Debates of June 21st, 1995

Government Organization Act (Federal Agencies)

[Gilbert Fillion, Bloc, Chicoutimi, QC]

moved:

Motion No. 3

That Bill C-65, in Clause 4, be amended by replacing line 16, on page 2, with the following:

"Council, on the recommendation of the Minister, following consultation with the government of each province and with the approval of the standing committee of the House of Commons that normally consides cultural matters.

(2.1) The Board of Directors shall include representatives of the various regions in Canada."

[Richard Bélisle, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

moved:

Motion No. 4

That Bill C-65, in Clause 6, be amended by replacing line 31, on page 2, with the following:

"Council as provided in section 4, following consultation with the government of each province and with the approval of the standing committee of the House of Commons that normally considers cultural matters.

3.1 The Council shall include representatives of the various regions of Canada."

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

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if there would be unanimous consent so that all these motions you are about to read be deemed to have been put, thereby giving more time for debate instead of reading motions.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is there unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed

[Richard Bélisle, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

moved:

Motion No. 5

That Bill C-65, in Clause 19, be amended by replacing line 28, on page 5, with the following:

"the recommendation of the Corporation, following consultation with the government of each province and with the approval of the standing committee of the House of Commons that normally considers cultural matters, ap-".

Motion No. 6

That Bill C-65, in Clause 21, be amended by replacing line 19, on page 6, with the following:

"ister, following consultation with the government of each province and with the approval of the standing committee of the House of Commons that normally considers cultural matters.

(1.1) The Board shall include representatives of the various regions in Canada."

[Maurice Godin, Bloc, Châteauguay, QC]

moved:

Motion No. 7

That Bill C-65, in Clause 25, be amended by replacing line 30, on page 7, with the following:

"required, to the government of each province and to other ministers on the emer-".

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

moved:

Motion No. 9

That Bill C-65, in Clause 46, be amended by replacing line 17, on page 12, with the following:

"ed in section 19, following consultation with the government of each province and with the approval of the standing committee of the House of Commons that normally considers cultural matters.

(1.1) The Board shall include representatives of the various regions of Canada."

Motion No. 12

That Bill C-65, in Clause 54, be amended by adding after line 16, on page 14, the following:

"(3.1) The members, the Chairperson and the Vice-Chairperson shall be appointed following consultation with the government of each province and with the approval of the standing committee of the House of Commons that normally considers matters relating to this Act."

[Eugène Bellemare, Liberal, Carleton—Gloucester, ON]

moved:

Motion No. 13

That Bill C-65, in Clause 54, be amended by replacing lines 22 to 25, on page 14, with the following: c ) one from a municipality in Ontario, other than the city of Ottawa, wholly or partly within the National Capital Region; d ) one from a municipality in Quebec, other than the city of Hull, wholly or partly within the National Capital Region; and''.

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

moved:

Motion No. 14

That Bill C-65, in Clause 54, be amended by adding after line 28, on page 14, the following:

"(4.1) The members appointed under paragraph (4)( e ) shall represent the various regions of Canada.''

[Gilbert Fillion, Bloc, Chicoutimi, QC]

moved:

Motion No. 15

That Bill C-65, in Clause 57, be amended by replacing lines 16 to 18, on page 15, with the following:

"appointed by the Governor in Council on the recommendation of the Minister, following consultation with the government of each province and with the approval of the standing committee of the House of Commons that normally considers cultural matters.

(1.1) the Board shall include representatives of the various regions of Canada."

[René Laurin, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

moved:

Motion No. 16

That Bill C-65, in Clause 64, be amended by replacing lines 11 and 12, on page 17, with the following:

"Minister, following consultation with the government of each province and with the approval of the Governor in Council and the standing committee of the House of Commons that normally considers matters relating to industry, to hold office during pleasure for".

[The Deputy Speaker]

We will now debate Group No. 1.

[Eugène Bellemare, Liberal, Carleton—Gloucester, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to address Bill C-65, an act to reorganize and dissolve certain federal agencies. As we are all aware, the government is proposing to get rid of many boards and commissions and reduce drastically a great number of them for greater efficiency and as a cost saving measure.

One of the agencies which interests me greatly is the National Capital Commission. The bill proposes the membership of the National Capital Commission be composed as follows: two from the city of Ottawa, one from the city of Hull, one from a local municipality in Ontario, other than the city of Ottawa, one from a local municipality in Quebec, other than the city of Hull, and eight from Canada generally, other than from the cities or municipalities just referred to. Clauses (c) and (d) give me great concern, the ones that refer to a local municipality in Ontario and a local municipality in Quebec. I shall explain.

I would like to replace this with my motion:

That Bill C-65 in clause 54 be amended by replacing lines 22 to 25 on page 14 with the following:

(c) one from a municipality in Ontario, other than the city of Ottawa, wholly or partly within the national capital region

(d) one from a municipality in Quebec, other than the city of Hull, wholly or partly within the national capital region.

My explanation for this is it has been the practice to have representation from local municipalities around the capital city of Ottawa. In Ontario a local municipality could be Sarnia, Kapuskasing, Smiths Falls, Kingston or a variety of other places. We have like in the province of Quebec, regional municipalities such as the Muncipalité régionale d'Ottawa-Carleton, and we have, du côté de l'outaouais, la Municipalité régionale de l'Outaouais.

Just like Montreal has the MUC, the Montreal Urban Community. I may add that these regional municipalities represent several local municipalities.

So when the definition refers to a local municipality, this is not the same as a regional municipality. In this particular case, we must remember there is a difference between a local municipality and a regional municipality, which could be, Kapuskasing or Hearst, for instance. We should refer to the National Capital Region. And to justify this explanation, we consult the-

The National Capital Act, chapter N-4, section 2, gives a description of the national capital region. It gives a description of all the municipalities surrounding the national capital, Ottawa. In the description it talks of Gatineau, Aylmer, Hull and on the Ontario side it talks of Gloucester, Cumberland, Nepean and a dozen other local municipalities.

The reference here is that in the National Capital Act it is well defined what is meant by a local municipality. People do not juggle from one act to the other. When governments change and commission memberships change or board memberships change I would not appreciate seeing errors made and instead of having a representative from a local municipality of the national capital region, having a local municipality within the province of Ontario or the province of Quebec.

And now there will be representatives from the Province of Quebec. The last part mentions eight members from Canada generally. Ontario, of course, will not be left out. It will also have a representative among the additional eight.

[English]

The government is proposing the national commission should be reduced from 20 to 15 members appointed by the governor in council, which translates into a reduction of five members. It is something I agree with but, as I was stating, it is extremely important that the local municipality in the region be respected.

We have the city of Gloucester, for instance, where 52 per cent of the land belongs to the federal government. This means that there is a lot of negotiating with the federal government. Activities within the Greenbelt or at Ottawa Airport, for instance, are very restricted. Infrastructure projects always require agreements between the municipalities and the NCC.

If you go from Ottawa to Cumberland, you have to go through Gloucester, and if you want to build sewer mains or water pipes, you have to negotiate agreements with the NCC. That is why it is so important for local municipalities within the National Capital Region to be included. The same applies on the Quebec side. For instance, we have Gatineau and also Aylmer, which is involved in the National Capital Region.

My motion reads as follows:

"(c) one from a municipality in Ontario, other than the city of Ottawa, wholly or partly within the National Capital Region;

Paragraph (d) would read:

(d) one from a municipality in Quebec, other than the city of Hull, wholly or partly within the National Capital Region;

I appreciate the support I received for this amendment from the Minister responsible for the Privy Council and Intergovernmental Affairs and the government. This proves once again that the government is very flexible when it introduces legislation, and that it listens to government and opposition members when they make reasonable suggestions. Personally, I believe it is entirely reasonable to make sure that the wording of the bill is clear.

The way the bill was worded originally, my local municipality in Ontario was confusing and a local municipality in Quebec was confusing, and by ensuring that the local municipality is within the National Capital Region, either on the Quebec side or the Ontario side, we comply with the National Capital Act's definition of the boundaries of the region. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you for giving me this opportunity to explain the reasons for my amendment.

[Richard Bélisle, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be speaking on the motions in Group No. 1, and I may have something to say on the other groups later. Thank you. I am pleased to speak once again in the debate on Bill C-65, an act to reorganize and dissolve certain federal agencies.

As I mentioned in my last speech on this bill, Bill C-65 changes and reorganizes 15 federal agencies by reducing the number of their members. It also dismantles seven other federal organizations. I say dismantles, because their function becomes incorporated into a sector department, in certain instances, or is amalgamated with that of another organization.

There are 16 motions for amendment to this bill; 11 are from Bloc members, four are from the Reform member for Elk Island and one is from the Liberal member for Carleton-Gloucester, who has just spoken to us. I would first like to express my unequivocal support for Motions Nos. 1, 3, 7, 9, 11, 14, 15, and 16 tabled by the members for Trois-Rivières, Chicoutimi, Châteauguay, Québec-Est and Joliette, respectively.

In essence, these motions recommend that the main appointments to the boards of government agencies be made only after consultation with the government of each province, not only Quebec, but of all the provinces in Canada, and with the approval of the standing committee of the House normally charged with matters concerning the sectoral department responsible for these agencies. In this case, Heritage Canada, the Department of National Defence and the Department of Industry and other departments are involved with certain agencies.

I invite the members of the House to also support Motions Nos. 4, 5, and 6, which I proposed and for which notices were given on May 15.

These motions propose, respectively, that the appointments of the chairperson and vice-chairperson of the Canada Council, the executive director of the Canadian Film Development Corporation and a maximum of ten members including the chairperson of the Canadian Cultural Property Export Review Board be made only "following consultation with the government of each province and with the approval of the standing committee of the House of Commons that normally considers cultural matters-in this instance, the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.

The idea of cutting political appointments by order in Council, in reality by the Prime Minister's office, is aimed at reducing the arbitrary decisions and the waste of public money. This bill tries to put an end to patronage and too high a number of what I would call almost honourary appointments.

However, The Globe and Mail has revealed over the past year that, despite Bill C-65, under the Liberal government, political appointments are being made with renewed vigour. In several instances, the elimination of any legal reference to advisory bodies leads us to question the genuineness of the Liberals'commitment to administrative transparency.

Will the House of Commons have a say regarding appointments to advisory bodies which will no longer have a legal status? Whither transparency? This question is central to the whole debate; Bill C-65 provides only a timid answer.

Under its present form and without the amendments brought forward by the Bloc Quebecois, we cannot support this bill. The motions brought forward by the Bloc Quebecois are aimed at making clearer and more transparent the appointment process to the boards of the bodies mentioned in there.

We are in agreement with Motion No. 13 presented by the member for Carleton-Gloucester to the effect that a member of the National Capital Commission, other than the chairperson and vice-chairperson, must come from a municipality in Ontario, other than the city of Ottawa-and the member adds-from a municipality wholly or partly within the National Capital Region.

Also, under the motion presented by the member for Carleton-Gloucester, a member of the Commission must come from a municipality in Quebec, other than the city of Hull-and the member adds-wholly or partly within the National Capital Region.

What would be more normal than having commission members come from the area covered by the National Capital Commission? We believe that this proposal is important and should be accepted. In a few minutes I will deal with the other groups.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin my debate on Group No. 1 by saying that in general we in the Reform Party believe the provinces ought to be more involved in issues that affect them directly.

In general, we agree with the impetus of the motions in this group put forward by the members of the Bloc. I would like to qualify that agreement and also ask a question about the reasonableness of this in terms of the total amount of bureaucratic and administrative time that would be taken to administer these things as they are proposing.

They are basically saying that before the governor in council appointments are made they should be approved by the various provinces. Although I said that in general we agree the provinces should be more involved in the workings of our country, I do not believe it should be done in this way.

They speak of contacting the lieutenant governor in each province. If we stop to think about it, the lieutenant governor is an appointed, unelected position, so this is not necessarily going to get the democratic input from the people. That would probably be the greatest reason for us to oppose most of the motions in this group.

I would like to speak about several of the motions. The hon. member from the Liberal Party who spoke earlier talked about the necessity of having input into the board of the National Capital Commission. He was quite concerned that there should be more representation from areas around the region. In other words, if they are not a part of Ottawa they should be included if they are adjacent to Ottawa.

There are two parts to the administration of the different functions. Whether it is the National Capital Commission, one of the museums, or something else, these people do two things. They generally oversee the administration of the facilities. And they are wonderful facilities; I do not want to minimize them in any way. However, another aspect of this, which is so important and which is overlooked, is that the taxpayers come from across the entire country.

I did not have the privilege of visiting the canal during the winter festival, but I was told by someone who went there that every garbage can has NCC written on it. In other words, the National Capital Commission owns the garbage cans. I suppose that is good. If there are people skating on the canal they have to have garbage cans, and if it is under the jurisdiction of the National Capital Commission then they should be identified. However, the question occurred to me: What possible fiscal interest could any voter living more than 100 miles away from Ottawa have in buying garbage cans for the city of Ottawa?

I would be opposed to the idea of concentrating more heavily the representation on the board in terms of the people who want to spend the money and try to increase it for those who are more distant, who would have a greater interest in trying to save the money.

It is sort of a spend versus save conflict we have, and it needs to be balanced according to the different regions. There is no doubt in my mind that the formula should specify very clearly which regions of the country the members should come from. I do not think it should necessarily be the lieutenant governor in the province who should be involved in the consultation. There should be a better mechanism for that. Perhaps it could be the choice of elected legislatures putting forward a slate from which people could be chosen.

While we appreciate the general principle the Bloc members are after, we would be opposed to most of the amendments on the basis of their practicality.

[Yves Rocheleau, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be able to take the floor on Bill C-65, an act to reorganize and dissolve certain federal agencies.

My motion deals more specifically with the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, or ACOA, and reads as follows:

That Bill C-65, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing line 14, on page 1, with the following:

"recommendations of the Minister, following consultation with the Lieutenant Governor of each province in Atlantic Canada and with the approval of the standing committee of the House of Commons, that normally considers matters relating to industry, to hold of-"

The goal of this motion is both simple and two fold. We would like that the government of each of the Atlantic provinces, as well as all the members normally interested in such matters, that is the members of the industry committee, be involved in the appointments.

This would make for a better climate in government and fulfil a need. We know that it is rewarding to be a Liberal, as the Globe and Mail showed, but our amendment would avoid situations like the one we are experiencing, where the minister responsible for ACOA recently nominated political organizers to the board of a federal agency based in his riding.

This is the kind of thing we want to correct or at the very least avoid.

[John English, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to respond to some of the comments made on these amendments.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Excuse me. There are two other members who wish to speak. Would the member wish to wait until everybody else has spoken on these amendments? Is that acceptable? Very well.

[Maurice Godin, Bloc, Châteauguay, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to take part in the debate on the amendments proposed by the official opposition to Bill C-65, an act to reorganize and dissolve certain federal agencies. As you know, this bill amends the statutes that establish fifteen federal boards, agencies or commissions, in order to reorganize them or to reduce the number of their members. The bill also dissolves seven federal organizations.

Since the bill received first reading on December 14, the official opposition has been emphasizing the importance of using this opportunity to improve the democratic process in the public service. Indeed, we feel it is important to democratize the appointment process for office holders within the organizations affected by this legislation. We want less patronage and more transparency. It is in that spirit that the Bloc is presenting a series of ten amendments.

I want to concentrate on the amendment which deals with subclause 25(2) of the bill. That clause amends a provision of the Emergency Preparedness Act. More specifically, the bill seeks to increase the ministerial responsibility. To that end, it more or less replaces Emergency Preparedness Canada by the minister himself. In other words, the minister will assume full responsibility with respect to the development and implementation of civil emergency plans.

It is in regard to the implementation of these plans that we want to make a suggestion to the government. Subclause 25(2) of the bill currently reads:

The responsibilities of the Minister with respect to the implementation of civil emergency plans are

(a) to monitor any potential, imminent or actual civil emergency and to report, as required, to other ministers on the emergency and any measures necessary for dealing with it;

We feel that the minister should also have to report to the government of each province. An emergency situation, whether potential, imminent or actual, is never something which takes place in isolation. It may be potential or obvious, but it always concerns a specific place, community, region or province. This is why we feel that provincial authorities should be informed of the measures taken by the federal minister responsible for emergency preparedness.

This is too good an opportunity to miss. I would like to refer to a civil emergency that has forever scarred my riding, the electoral district of Châteauguay. The events of the summer of 1990 were officially classified as a provincial emergency under the Emergency Preparedness Act as a matter of fact.

All the hon. members will remember that, on July 11, 1990, armed warriors withstood a tactical operation carried out by the Sûreté du Québec in the Oka area. Following this, another group of warriors blocked access to the Mercier bridge linking the greater Châteauguay area to Montreal Island. As a result of this coup de force, more than 80,000 commuters were unable to cross the bridge, with implications that are still underestimated. Peaceful people were the victims of this action. Businesses were closed, jobs were lost and incalculable time was lost because of detours.

We know that the handling of this crisis was a disaster. This lack of initiative was one of the main reasons why the Liberals were defeated in the last provincial election. That government was weak. This was a government without backbone or vision and dependent on this Canadian constitution which no longer meets modern-day needs.

This government which has seen one of its cabinet members fly off to Ottawa after losing the last provincial election is now advocating the constitutional status quo like its leader. This status quo, however, could well plunge the city of Châteauguay into another crisis, since this constitution contains no specific division of responsibilities between the parties involved. After having demanded, with her former leader, constitutional changes, how can a former Quebec minister stand for the status quo? Moreover, no effort has been made to set up real negotiations between the native peoples and the federal government on their respective rights and responsibilities.

At least the federal government did not step in on its own initiative. It only acted at the request of the Quebec government, fortunately. We can easily assume that if the federal government had stepped in on its own, it would have messed up things even more.

Now, to get back to the case in point with Bill C-65. According to this piece of legislation, the minister would only have to report to his or her fellow cabinet members. Everybody will agree with me that, in such circumstances, it would be unthinkable for the Quebec government not to be officially informed of the measures taken by the minister.

This is a good example that shows the need for the amendment to Bill C-65 moved by the Bloc Quebecois. We think it is important that the federal minister be required to report to his provincial counterpart when he implements civil emergency plans and more particularly when he monitors any situation of potential, imminent or real crisis. Public security requires positive discussions between all governments and public authorities.

The federal government should not overlook its responsibilities when it reorganizes or abolishes any of its agencies, as it does under Bill C-65. That is also true of the minister who becomes responsible for Emergency Preparedness Canada. His duty to co-ordinate with provincial and local authorities must not be limited to the development and implementation of civil emergency plans. He must also report to all public authorities concerned by the actions he will take in matters of civil defence, including provinces.

It is a question of good co-ordination but also a question of transparency. The federal government is concentrating powers in the hands of the ministers. This concentration increases the risk of abuse, discretionary decisions, partisan treatments and arbitrary choices. Therefore it is increasingly necessary to establish transparency mechanisms in order to preserve the integrity of the government.

The Auditor General of Canada keeps asking for such accountability mechanisms. They are even more necessary when power is placed in the hands of fewer people. This is what is happening now within the federal government, and Bill C-65 is another move in that direction.

This is why the Bloc Quebecois is presenting amendments asking for more transparency. This is what we want when we ask that the minister responsible for civil preparedness be accountable to the provinces, when we ask that the lieutenant governor in council of each province be consulted before some of the appointments, when we ask that the appropriate standing committee of the House approve some of the appointments and when we ask that each provincial government be consulted before certain appointments.

[René Laurin, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-65 received a lot of publicity. The minister responsible for the bill had announced very proudly that it was very important because it would have the effect of eliminating several government agencies that had become useless and cutting back others.

There is no need to exaggerate the importance of this bill financially since we are talking about savings of only $4 million. For the people who are listening to us, it takes only about an hour and a quarter for the Canadian deficit to absorb $4 million.

Through this very important bill on the streamlining of some agencies and the elimination of others, the government will have made it possible to pay for an hour and a quarter of the Canadian deficit. This is not as important as the minister would have had us believe when he made the announcement.

On the other hand, there is something that could have been more important than the amount of money. We agree with trimming the government, and when it comes to savings, even a paltry $4 million, we must seize the opportunity. This is not the reason why we are criticizing the government. If we criticize the government, it is because while saving these $4 million, it could have taken the opportunity to improve the appointment process in these governmental agencies.

In its red book, chapter 6, the Liberal Party promised to restore integrity in our political institutions. One of the recommendations to increase this integrity is to have a thorough review of order in council appointments.

During all the years they were sitting in opposition, the Liberals were always criticizing the political appointments made by the Conservative government and they were promising to review the whole appointment system for people sitting on boards, commissions and agencies.

Unfortunately, in this bill, the government is not proposing anything radical to change this appointment system which allows the government to reward its friends. If the Liberal Party had wanted to keep its promise, it would have added a clause specifying that all appointments should be approved by a parliamentary committee.

The government did not have the courage to do that. It preferred to maintain an unclear partisan appointment system. Its decision to simply reduce the number of board members is only a diversion tactic. The appointment process in itself remains the same.

To prove it, I would like to quote major changes made in this bill. For example, let us take the Petro-Canada Limited Act. Section 64 to be amended by the bill reads as follows:

"There shall be a Board of Directors of the Corporation consisting of the Chairman of the Board, the President of the Corporation and not more than thirteen other persons".

This was the old section. The new clause reads as follows:

"There shall be a Board of Directors of the Corporation consisting of the Chairperson of the Board, the President of the Corporation and one other person."

The only fundamental difference between these two versions is that the number of directors is reduced from 15 to 3. I can see savings related to the attendance fees paid by these corporations to directors.

The second subclause deals with the way directors are appointed to the corporation. Under the old section, the thirteen other directors of Petro-Canada, for example, were appointed by the minister, with the approval of the Governor in Council, to hold office during pleasure for a term not exceeding three years.

The new clause provides that the director still to be appointed, since the chairperson and the president of the corporation are ex officio members, the director who is neither the chairperson of the board nor the president of the corporation shall also be appointed by the minister, with the approval of the Governor in Council, to hold office during pleasure for a term not exceeding three years. Therefore, nothing has changed.

When we look at both texts, we realize that the only thing changed is the number of board members. Nothing at all has been changed in the vague and partisan process of appointing people to these boards. That is why we say that this system must go. Measures have to be taken to put an end to the patronage system.

Let me quote, as an example, a very well-documented article published in the Globe and Mail of February 7, under the headline: «Liberal loyalty being rewarded with jobs, jobs, jobs». The article explained the philosophy of the Liberals on party friends. According to the article, more than 100 persons close to the Liberals were appointed over the first fifteen months of the Chrétien government: former candidates; a nephew of the Prime Minister; a fundraiser for the party; an organizer, and mostly, more than 15 defeated candidates who have all been generously rewarded for services rendered to the Liberal Party, out of the public purse. This is the function of crown corporations.

The recent appointment of Jacques Saada, Liberal candidate defeated in La Prairie, is one of the most obvious examples of patronage. Mr. Saada, who is a friend of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, was hired to implement a communication plan for CIDA.

Since Mr. Saada is a translator by trade, we have a hard time figuring out where he acquired the experience and the expertise required to prepare a communication plan for CIDA. Moreover, his contract amounts to a tidy $99,150 for one year. What a coincidence. It is just under the $100,000 limit over which the government has to call for tenders, in which case Mr. Saada would likely not have won because of his lack of experience and expertise in that area. The name is Saada.

Sometimes we have difficulty understanding when friends are involved. We can easily forget their names, but I am glad to remind the House of it. That explains the importance they wanted to give to the bill. These are the savings to be made. But fundamentally there is nothing changed. Friends of the government will continue to be appointed to the boards of large crown corporations et large para-governmental corporations. They could at least have done things differently.

Many of those large agencies, and this is another feature of this bill, have an impact on the taxation of provinces and many of those agencies and boards in the bill definitely have an impact. Nowhere in the amendments proposed by the government are provinces consulted nor do they take part in the decisions which are taken. This is why we have proposed an amendment, a motion. That is Motion No. 16 that I moved, seconded by my colleague for La Prairie, which reads: "That Bill C-65, in Clause 64, be amended by replacing lines 11 and 12, on page 17, with the following:"

The board members I spoke about earlier should be appointed by the minister to hold office during pleasure, but not in a discretionary way; they should be appointed by the minister following consultation with the government of each province, since these corporations have an influence on the administration of the provinces, and with the approval of the governor in council and, moreover, of the standing committee of the House of Commons that normally considers matters relating to industry.

If we want to practice openness to improve the situation, if we want to fundamentally change what is not working properly, we must be straightforward and honest and deal with the real problems.

I hope this amendment will be supported not only by my colleagues of the opposition, but also by my Liberal friends across the way.

[John English, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak to the bill and to respond to some of the comments made by the members of the Bloc Quebecois and the member for Elk Island.

The amendment moved by the member for Carleton-Gloucester is a constructive amendment which the government accepts. It is the kind of amendment which contributes to the nature of the bill in recognizing that regional interest must be served.

We do not think, however, that regional interest should be served specifically in the bill on a national basis. The member for Carleton-Gloucester moved that regional interest be recognized on a local basis in the national capital region. That seems appropriate, but regional representation is only one element of the qualifications for boards and agencies.

In a broader sense the amendments offered by the member for Elk Island and the members of the Bloc Quebecois fall under two categories. The first is that the provinces must play a larger role in appointments. Appointments made by the federal government under federal government legislation should be subject to provincial approval.

The point raised by the member for Elk Island is a very sensible one. This is a cumbersome, costly and time consuming process. Moreover, reciprocity does not exist. The provincial governments do not offer the capacity for the federal government to approve provincial government appointments made by their lieutenant governor in council. Surely some reciprocity on this basis must exist.

In this respect the bill is to simplify federal government agencies. It is part of a process begun in the budget of February 1994. What has occurred since that time is that we have eliminated 150 patronage positions with the bill. This is the first stage of agency review. The second stage will take place later in the fall and it will eliminate 350 so-called patronage positions.

When we look at the total numbers, this is the first time I can recall since the second world war that there has been any reduction in patronage positions. This is a radical reduction and it is something to be commended.

The member for Joliette said that the reduction amounts to only $4 million. I am sure the member for Elk Island will agree that this is not a meagre amount. It is a significant contribution and it is a pattern for the process the government is going through under agency review and in the budget itself.

In terms of the standing committees the Bloc amendments tend to emphasize the need for standing committees to approve of the appointments. The standing orders currently allow committees to review appointments made by the governor in council to non-judicial bodies.

We are not seeking to revise the parliamentary system in the bill. Certainly in terms of standing committees there may need to be in the future some revision in the work they do. However, in this bill we are working to simplify, we are working to do it quickly, and we are working to deal with what we have now. In that respect the amendments offered are not constructive at this time.

I emphasize that this is a bill to simplify government, to make it more efficient, and to fulfil the aims we have expressed in the red book and in the budget.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The question is on Motion No. 1. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?