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.