no plans to enforce significant change at the NCC. He is reported to have said, and one wonders where his brain was when he said this: "On accountability for the NCC it is a bit more tricky because it is not an elected body". It is spending my tax dollars and those of the other members.

It should be noted that one of the NCC's members is Pierre Isabelle, the son of a former Liberal MP from Hull. The list continues. Andrew Ogarcenko, the director of the National Arts Centre is a well known Winnipeg Liberal supporter.

The Cultural Property Export Review Board appointed a new chairman in November 1994. Mr. Ian Christie Clark was the special adviser to a Liberal Secretary of State who founded the CPERB. He was also its founding chairperson in the late 1970s. He lost that position under the Tories, but like a proverbial yo-yo, Mr. Clark has returned to the post he created for himself.

The National Film Board is in dire need of change. Michael Spencer, a respected National Film Board executive from 1946 to 1967 and the founding boss of what is now Telefilm Canada has advocated chopping the NFB's annual $80 million budget in half. To date this government's response to the ongoing problem at the NFB has been to decrease the number of NFB board members by two. Those are earth shattering reforms indeed.

How can the government hope to effect real change in the public service without addressing these concerns? In this era of fiscal restraint, the Canadian taxpayer has to be assured the advisory boards and councils are being held accountable for the money they spend.

They need ironclad guarantees that these organizations will not be subject to patronage appointments but are staffed with the most qualified people available. Unfortunately, Bill C-65 does not provide the Canadian taxpayer with these guarantees.

Liberal loyalty in this country is rewarded with jobs, jobs, jobs, and all of them are patronage based appointments. Stay tuned, Canada, because even now the turnover in our legal community, which is another patronage based organization, is beginning to rattle through the provinces. Liberal linked lawyers and not Conservatives are now being chosen to act as agents for federal cases in provincial courts.

Legal agents, as I understand it, are the law firms that receive work, parcelled out by the government, and mostly handle drug prosecutions. In 1993-94 about 600 firms were legal agents and billed Ottawa for nearly $45 million. The system has been a traditional form of patronage.

Legal patronage has not been a flawless process for our Prime Minister's government. The Progressive Conservative appointees who have been tossed out are now suing prominent Liberals and making the issue public.

Some Liberals resent that party loyalists have not been appointed faster. That is scandalous.

Historically, new governments lost no time dropping hundreds of agents and replacing them with party loyalists. Our justice minister, to his credit, has tried to proceed more slowly. He wants to overhaul the system by replacing the number of agents and introducing guidelines. Wanting to is very different from acting, and we are waiting.

Some Liberals feel our justice minister made them lose face by failing to provide patronage plums fast enough to supporters. They believe competent candidates should not be discarded because they are Liberals. At the same time, talk of reform has set high expectations so replacing any Conservative lawyers would make the government look hypocritical.

This is the cynical and corrupt face of patronage, no matter where it exists at any level of government today. I hear hon. members of this House smacking one another on the side of the head because they have this patronage in the Liberal government. Then we have Mr. Parizeau's government involved and they smack them up a little. What we are looking at is a corrupt system and that has to change.

I ask you, Mr. Speaker, in my closing comments, where is the accountability to the Canadian people? Where is our responsibility as elected representatives to the Canadian people? Where is the consistency of members of Parliament so we truly represent one another and ensure that these councils, boards, agencies and commissions are truly open to the Canadian people?

So much for the Liberal red book promises of a fair system.

[Roger Simmons, Liberal, Burin—St. George's, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I too want to make a few comments on this bill. I have spent some time in opposition myself, both here in this Chamber and in the Newfoundland House of Assembly, and I see that the members of the opposition have recognized this bill for what it is, in part, and that is an opportunity for the opposition to have some fun with a number of issues.

[John Cummins, Reform, Delta, BC]

It is serious business.

[Roger Simmons, Liberal, Burin—St. George's, NL]

I will talk about the serious business of this bill, but first, why should my hon. friend from Delta deny me some of the fun?

I notice my hon. friend from Cariboo-Chilcotin trotted out his tractor anecdote once again today. I missed part of it so I do not know what colour the tractor was today. Was it green or blue like the last time? I say to him that some time he should tell us about the cow that having given the full pail of milk, good wholesome milk, was manoeuvred into kicking over the pail. I am not suggesting of course that my friend from Cariboo-Chilcotin or his colleagues are a bunch of cows. They are not that at all. Some could accuse them of being the people trying to manoeuvre the productive cow into wasting something that has been produced.

I digress. I say to my friend from Lotbinière that I notice that patronage is getting a fairly full workout here this afternoon, and so it should. Patronage has always been with us and always will be, and so it should.

Mr. Speaker, I say through you to my friend from Calgary North, hear it in context. I said patronage has always been with us, always will be, and so it should. Before she gets too disbelieving I invite her to hear it in context. I was about to say that members of this Chamber practise patronage in your families on a regular basis, in your church and your community organizations. You regularly reach out to those people you know or can trust. That is not to imply that all the people you do not know you cannot trust. It is just that you do not know whether you can trust them because you have not yet met them.

What is so surprising if in that church group, community group, that municipal council or whatever the group may be, you reach out to somebody whose credentials you know, whose people skills you know when you want a job done. I repeat, that is not to suggest that all the people you do not know in this world are not to be trusted.

It is no accident that if a Liberal government is in power a number of the appointments will be people who are known Liberals. It would be no accident that if a Reform government were in power some of the appointments would be Reform appointments. The law of averages alone takes care of that. If we had to exclude all the people who either voted Liberal or were active in the Liberal cause over the years, we would virtually exclude the entire population of Canada.

Is anybody suggesting that the label itself ought to be a disincentive? There is more to it than that. Let me construct an example for members. If I am an employer and have an opening and there are two applicants for a particular position, both of whom have equal credentials, equal qualifications, equal experience and I know one and I do not know the other, I am going to hire the one I know. The principle stands that the devil you know is better than the devil you do not know, to put it in the vernacular. More generically, the person you know is better than the person you do not know. By definition if you do not know the second person there may be something about that second person, which despite the paper qualifications, despite the experience, has something less to commend him or her to the job. In its purest form that is patronage.

I believe what my friends are talking about is something different altogether. They may not have the courage to put the term on it. I think what they are talking about is corrupt patronage.

I return to my example. I the employer have two people in front of me applying for a position. The person I know does not know a row of beans about the job. The second person, whom I do not know, has good credentials, commends himself or herself to the job in every way, comes through well in the interview. Despite all that I hire the person I know. That is the beginning of corrupt patronage. That is the tail wagging the dog. That is the employer in the example using something other than his head. That example itself may not be corrupt but it is certainly stupid to rush out and hire the person because you know him rather than the person who can do the job. However, that is the beginning of corrupt patronage.

Governments over the years, Tory governments, have practised some corrupt patronage and Liberals have practised corrupt patronage but that does not make it right. I submit that we cannot go back and undo the elections of many years past with the people who sat in Liberal cabinets or Liberal governments or headed Liberal governments and Tory governments over the years. I mention those two parties because they are the only two strains we have had at the federal level. I could go to the provincial level and talk about governments of other stripes, including Social Credit and NDP. We all know the range of governments we have had in Canada heading provincial and federal administrations. There was the Union Nationale in the province of Quebec and other governments. We cannot go back and rerun those elections.

Therefore I submit that the only credentials we can examine now are the credentials of the present administration which is the administration which will be accountable in the next election. Before we are all tarred with the same brush, hear some of

the facts. Has this government appointed Liberals? Yes, it has and I can give this House a good list of them. Has it appointed people of other stripes? Yes, and I can give this House a good list of those as well. However, that ought not to be the governing criterion as to what the person's party label was.

I will return to my example again. If that minister is selecting a person for a board only on the basis of his label or on the basis of who he knows versus who he does not know rather than on the basis of the competence of that person to do that job, that is where it becomes corrupt patronage. I do not agree with that and I will give notice that when I see it and as I see it I will do my bit to blow the whistle.

However, do not ask me to subscribe to a dictum that says all persons of the same party label as the party in power are hereby disqualified for appointment however qualified. That makes no sense. Nobody in this House in their right mind would subscribe to that kind of dictum. It would be unfair. As much to the point it would be counterproductive because we would be robbing ourselves of the opportunity to appoint some competent people.

Let us look at something off the record. This is not particularly an attack on the Tories. There are no Tories left around here to attack. I want to draw a couple of recent example and it just so happens that the last government that was in power in this country federally was the Tory government. Let us have a look at comparable periods.

The big bad Liberals, I will pick two equivalent periods, from November 4, 1994 to February 3, 1995 in the one case and an earlier set of years in another case. In the first case, the present case, the big bad patronage infested Liberals over a 15-month period from November 4, 1993 until February 3, 1995 have made 700 appointments. The Globe and Mail with a research team looking into this for days and weeks, we saw the article last weekend, managed to identify that fewer than 80 of those appointed had Liberal connections. That is only 80 out of 700. I have to talk to the Prime Minister. That is discrimination. The balance ought to be a bit more than that.

I say to my friend from Delta when he was a card carrying Liberal he would not have stood for that kind of unfairness.

Let us look at the period November 4, 1991 until February 3, 1993. These are not conveniently chosen dates. They are the last dates I could choose within the mandate of the last government that would parallel the 15-month period we are talking about and that is why I chose that period. In that 15-month period the Conservatives made 1,819 appointments, about two and a half times as many as had been made in this period.

One of the realities of being in government is that there are agencies, there are boards that need to have personnel appointed to them. We cannot ignore that. This government under the minister responsible did undertake a review. As a result we have made a lot fewer appointments but some of them have to be made.

The very people who stand in this House and decry appointments have themselves been patronage appointments in past times. I will not follow in the footsteps of someone else who spoke earlier and name names. I do not believe that is fair in terms of making the case. It is half fair in the sense that the individuals whose names I have there are now members of this Chamber and would have an opportunity to respond. However, others were mentioned today who have never sat in this Chamber and more to the point do not sit here presently and have no recourse and cannot protect themselves.

I submit to my friends who were dragging out names today that we can make the point that somebody may be the grandson or the son or whatever relation. I did not have any say who my grandparents were. I did not have much say who my parents were. Should it disqualify me because my dad was a humble carpenter, because my mother came from a family of shipbuilders and worked as a domestic before her marriage? Does that disqualify me? Should I carry those labels and somebody should decide that I have to be pegged here because my mother was a domestic and my father was a carpenter? How far do we carry this thing in order to make some point about patronage?

I guess my last sermonette could have been entitled "people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones" because some of them sitting in this Chamber right now had patronage appointments from the former Tory administration.

There is one other issue that I would like to talk about. I am not referring to the gentlemen from Charlevoix, Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies, Elk Island, Red Deer, Fraser Valley East, Calgary North, Port Moody-Coquitlam or Delta, nor to the members for St. Boniface, Parry Sound-Muskoka, Kitchener, London West and Oxford, not to mention the members for Niagara Falls and Stormont-Dundas. Are there other offers-or the member for Louis-Hébert. Just to pull together what I have said on that issue, if there is something wrong with the patronage system, it is the system that is wrong.

There is no need to make scapegoats of individuals to make one's point about what needs to be done with the system. That is the only point I am making. I give notice. I have in front of me the names of present members of this House but unless I eliminate everybody and by extrapolation name the person, I cannot go any further.

In fairness to the people who asked me the question, they did not need to ask the question. They would know full well if they had been appointed. If they had been appointed they would not be so loud in their protests that I inject a disclaimer on their behalf.

If the member for Delta did not exist, we would have to create him. He is such a delight. The members of the Reform Party might have some say in that matter. There is one other item that I want to go on to.

This bill is umbrella legislation. In many respects, it is what we used to call comma legislation. It is not of any particular consequence but it tidies up some things. It needs to be done. I am not dismissing its importance but it is probably not going to create a lot of jobs. Indeed it is cutting out quite a few, for example ACOA.

I see I have my two minute signal so I had better say this very quickly. I want to spend most of my time on ACOA, an instrument of regional development very dear to my heart because I have seen the good it has done in my own riding.

I can talk to members about an agriculture operation in Bay St. George where 35 or 40 people are full time employees thanks to some initiative from that agency. I can talk to members about the salmon operation in Bay d'Espoir which employs 80 people full time where we fly salmon on a daily basis to San Francisco and Toronto and so on. It is a good producing industry that has been going on now for 10 years.

I could talk to members about people who sit in Milltown, 35 of them, and do computer inputing for companies in Germany, England and Australia on contract as a result of a little SEED money they got five or six years ago from ACOA.

I see as I look around that the transition to the new economy, the high tech part of it but agriculture in our case in Newfoundland, the transition to a new set of endeavours in Newfoundland is fully aided by that kind of agency. I sought to speak in this debate particularly to give support to it. I would be glad to invite any member of the House to go with me to my riding so I could show members some of those success stories that are the result of ACOA money.

The member has had an invitation that he has not yet taken me up on. The invitation still stands. I see my time is up.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have just one very quick comment. Perhaps the member for Burin-St. George's will respond to it. Of all the agencies mentioned in Bill C-65, almost all of them have a little clause that reads something like this.

It says that on the day when this bill is proclaimed all people who are on the commission prior to that will cease to be on the commission. That unfortunately raises the sinister question, why would we have to eliminate all present members of the present board? Is it because the present government wants to be able to appoint new people, displacing the patronage appointments of the past?

We will be watching all of those agencies very closely and noting the people who are dropped. We know they will all be dropped if this legislation is passed; we expect with a majority of Liberals it will be. Then we will be watching very carefully to see who is put back on to the boards even though it is in reduced numbers.

[Roger Simmons, Liberal, Burin—St. George's, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I say to my friend for Elk Island, he should be very watchful. That is what makes good government, when we have people in the opposition and in the government benches who monitor those situations.

To the first part of his question, although it is a question better answered by the minister responsible, I would fully assume that if one is going to alter the mandate of an organization, one might want to start afresh. People who were put there, given the former mandate, may or may not be qualified or as qualified to pursue the new mandate. That is just an answer off the top of my head.

It is not uncommon when winding up and redefining an organization to replenish its membership. The litmus test is the one he put his finger on. The litmus test is whether any hanky-panky-he did not say this, but I will say it for him-goes on. If there are 10 people on the board with four Liberals and six Tories or whatever, they will all be shoved aside. If when the board comes back the next day the four Liberals remain and the six Tories have all been replaced for no better reason than they had different labels when it comes to parties, then that is hanky-panky. I would be there with him when he raises the point.