The House resumed from October 21, consideration of the motion that Bill C-49, an act to authorize remedial and disciplinary measures in relation to members of certain administrative tribunals, to reorganize and dissolve certain federal agencies and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Government Operations; and the amendment.

Administrative Tribunals (Remedial And Disciplinary Measures) ActGovernment Orders

3:25 p.m.

Bloc

Gilbert Fillion Bloc Chicoutimi, QC

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate on Bill C-49, an act to authorize remedial and disciplinary measures in relation to members of certain administrative tribunals, to reorganize and dissolve certain federal agencies and to make consequential amendments to other Acts. Some title!

You will agree that with sentences that long, without a single comma, we have no idea what this bill is supposed to do. Let us try to wade through all this verbiage and see what it all means. We are told that the proposed amendments have the effect of abolishing 271 positions to which appointments are made by the governor in council. This is absolutely ridiculous. The 261 positions mentioned are now vacant. There is no one filling those positions. There is no money to be saved. This is a lot of smoke and mirrors, nothing else.

People often forget that administrative tribunals are above all a court of first resort for the citizen, one of the initial levels where citizens can be heard. We have, for instance, the Employment Insurance Tribunal. If a citizen is dissatisfied with a decision made by a public servant, he can go before an arbitration board before filing an appeal at any other legal level.

There are a host of administrative tribunals that are creatures of the federal government. This bill confirms that many of them are useless, since the government proposes their outright abolition. Others will simply be reorganized, while the majority will not be affected.

So this bill does not cover all administrative tribunals. The government is just giving us a sample. This is not a thorough reform, nor is it an in-depth study of each tribunal.

If the government wants to preserve these administrative tribunals, as is the case here, it should have arranged for these authorities to play a real role. For instance, the Quebec government is also making an inventory of its arbitration boards and its administrative boards, but it is asking the real questions. The real questions are not being asked here, in other words, the independence and impartiality of judges and tribunals. Is the government asking these questions?

Certainly not. The present government prefers to hide its head in the sand instead of asking the real questions. Are the people in these positions really independent? That is one of the questions that keeps coming up in connection with the appointment of the people who sit on these tribunals. I will get back to that later on.

The bill creates a new mechanism to remove from office people sitting on these tribunals. This is a good thing. It is about time the

government realizes that some people it has appointed are simply unfit to sit on an administrative tribunal.

In fact, in a report on the future and mandate of the Canada Post Corporation recently tabled here in the House, under recommandation 28, the author said that the government should only appoint to the board of the Canada Post Corporation people having the necessary expertise and wherewithal to manage a company of that size.

This confirms that political appointments- there are close to 2,000 of them-are not suitable since the appointees are creatures of the government. They are being rewarded for services rendered.

With this bill, the government is establishing a process allowing the chair of an administrative tribunal to ask the minister in charge whether any member of the tribunal should be subject to remedial or disciplinary measures. Of course, this can only be done on grounds such as infirmity, misconduct, failure to properly execute the office, and incompatibility.

We are led to believe that an in-depth inquiry will be held. But we are fully aware that once again it is the minister who will decide. We always go back to the same issue, because it all boils done to this: the independence and impartiality of decision-makers or lack thereof. How can these tribunals be impartial when already the question of appointments is creating a problem? It is having repercussions within the board.

A new provision of this bill also proposes a standard procedure for the appointment of chairpersons of administrative tribunals. It says that, from now on, chairpersons will be designated and not appointed.

Can someone in this House tell me the difference? This is only a charade, smoke and mirrors, pure and simple. Once again this will undermine the credibility of all administrative tribunals. In other words, administrative tribunals are patronage heaven. As the elders in my region used to say, they are «patronage heaven». We could have carried out a true reform of these tribunals or at least of the way they operate.

It is of the utmost importance that these bodies be at arm's length with the government. They are not. These tribunals must absolutely be totally independent from the government. How can that be when they are appointed by the government? We have to admit that these appointments serve as rewards for friends of the government.

You only have to look at the last Hill times ; you will find a full half-page, in very small print, of Liberal patronage designations or appointments, whichever way you chose to call them, a list of

members of the Liberal Party who now hold positions everywhere, in the Senate, MP offices and administrative tribunals. The list goes on and on.

Of course, when someone pays $1,000, $1,200 and up to $3,000 to attend a political event or dinner, one expects at one point, whether they be lobbyists or others, to get something in return. Are these famous administrative tribunals not a way to get something in return?

When these people must take major decisions that would embarrass the government-let us recall the last bill that was discussed earlier-might they not be tempted to go back, to step backwards, because they would have this sword of Damocles over their heads, which could bring about their removal from office?

These people might also be reluctant to develop a case law that would be favourable, for instance, to a particular citizen and, in taking this decision, they could penalize the government. In this structure, in this whole hierarchy, it is not easy for the ordinary individual to finally be heard.

Consequently, it is a measure that ensures the members of an administrative tribunal would be much more inclined to thank whomever appointed them. Of course, if someone embarrasses the government, he will be fired. Let us remember the maxim that says: "Do not bite the hand that feeds you." I think it applies in this case.

The government is going the wrong way with its Bill C-49, because it simply refuses to deal with the thrust of the matter, which is the appointment of people. The government must stop making appointments once for all. I am puzzled at the favouritism it is showing. When I was elected in 1993, some of my constituents came to tell me how there was favouritism in the appointment of some administrative tribunals. Since we were under the Conservative government, we saw a number of heads roll afterwards. They were rolling all over the place and in all the ridings ofof Quebec.

Changes were even made to mandates, as in proceedings before the Federal Court for instance. There were changes in counsel, changes in government, changes in the make-up of administrative tribunals. That is what parliamentary life is all about. Do not come and tell me that there is no connection between those in power and these individuals. As I said and as we know full well, these appointments are made to reward the friends of the government. There are several examples of this.

New returning officers were just appointed by Elections Canada in the various ridings. Just by chance, a former Liberal member was appointed in my riding. What a coincidence. No one will have me believe that this person will be able to remain totally impartial in the performance of his duties.

Looking at other appointments in neighbouring ridings, I realized that the same thing happened there. They have appointed all over the place Liberal candidates defeated in the last election, and God knows there were many Liberal candidates defeated in Quebec. Just take a look at The Hill Times . We would have to be blind not to see that these people will not be able to carry out their duties with all due impartiality.

There is another concern, which we have experienced in this place as a matter of fact. The House will recall how those in charge of taking the census were appointed recently. That was done just recently. The government simply interfered with the process at Statistics Canada by sending its priority list. Do not come and tell me that the purpose of Bill C-49 is a sound reform of administrative tribunals. Patronage is the Liberal government's trademark, but we must not think that the Conservatives are any better. Nothing changes, except the patronage appointees, when one government goes out and a new one comes in.

With this bill, the government retains control over all appointments. This kind of flies in the face of the basic principles of democracy, which are usually the impartiality and independence of administrative tribunals. One could naturally question the legitimacy of certain tribunals. I will address it later or another member of my party will complete my remarks.

Since you are signalling that I have two minutes left, Mr. Speaker, let me just say that I believe this bill should be defeated without further ado. I request the unanimous consent of the House for tabling the following motion:

That Bill C-49, an act to authorize remedial and disciplinary measures in relation to members of certain administrative tribunals, to reorganize and dissolve certain federal agencies and to make consequential amendments to other acts, having been passed by the Liberal majority of this House at second reading, be referred to every standing committee of the House of Commons dealing with an administrative tribunal covered by the bill.

Administrative Tribunals (Remedial And Disciplinary Measures) ActGovernment Orders

3:50 p.m.

The Speaker

Does the hon. member have the consent of the House to propose the motion?

Administrative Tribunals (Remedial And Disciplinary Measures) ActGovernment Orders

3:50 p.m.

Some hon. members

No.

Administrative Tribunals (Remedial And Disciplinary Measures) ActGovernment Orders

3:50 p.m.

Vaudreuil Québec

Liberal

Nick Discepola LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate on the bill dealing with government organization.

Most of you know that this bill introduces the amendments announced in the second phase of the agency review, which deal primarily with governor in council appointments to government agencies and boards, and with the salaries paid to appointees.

These amendments will create a more effective and efficient system, streamline activities and increase accountability. This omnibus bill stems from the government's commitment to streamline its administration, to ensure that the existence of federal organizations other than the departments is still justified, and that their activities, structures and resources remain appropriate.

In other words, as was pointed out earlier, these measures reflect the commitment made by the state to provide Canadians with a good government. In my opinion, the large support enjoyed by this bill shows how important it is to amend relevant legislative provisions.

Let us take a look at its impact. The bill abolishes seven organizations which, after an in-depth review and consultation, were deemed no longer justified, while restructuring 13 others. In total, 271 positions filled by governor in council appointments will be eliminated which, contrary to what the hon. member who just spoke said, will result in savings of close to $3 billion. These savings are in addition to the ones that will result from Bill C-65 and the administrative measures taken following the two phases of the agency review. In total, Canadian taxpayers will save at least $10 million, thanks to these initiatives.

Just as important is the fact that the bill standardizes the appointment criteria for six organizations, as well as the level of accountability.

Allow me to turn now to the specific effects within the solicitor general's ministry. The legislation proposed by this bill will affect three specific areas, the National Parole Board, the external review committee of the RCMP, and the RCMP public complaints commission.

The National Parole Board, as members know, is a significant component of our Canadian criminal justice system. It is responsible for making decisions about the timing and conditions of release in a manner that contributes to the long term protection of society.

Experience has shown that gradual controlled re-entry of offenders into the community works well for the majority of offenders. In addition, conditional release minimizes the cost of the criminal justice system as the approximate costs of incarceration are in excess of $46,000 compared to the costs of supervision in the community of approximately $9,000.

The second organization that will be affected by this proposal is the RCMP external review committee. This is a quasi-judicial body which reviews appeals of formal discipline, appeals of discharge or demotion and certain types of grievances involving regular and civilian members of the RCMP.

The committee has over the last three years undertaken several initiatives which have resulted in a significant downsizing. This restructuring, in addition to the measures now being proposed, should further streamline the committee's organization.

As for the RCMP's public complaints commission, this was created in 1986 to review complaints from the public concerning the conduct of members of the RCMP in the performance of their duties.

The commission must ensure that individual members of the public have their complaints dealt with in a fair and impartial manner, and that the RCMP members against whom allegations are made are treated with fairness and objectivity. The legislation that is now before us will put into place needed reforms to make each of these three agencies more flexible and effective.

I would like to remind my colleagues of the important changes which are being proposed. In addition, in relationship to the National Parole Board, the Corrections and Conditional Release Act will be amended to remove the ceiling on the number of National Parole Board members so the government can appoint more full time members instead of part time members. The result in this change will be an overall reduction in the number of individuals appointed as board members, resulting once again in cost and efficiency savings.

In addition, the quality of decision making will be enhanced as board members will have more opportunities to use their experience, knowledge, skills and training.

In addition, the Corrections and Conditional Release Act will be amended so that board members will hold office for a maximum of five rather than ten years, as is now the case, and may be re-appointed for a further five years. This amendment will bring the board into line with other agencies and boards and will allow it to renew the mandate of experienced and competent full-time board members.

Given the importance of decision making and of the fundamental principle according to which the protection of society is the determining criterion in all cases, the act will drop any reference to an office of the board, giving the National Parole Board greater flexibility concerning the composition of such an office and its functions.

With respect to the RCMP external review committee, the position of vice-chairman has been dropped and the size of the committee reduced from five to three members. The proposed amendments were considered very carefully and will allow the committee to continue to carry out its mandate satisfactorily.

Similar changes were made to the RCMP public complaints commission. In the bill, the position of vice-chairman has been dropped and the number of members reduced from 29 to 15. This will not in any way, however, hamper the commission's effective-

ness. Instead, these amendments will improve management of the agency and resolve the issue of accountability.

I would like to point out that the present government promised Canadians that it would reorganize government agencies and boards so that they could operate as effectively and efficiently as possible. These initiatives, which are part of our promise to manage the public's money better will mean that government commissions, agencies and advisory boards have the resources necessary to operate properly.

This bill is another of the key elements this government is using to try to improve the integrity of institutions and to increase accountability to all Canadians.

As you know, the department of the solicitor general is also prepared to do its part and is looking for more efficient and effective methods of operation. In order to achieve this, it is reducing the size of certain agencies and rationalizing activities so as to better respond to the challenges it must now face and to provide better service and be better prepared for the pressures to come in the years ahead.

The solicitor general is pleased to contribute to the reform of legislative provisions regarding governor in council appointments to government agencies, commissions, and advisory boards as well as the remuneration of such persons.

I am certain that all members recognize the importance of the changes proposed in the government organization bill. In conclusion, I hope that we will be able to count on the support of all members in the House to pass this bill as quickly as possible.

Administrative Tribunals (Remedial And Disciplinary Measures) ActGovernment Orders

3:55 p.m.

Bloc

Ghislain Lebel Bloc Chambly, QC

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the speech given by my brilliant colleague, the hon. member for Vaudreuil. I find him very optimistic. I notice however-

Administrative Tribunals (Remedial And Disciplinary Measures) ActGovernment Orders

3:55 p.m.

An hon. member

Are you making a comment?

Administrative Tribunals (Remedial And Disciplinary Measures) ActGovernment Orders

3:55 p.m.

Bloc

Ghislain Lebel Bloc Chambly, QC

Did you say: "Resuming debate"?

Administrative Tribunals (Remedial And Disciplinary Measures) ActGovernment Orders

3:55 p.m.

The Speaker

This is debate.

Administrative Tribunals (Remedial And Disciplinary Measures) ActGovernment Orders

4 p.m.

Bloc

Ghislain Lebel Bloc Chambly, QC

Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of the hon. member for Vaudreuil, who seems not to have heard, I reiterate that he portrays Bill C-49 as the greatest thing since sliced bread. This is far from being the case.

As we can see, the hon. member for Vaudreuil, too, may benefit from bills like this one after the next election, because he will lose the only city in his riding where he received a majority of votes, so that the next member for Vaudreuil may well be a Bloc member.

The current member for Vaudreuil, too, will have to stand in line in front of the Prime Minister's office, and he will probably be appointed to an administrative tribunal, as suggested in Bill C-49. I think the hon. member for Vaudreuil has all the qualities required to do a good partisan job as a member of an administrative tribunal. I am not denying his skills and abilities.

But let us get back to serious matters. In his 10-minute speech on Bill C-49, the hon. member for Vaudreuil was very careful, and with good reason, not to refer to clauses 1 through 13, preferring to focus on the reorganization of administrative tribunals, which may be dissolved, merged or combined. I agree with this. If some of our administrative tribunals are ineffective, inefficient or obsolete, the government's first responsibility is to abolish them.

Except that the bill is much more vicious. This is not the real purpose of the bill. One just has to look at the calendar to understand why the bill was introduced in this House. Let me explain: the Conservatives were defeated on October 25, 1993. During that last month, in October 1993, they proceeded to make hundreds of partisan appointments. Just imagine the worst: they did it. It is true. They appointed about 500 people to various administrative committees.

But if we take a look at the list of Liberal candidates who were defeated in the 1993 election in Quebec, and there were a lot of them, we see that the Liberal Party always rewards its friends. It always manages to find a place for them somewhere.

That is what Bill C-49 does, because the Conservatives in many cases appointed their Conservative friends for five years, which means from October 1, 1993 until October 1, 1998, and thus outmanoeuvred the Liberals. In other words, the Liberals will have been in power for four years and a few months before the mandate of these people appointed by the Conservatives expires. So they have to find a way to get them out and appoint Liberals instead, and that is the role of Bill C-49. Through you, Mr. Speaker, I wish you would say this to the hon. member for Vaudreuil.

Of course, I never saw a government come here and say: "I am going to do some patronage, some favouritism, that is the purpose of my intervention". Of course not. It is always about the government's effectiveness and about restoring fairness and equity. It is like the ministers of finance. I never saw a minister of finance, although I am certainly old enough, come here and say: "My budget is not worth a damn. It is just garbage. Just throw it in the garbage, it is not worth a damn". They always presented the budget as though it were the best thing in the world, but all these goodies, and I have been following this for the past 35 years have led to a deficit of more than $600 billion.

Bill C-49 makes no difference. It does exactly what has always been done in this Parliament, in the name of equity and justice. But

that is not what it is all about. The Liberal philosophy is not as noble as all that. It is about rewarding our friends, about not abandoning friends who will have the courage to run in the next election and be defeated as we can expect to see happening in Quebec very shortly.

They are actually achieving the dream of tendentious legislation. This is extraordinary. I must admit that in this regard you have something to teach me and all other Bloc members.

Look at the first clauses, which the member for Vaudreuil refuses to debate, preferring to linger over cuts made here and there, the outdated administrative courts no longer necessary. Look at the essence of this bill. This bill actually contains 14 clauses, and not the 300 the member for Vaudreuil wants us to believe.

Those 14 clauses have repercussions on existing administrative courts. Take the CRTC, for example. If only we had had Bill C-49 when the minister of industry overturned the decisions of the CRTC regarding Power DirecTv, but the minister regretted he did not have this bill. If this bill had been in force, instead of having to bear the unbearable and having to overturn the decision of the CRTC, the minister could have simply fired the chairman of the CRTC. He could have asked the new chairman to review this decision. The minister did not do that. He could not, so he had to bear this odious decision and to take a decision which the public completely misunderstood. I can see why. Even we in this Chamber have still not understood it.

Let's take for example, clause 5. It says that "The Chairperson of an administrative tribunal may request the Minister-not a judge of a superior court-the Minister. Of course, if the Minister is looking for favours, he must have the upper hand. Therefore, the request is made to the Minister.

The Chairperson of an administrative tribunal may request the Minister to decide whether any member should be subject to remedial or disciplinary measures for any reason set out in paragraphs 13(2)( a ) to ( d ).

It is not difficult to understand, paragraphs 13(2)( a ) to ( d ) read as follows: a )has become incapacitated from the proper execution of that office- b )has been guilty of misconduct; c )has failed in the proper execution of that office; d ) has been placed, by conduct or otherwise, in a position that is incompatible-

This is beautiful: incompatible. Remember this, Madam Speaker, you or the member for Vaudreuil can understand what incompatible means.

Anyway, the request is made to the minister, who is told: "There is on the committee a member whom we do not particularly like. First, he is not a true Liberal." This is already incompatible. He was probably appointed by a previous government. Automatically, he is incompatible for the very reason that he is not a Liberal.

The Minister is requested to do something about it.

Administrative Tribunals (Remedial And Disciplinary Measures) ActGovernment Orders

4:05 p.m.

Liberal

Nick Discepola Liberal Vaudreuil, QC

Like Mr. Drouin, from Hydro-Québec.

Administrative Tribunals (Remedial And Disciplinary Measures) ActGovernment Orders

4:05 p.m.

Bloc

Ghislain Lebel Bloc Chambly, QC

I let the member for Vaudreuil speak when he had the floor. I did not interrupt, and I would ask him, through you, Madam Speaker, to return the favour.

Administrative Tribunals (Remedial And Disciplinary Measures) ActGovernment Orders

4:05 p.m.

Liberal

Nick Discepola Liberal Vaudreuil, QC

It will be my pleasure, Madam Speaker.

Administrative Tribunals (Remedial And Disciplinary Measures) ActGovernment Orders

4:05 p.m.

Bloc

Ghislain Lebel Bloc Chambly, QC

Then, a request is submitted to the minister from a good Liberal sitting on the same committee. You can imagine any committee in this case. The government has decided to beseige administrative tribunals. The minister will refer the case to a judge of the Superior Court, who will determine if the case is worth it. But the minister may even do something as soon as he receives the request. Even before he submits the case to a judge, he could "obtain [. . .]in an expeditious manner".

This is quite something. To go as far as to take advantage of its majority in the House to slip words like "expeditious" in a bill, the government must be bold. In fact, it must have lost all sense of decency.

Nothing can stop it. "-obtain, in an informal and expeditious manner, any information-" means that the job of a guy is at stake and the minister may act "in an informal and expeditious manner". He may oust a guy who may carry on his duties in an able and honourable way, except for the fact that he does not think the same way as the minister.

He may also refer the case to mediation, which would be quite similar to what the minister of defence-I was about to say the minister of war. It was not so bad as a name, "minister of war", because it is more or less what he is doing now-the minister of defence referred the case to mediation. How? He mediated with Jean Boyle and, apparently, we ended up with a bill of half a million dollars, which means we can as well just forget about it, the guy simply lost his job. In such a case the minister can negotiate the leave in order to appoint a friend because two cannot sit on the same chair.

6( c ) request of the Governor in Council that an inquiry be held under section 7;

or, at the next paragraph: d ) advise the Chairperson that the Minister considers that it is not necessary to take further measures under this Act.

Paragraph ( d ) may be interpreted as saying to a member of an administrative tribunal criticizing a colleague before the Minister: ``No, no, you are wrong, this is a good Liberal just like us. We will keep him. Do not touch him''. They are keeping that road open, because even between themselves they do not always recognize each other, they do not always know who is who and what they are

doing. Therefore the Minister is wise enough to reserve that way out. What if someone comes to report a good friend of his, he does not want to be stuck, he is not foolish enough to do that.

On the other hand, if the member being denounced is a Tory or a Reform member, or, very improbably, a Bloc member, then of course it will no holds barred. They will stick it to him; his case will be brought before a higher court judge, probably a good friend of the party, like the judge recently appointed in Alberta, a Liberal, Justice Gerald Allbright. This is exactly the type of person whom such a case would be referred to because he has a Liberal background. I do not doubt his integrity, I would say that one would trust this judge, he would do the dirty work and get rid of the administrative tribunal member.

Now, you are going to ask who is going to get rid of the chairperson of an administrative tribunal, since the chairperson is the one who blows the whistle on the members. Who can blow the whistle on the chairperson? A member does not have the power to do so. The minister, who is not crazy, has understood all this. He has made it his business to appoint a chairperson who will side with him, decide for him, agree with him. In other words, a chairperson who will not abide by the ethics rules of the administrative tribunal.

This will be to the glory of the minister, who will be able to remove from office a chairperson appointed by the former Prime Minister, to appoint his own. Should there be an electoral defeat, he wants to be able to fill positions with his chums. The issue of contracts has been dealt with. The opposition is on the look-out. There are still some contracts without tender, but in fewer numbers. The government can no longer say: "Here is the purse, run with it". We are in the hole, we have had it up to here with the deficit. What it is saying is: "I cannot give you too big a reward, but at least I will give you a little job. You will have it for five years and, with luck, we might be able to renew your mandate two or three times. You will not have to work too hard and you will have a nice pension. But never cross me". This is what perverts administrative tribunals.

In Quebec, we have looked into this problem, which is common place throughout Canada. I will tell you what I know from personal experience with the Commission de protection du territoire agricole, for instance. One thing leading to another, the Commission de protection du territoire agricole reached a point where it was having to defend the Quebec act to preserve agricultural land. It was acting as a defender of the act, as if it had passed it itself. The situation was rectified, sure, but the danger remains that an administrative tribunal could lose the neutrality it should have as a tribunal and devote itself entirely to enforcing the law as its mandate requires.

There is an important nuance here, which I hope the hon. member for Vaudreuil will grasp.

Administrative Tribunals (Remedial And Disciplinary Measures) ActGovernment Orders

4:15 p.m.

An. hon. member

I would be surprised.

Administrative Tribunals (Remedial And Disciplinary Measures) ActGovernment Orders

4:15 p.m.

Bloc

Ghislain Lebel Bloc Chambly, QC

I would be surprised too, but you never know. This is the problem with Bill C-49. It was given a very impressive title: an act to authorize remedial and disciplinary measures in relation to members of certain administrative tribunals, to reorganize and dissolve certain federal agencies and to make consequential amendments to other Acts. Is it not great! A better title would have been: an act to profit the friends of the Liberal Party of Canada. It would have been more to the point and more accurate, truer and franker. Of course they would not have the guts to do that, but this really is the spirit of the bill.

When, for example, the chairperson of an administrative tribunal realizes that refusing an application to the CRTC from a member of the family of the Prime Minister would be synonymous with loss of job, he or she says yes. Should that chairperson have the misfortune to be honest and fair, after all he or she is exercising the duties he or she has sworn to perform and deny the application-as it happened with PowerTv Direct-the minister, by the powers he has provided for himself would-

The hon. member for Vaudreuil will understand it is not enough that justice be done. I said the hon. member for Vaudreuil, Madam Speaker, looking at you of course. I tell you that the hon. member for Vaudreuil-even if you tried to psyche me out, but I recovered-should understand that it is not enough that justice be done there should also be a perception that justice has been done. There should be an appearance of justice, no matter what the hon. member for Vaudreuil might say. That is what will not come out of decisions now. That is what will ensure we will always be-You know, with the opinion the public has of politicians, this is not going to improve matters.

There are some rules within an administrative tribunal. The administrative tribunals have been called, it is not I who say it, but a journalist, and it is true, because we can find the same definition in Dussault, René Dussault, a former Liberal candidate in Quebec and a superior court judge. Recently, the president of the bar in Quebec was very clear on that when she said, and I quote: "The lack of employment security could have unsuspected psychological effects on the decisions of a person who might be more concerned with pleasing the authorities than doing justice." This is self-explanatory.

As hard as the Liberals may try to defend that, they are defending the undefensible, and the public will hold it against them. When justice will no longer be meted out by an administrative tribunal unless a Liberal Party membership card is displayed, the Liberals will have to give some explanation and then live with the consequences.