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.