Debates of Oct. 22nd, 1996

Administrative Tribunals (Remedial And Disciplinary Measures) Act

[Nick Discepola, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, since I have been singled out in this debate, I feel I have an obligation to speak up even if I spoke earlier. I have a point to make. True, previous governments have always made appointments. Just before the last

election, the previous government gave us the finest example of patronage.

It is wrong to say in this House that this bill is aimed only at rewarding and placing our Liberal friends. We have no lessons to receive from Bloc Quebecois members or the PQ government.

The day after the PQ government was elected, they fired a whole bunch of people, starting with none other than the President of Hydro-Quebec, who was respected by everyone and doing an excellent job. Coincidentally, they replaced him with a PQ member. They also systematically replaced all foreign delegates who refused to serve their cause. These officials were dismissed and replaced with separatists. This government has no lesson to receive from them.

The purpose of this bill is to cut positions. I will give you a few examples: the number of appointments will be reduced from 29 to 5. Appointees will serve for 5 years instead of 10. Future governments will thus be prevented from always replacing appointees or increasing their numbers.

As for my re-election, I did lose the Island of Montreal, my greatest city, because I served as mayor of the City of Kirkland, something I am proud of. I challenge them to come and campaign in my riding. We will fight them and we will win. We will take another 20 seats in Quebec in the next election.

[Ghislain Lebel, Bloc, Chambly, QC]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member says the Bloc has nothing to teach him. We have indeed nothing to teach them about patronage. Let me just name a few names: Gerald Allbright. Do you know him? He is a true Liberal who has been appointed to a court in Saskatchewan. Lucie Blais. She has been appointed to the National Council of Welfare. She was defeated as a Liberal candidate in Abitibi.

Claire Brouillet, defeated in Terrebonne. Rémi Bujold, a loyal lobbyist is well rewarded. Yves Caron, appointed to the Canada Pension Commission, another former MP from 1972 to 1979 and secretary to the Minister of Agriculture for a while. Guy Chartrand, listen to this, defeated in Longueuil, appointed to the staff of the defence minister.

Caroline Chrétien, no comment, her family name says it all. Denis Coderre. This guy tried on approximately five separate occasions to get himself elected under the banner of the Liberal Party of Canada in ridings in Montreal's east side. He went as far as to claim, after a former member for Laurier-Sainte-Marie whose name I forget died, that he was a buddy of his, when in fact he could not stand him. There is also a certain René Cousineau, a former member of the Liberal Party of Canada and member for Gatineau.

I must agree with the hon. member for Vaudreuil that, on the whole stinking subject of political patronage, they are indeed the winners, there is nothing we can teach them.

A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod as follows:

Madam Speaker, the Honourable Deputy to His Excellency the Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.

Accordingly, the Speaker and the House went up to the Senate chamber.

And being returned:

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)]

I have the honour to inform the House that when the House went up to the Senate Chamber the Deputy Governor General was pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the Royal Assent to the following bills:

Bill C-4, an act to amend the Standards Council of Canada Act-Chapter 24.

Bill C-56, an act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of Canada for the financial year ending March 31, 1997-Chapter 25.

Bill C-243, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act (reimbursement of election expenses)-Chapter 26).

Bill S-7, an act to dissolve the Nipissing and James Bay Railway Company.

The House resumed consideration of the motion and of the amendment.

[Ghislain Lebel, Bloc, Chambly, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to know if I still have some time left to finish my reply.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)]

There is five minutes left for questions and comments. I believe you had the floor when we interrupted the proceedings.

[Ghislain Lebel, Bloc, Chambly, QC]

Madam Speaker, I simply wanted to assert my rights. As I was saying to the hon. member for Vaudreuil, who is still

listening and who certainly, through the Chair, agrees, I ask him to rise and to tell me whether what I am saying is false.

David Berger was appointed Canadian ambassador to Israel and he is not a Bloc member. He is a well-known Liberal. All the names I have here are those of well-known Liberals.

There is a lady, who ran in Laval East but was defeated. Her name is Raymonde Lacour and she was just appointed on an immigration committee with an annual salary of $84,000. I say to the Liberals that they have become masters at looking after their friends.

Going back to the original question, the Conservatives were not far behind the Liberals. By early October 1994, the Conservatives had filled just about every available and unavailable position with Conservative appointees, usually for a period of five years.

Now, the Liberals will call an election before the five-year terms of these Conservative appointees is over. Consequently, they feel cheated because they cannot postpone it, they cannot distribute the patronage goodies the way they would like to. So, with Bill C-49, they will show the door to just about all the Conservatives who hold these positions, by invoking of course the provisions contained in clauses 5 and 6. They will thus be able to fill the positions left vacant by appointing long-time friends and new ones as well.

I am even told that in the Quebec city area, an old Conservative MP was just appointed to a very lucrative position and is considering, as a way of thanking the government, running under the Liberal banner at the next election. This is quite something and it is even worse considering it is in Quebec.

This is why I was saying to the hon. member for Vaudreuil that, when it comes to patronage, we have nothing to teach the Liberals. They are the undisputed champions of patronage, and they have been since the early days of the Canadian federation. No, we will not try to compete with them in this area.

[George Proud, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour]

Madam Speaker, I am happy today to participate in the debate. The bill before the House, as we know it, Bill C-49, is very much in line with our government's policies.

In 1993 one of our platform policies was getting government right, and this measured approach has resulted in benefits to all Canadians.

One might ask how was government wrong. I think we have heard some things this afternoon and we all have stories of how government is wrong and we could talk about them all day, but I am not going to do that. I think the best way to answer this is by illustrating how we are getting government right.

I would like to start by outlining the key objectives of such a policy: reducing the financial burden of the federal government, reviewing all government activities in light of today's realities, and restoring integrity in the system. Those are the three Rs of government: reduce, review and restore. They are the cornerstone of much of what this government has done, what it is doing now and what it will continue to do.

When attacking the deficit we wanted to set goals and we wanted to meet them. The last thing Canadians needed was another government with broken deficit targets.

Members will recall that the previous government promised reduced deficits but in fact each year of that administration the deficit increased.

The financial markets wanted to see a government meet its targets. In fact, we did more than that. We have exceeded our targets. In 1994-95 we beat our target by $400 million. Last year it was beaten by $4 billion and we are on target again this year. By the end of the 1997-98 fiscal year we will have reduced the deficit by at least 60 per cent in just four years. I think these are very good results.

As a result of these actions the market again has confidence in the federal government and we are seeing the benefits. Interest rates have just fallen again. The prime rate is at its lowest level in 38 years. And that, my hon. colleagues, is because this government is meeting and exceeding its deficit targets.

The government is creating the right economic environment for job creation. Businesses can invest more when the cost of borrowing is lower. Entrepreneurs have better access to capital to realize their dreams. Not only that, but they in turn hire and employ their fellow Canadians.

I do not think I could make my point any stronger except if I would be allowed to give a few examples of expansion projects and the creation of new firms that have occurred this year in my province. I will list a few of them.

In my city of Charlottetown, currently under construction is a $4 million expanded Canadian Tire. In December McCains will open a new $3 million expansion. This summer I participated in the opening of Diversified Metal Engineering. DME is world renowned for its manufacturing equipment for the micro brewery industry. Cycor Communications merged with a local hook-up communications to establish a new call centre, creating 50 new jobs. I could go on but these are some of the major expansions.

Now for the entrepreneurial achievements of Prince Edward Islanders. Let me remind this place that Prime Edward Island is a small province and these projects make a big difference. The start-up of some of the new firms, although small, may have the

same effect in Prince Edward Island as a large auto plant opening in Ontario. For instance, Prince Edward Island Wild Blueberry Company has a $5 million new processing plant in the riding of my colleague from Cardigan with 40 full time jobs. Simscape Development Corporation, an information technology firm in Charlottetown, has started with international sales as far away as Australia, Singapore and Hong Kong.

I have saved the best for last. Prince Edward Island has a brand new and completely modern fibre optic telephone system. A second fibre optic connection with the mainland will be achieved next spring when the Confederation bridge is completed. In the light of all of this, many companies are investing in Prince Edward Island.

The examples I have given of the achievements of the islanders illustrate just how the government is getting government right. Businesses are expanding and new businesses are being created. We have set the stage for the private sector to create jobs which Canadians want and need.

However, so far this is only part of the big picture. When cutting the deficit we did more than just cut departmental budgets, we initiated the most extensive program review the federal government has ever seen. Everything was analysed and evaluated. By doing so, we reduced waste and duplication. Some departmental programs were redesigned and consolidated. Some government services that should be delivered by the private sector or by other levels of government were rationalized without jeopardizing the interests of Canadians.

It is not enough to modernize federal departments and agencies, we have also modernized Parliament. We know that we have not gone far enough, but measures were introduced to improve reporting to Parliament and to give more influence to individual MPs and standing committees in developing policy and legislation. There is much more to do in this area but this is a great beginning.

Many activities that affect our daily lives are governed by federal regulations. In this fast paced world these regulations must reflect today's realities. The Liberal government modernized the regulatory process in areas such as health, safety, the environment, international trade and interprovincial matters. In the same spirit, other administrative changes have been made. Prior to Bill C-49 the government conducted a review of federal agencies and advisory bodies, with eliminations and reductions affecting some 70 bodies and 600 governor in council appointed positions.

Continuing that modernization, Bill C-49 will eliminate another 271 governor in council appointments and result in annual savings

of $2.5 million. That will bring the total annual savings in the review to about $10 million.

I will save my hon. colleagues the torture of not going into detail on the whole bill. However, I will cover the implications of this bill on the labour branch of Human Resources Development Canada.

The obvious question is how this bill will affect the Canada Labour Relations Board. The CLRB is an autonomous, quasi-judicial tribunal responsible for the interpretation and application of part I, industrial relations, and parts of part II, dealing with occupational safety and health of the Canada Labour Code. The changes to the board, which are done by way of amendments to the Canada Labour Code, are only of an administrative nature.

In keeping with current conventions of more neutral terminology, appropriate modifications are proposed. Clarifications will be made to the travel provisions to which appointees are entitled, thus increasing the board's cost effectiveness.

Another change will be to amend the requirements for a board member to be a Canadian citizen, to allow a permanent resident eligibility for a board position. This complies with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Also under the labour branch is the Canadian Artists and Producers Professional Relations Tribunal. It too will have minor changes, such as clarification of the travel provisions for tribunal members, standardization of the remedial and disciplinary measures process and the inclusion of part time members of the tribunal as a protection of the Government Employees Compensation Act.

The coverage entails compensation for death or injury while performing duties or while on a flight taken in the course of duty. It is only common sense to have members covered in the case of unfortunate incidents.

Another agency affected is the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety. It is a departmental corporation under schedule II of the Financial Administration Act and reports to the Minister of Labour. This centre was created in 1978 with a mandate to promote the fundamental right of Canadians to a healthy and safe working environment.

There is agreement among the members of the council of governors that the council is too large. Costs to the organizations which sponsor members who sit on the council of governors will be reduced, as will the administration costs for meetings and the processing of appointments. CCOHS has been directed to become revenue self-sufficient and these amendments will contribute to

that goal. As in changes to the CLRB, some minor modifications will be made to the terminology of the act.

In closing, I would like to cover the effects of Bill C-49 on the Labour Adjustment Review Board. My hon. colleagues may wonder why the government is making amendments to this board. The fact is the board has not been required since 1987. The Labour Adjustment Benefits Act under which the Labour Adjustment Review Board was established was replaced in 1988 by the program for older workers adjustment.

As of March 31, 1995 there were 1,855 Canadians still receiving benefits under that program. To maintain the legal authority to continue payments to current recipients, the government is amending rather than repealing the act. Consequently, these amendments have no effect on the remaining recipients. These benefits end at age 65. Therefore, the number of beneficiaries and the amount of total annual benefits are diminishing each year.

As I have pointed out, the government is doing what previous governments have failed to do. The deficit has been reduced to its lowest level in over a decade. Federal institutions have undergone a program review that will increase their cost effectiveness while improving service to Canadians. In short, Bill C-49, the Administrative Tribunals Remedial and Disciplinary Measures Act is just one more example of us getting government right.

[Randy White, Reform, Fraser Valley West, BC]

Madam Speaker, my very hon. colleague across the way talked about how well the government is undertaking programs, basically patronage and grants and so on, in P.E.I.

When I was a young fellow about 16 years old I left Nova Scotia because basically there were no jobs. I joined the military. I thought that was the only way that a lot of us down there at the time could get jobs. In those days a lot of young fellows went to Toronto to get work. Today they seem to be going even further west to British Columbia.

When I went to Nova Scotia this summer, as I do from time to time, it was almost 30 years to the month when I left. I was back talking to some young people in Nova Scotia who were very discouraged and who saw no real job proposals on the line. It reminded me of the situation I was in in my younger years.

Government after government over the last 30 years, Liberal and Conservative, have consistently bragged about how well they have done in Atlantic Canada creating jobs, when in fact the unemployment situation down there is no better than it was 30 years ago. To stand in the House today and say that our government is doing a great job, our government is dealing with this situation through a series of grants, subsidies and so on, I think the members across the way know that is probably really not the case.

I would like the hon. member to tell the House how and if he can relate to the situation I have described, whether or not these programs in the long term really have helped Atlantic Canada.

[George Proud, Liberal, Hillsborough, PE]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for Fraser Valley West for his questions and comments. What he said about the way it has been in Atlantic Canada for as long as I can remember certainly is true. I cannot remember probably as long as he can but pretty near.

There have been many ideas put forward over the last 50 years on how to improve the plight of Atlantic Canadians. Some have worked and some have not. We all know the stories, the good ones and the bad ones. As I said in my speech, the government is getting things in line. There are many more permanent jobs in Atlantic Canada today than there was certainly in my time as a young person there. As I said, we are doing the right thing in the telecommunications industry and in the food processing industry. In my province, for instance, the food processing industry has stabilized the potato industry. A few years ago they were processing about 15 per cent of the crop. Today the average is much higher than that. More potatoes are grown and prices have stabilized.

The premier of New Brunswick over the years has done some things with infrastructure dealing with communications and has brought to that province a lot of permanent jobs.

Many mistakes were made in the past. Nobody would ever dispute that. They tried to do industry the same as they did industries in bigger centres closer to the big markets of the United States. We have to look at what we are doing in Atlantic Canada. We have to deal with the areas we can deal with, that is, in natural products and in the high tech industry. We are on the right road.

We need these regional development agencies. Members kind of talk about these things as great giveaways. They are not great giveaways. They are organizations where money is loaned to entrepreneurs to help get a start in the private sector to get these jobs going. Ninety-eight per cent of ACOA's programs are successful. Any entrepreneur will tell members that is the way to go.

We do not have to make any apologies for this. Regional development programs are a great thing for every province of the country. Certainly they are doing a great job today in Atlantic Canada and I look to many more years of them.

[Myron Thompson, Reform, Wild Rose, AB]

Madam Speaker, I have a quick question for the member.

I have heard quite a bit today. I have been reading in the news lately about the number of loans that the government is giving to various corporations and businesses so those businesses can expand and create jobs.

I am a little curious about exactly why the government would do that when the country has a $600 billion debt. We are trying to fight a deficit and the government has been working hard to get interest rates down.

Why does the government not let the banks loan the money to these businesses? Let them borrow the money. Is that not what banks are for? Are interest rates not lowered for that reason? Would it not make more sense to ask these people to borrow their money from lending institutions and stop giving away taxpayers' dollars?

[George Proud, Liberal, Hillsborough, PE]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Wild Rose for his question but I disagree. The government is not giving away taxpayers' dollars. There is no money being given away any more. We are leveraging jobs by loaning money to large corporations. They, in turn, are borrowing money from the banks also. That is creating an environment where there will be jobs created. These people will come into an area, either set up plants or expand plants to do these things.

This is a very good investment by government. In my province there are what would be considered big companies that have received loans from the federal government. For every dollar that is loaned to them, if they could get the return from everything else on that, then we will not have to worry in the years ahead about unemployment.

[Harold Culbert, Liberal, Carleton—Charlotte, NB]

Madam Speaker, I listened with great intent to the words of wisdom coming from my hon. colleague from Hillsborough. I congratulate him on his remarks.

I have a brief question. The hon. member will recall very vividly when we arrived here as a government party in the late fall of 1993 that we were faced with a $42 billion plus deficit, a $500 billion plus debt, $6 billion deficit in the unemployment insurance fund. Magazines in New York were saying that we were almost on the point of being a third world country.

Does it not give the hon. member and his constituents, indeed all the constituents of Atlantic Canada, and I would think all of Canada, a lift to know that they have a government in place that has met its commitment, its goals and in fact exceeded its goals in the past three years.

We are on the road to meet our goals this year and next year. A week or so ago the finance minister announced that in 1998-99 the deficit would be down to $9 billion. I think that is exciting news. I would ask my hon. colleague from Hillsborough to comment on that.

[George Proud, Liberal, Hillsborough, PE]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his comments and questions. Yes, this is a time when people in Canada are feeling very good. It is noted as we look at the newspapers each day.

My hon. colleague talked about the magazines in the United States talking about us getting to the status of a third world country. Now the magazines in New York City and the financial centres are saying that Wall Street loves Canada. This is an example of what has happened in three short years of what this government has done. It has the deficit under control. It has put a surplus in the unemployment insurance so that we know if it gets into a deficit situation again the money will be there to take care of it.

We are on the road to a great recovery. I feel very good about it, as I know everybody does in this House.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to speak to Bill C-49. Before getting to the heart of the matter, it would be appropriate to examine the title of this bill.

This bill is entitled 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.

My first comment is that we realize once again that this government, with a title-

[Randy White, Reform, Fraser Valley West, BC]

Point of order, Madam Speaker. I understand that the sequence of speakers was Bloc, Liberal, Reform. Did you not go Bloc, Liberal, Bloc?

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)]

I will ask the clerk if we have the right sequence.

We have checked the sequence. I resumed debate with the hon. member for Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans and then the hon. member will have his time.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague may certainly raise a point of order, as for me, I will try to land on my feet.

I was saying that, with such a mellifluous title, this government is proving to be a master of illusion and deception, for it is presenting a harmless looking bill to rectify a problem. Remedial and disciplinary measures must be taken in relation to members of administrative tribunals. Nobody could argue with that. We have seen that in other areas, where the government tried to make us believe it had plugged the loophole of family trusts by taking energetic and quick measures, nothing had been plugged at all.

So, at first sight, without the serious and in-depth study that the Bloc members have done, one might think this bill was a good one and wonder why we are opposing it.

Well, I will tell you what we have against it. In the few minutes I have left, I will try to demonstrate that this bill will perpetuate the principle of patronage appointment of political friends. I explain: this bill brings major changes into the working of administrative tribunals.

But first, let us ask ourselves: what is an administrative tribunal? The Dictionnaire de droit québécois et canadien defines administrative tribunal as a body, in principle autonomous and independent from the government, to which the government has given the power to settle disputes between itself and the citizens.

I stress the words "in principle autonomous and independent from the government". Let us remember these words and keep them in a little file somewhere in our memory; I will get back to this point in my remarks. Let us see if this bill corresponds to the definition of maintaining autonomous bodies, independent from government.

At the outset-I wanted to do it and I nearly forgot to do it-I gave the legal definition of the term administrative tribunal, but what does that mean in the real world? It represents a level of authority where ordinary citizens can be heard before judges or commissioners with some degree of independence and the confidence that his or her point of view will be heard.

Why is the ordinary citizen asking to be heard? Because he or she feels himself or herself the victim of injustice from the machinery of government, and we know how complicated it can get. All hon. members certainly have had constituents come to their riding offices on a Friday or a Monday and tell them: "It is just unbelievable. I have been had by the system. This interpretation of the legislation is wrong. The official was unfair to me because he does not like me".

I do not want to make any blanket statement about public officials, because they are human beings, after all. They may not feel too good certain days and dislike anybody stepping on their toes. They may make a restrictive interpretation of the legislation. That is what is so marvellous with human beings. Sometimes they feel fine and sometimes they feel bad.

A private citizen who thinks he has been unfairly treated can appeal to the relevant administrative tribunal. This bill gives a list of such administrative tribunals. Let me name a few just so we can see what kind of issues in our daily lives federal administrative tribunals can deal with.

There is the Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board, the RCMP External Review Committee, the Canadian Grain Commission, the Immigration and Refugee Board, the RCMP Public Complaints Commission, and the Public Service Staff Relations Board. This board is for public servants who feel they have been treated unfairly by their immediate supervisor. They can take their case to the Public Service Staff Relations Board. They hope their case will dealt with according to the basic rules of natural justice.

There are also the Copyright Board, the National Parole Board, and so on. This is just to give you an idea of what an administrative tribunal is all about in federal law.

This debate has been going on in Quebec for more than 25 years, and many reports and studies have been tabled in the National Assembly. I would like to take this opportunity to praise the splendid work of Quebec justice minister Paul Bégin in his reform of administrative tribunals. I know the justice department in Quebec is working very hard on this, and some good points should come out of this endeavour.

But what we are discussing here is very important: the independence and impartiality of judges of administrative tribunals. The fundamental problem resulting from the political appointment of administrative tribunal judges could have remedied by Bill C-49. We have to admit that, once again, the Liberal majority-and a majority government is a fine democratic institution-decided in this case to bury its head in the sand.

And that, at a time when people are so suspicious about politicians. I remind the House of a poll published last year in the magazine L'Actualité , which said that only 4 per cent of the people still trusted the politicians. When people follow the debates or come here for question period, they can see that we do not deserve more than 4 per cent support, given the abuse, insults and invective hurled about in this place, when it is not expressions of love.

We, Quebecers, remember that people from the rest of Canada came to see us last year to say how much they loved us. We appreciate such demonstrations. This is overwhelming love. It hurts us, but we love to be loved.

The President of the Treasury Board should have done the honourable thing and made a courageous stand by dealing squarely with the issue of the political appointment of administrative tribunal members. On the contrary, he is leaving even more room for party politics, by increasing the power politicians have over the administrative tribunals. How can we trust an administrative tribunal when we know that its members were appointed by the government party, whatever its political stripes?

We, the members of the Bloc Quebecois, will be repeating in the 1997 election what we said in the 1993 election, that is: "Liberal or Conservative, it is six of one and half a dozen of the other. They are are all alike. Pop them all in a hat, then pull them out one by one, and they are are just the same". During the nine years of the Mulroney government, partisan appointments were legion. Since

1993, the current government has been making partisan appointments.

I am convinced that, later, if my Liberal colleagues ask me good questions, I will be able to refer to the list published in The Hill Times of last week, and it appears that we will have the second part in this week's edition, with respect to appointments. These were compiled by the Hon. Senator Marjory LeBreton.

In this bill, there were two changes of particular interest to us. First, there is the issue of new disciplinary measures. Once again, we are not against what is good, we agree. All depends on the way the issue is approached.

Clause 3 of the Bill provides for a new mechanism for the removal from office of a member of an administrative tribunal appointed by the Governor in Council. Following certain procedures, the Governor in Council will be able to remove a member from office with reason. The Chairperson of the tribunal will be able to set the process in motion by asking the minister if the member should be subject to remedial or disciplinary measures. This is the meaning of clause 5.

The Chairperson will then invoke one of the four following reasons: the member has become incapacitated, has been guilty of misconduct-

[Randy White, Reform, Fraser Valley West, BC]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Could we have a quorum count, please.

And the count having been taken:

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)]

There is a quorum.

Accordingly, we will resume debate.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, QC]

Madam Speaker, I must admit that this was a very difficult delivery. I do not know whether it will be a breech birth and whether forceps will be needed to finish my speech.

Maybe I am too good and the hon. member for Fraser Valley-West is trying to distract me. This is the second time I have been interrupted. I wish the Liberals would not go. Continue listening to me, even though I am not as interesting as you would like, but at least try to see to it that we have a quorum. It is your responsibility to see to it that we have a quorum, since there are 177 of you to do it anyway.

So, the bill will standardize the appointment of the administrative tribunal chairpersons; this is the second point on which our party wants to focus. This is the core of the issue, what I would call the heart of it. From now on, chairpersons will be designated instead of being appointed for a determinate and renewable mandate. That is a subtle nuance. I am sure that everybody here understands the difference between "designation" and "appointment". Someone who is designated can be removed at pleasure, for whatever reason, while someone who is appointed is there for three, five or seven years, according to the duration of his or her mandate, which ensures some degree of stability in the position. And I have not even mentioned the appointment process, which is defective from the start.

When partisan appointments continue to be made according to political stripes or favours obtained, we must conclude that the process is biased. The fact that the chairpersons will be designated instead of being appointed is cause for concern. Things are a lot easier when people are designated, because they can be removed at the first opportunity. This situation makes chairpersons extremely vulnerable to political pressures from the government since they can be replaced at will by that government.

The new measures could very well further undermine the already shaken credibility of administrative tribunals and make them even more submissive to political power. Without a complete overhaul-this is what we were expecting from the President of the Treasury Board-of appointments to administrative tribunals, it is unacceptable to introduce measures that seriously undermine the independence and impartiality of administrative tribunals. It becomes a vicious cycle of perpetual patronage.

We all know that the President of the Treasury Board, by his attitude in this matter, is refusing to tackle these important issues, because he does not want to give up the sacrosanct power of ministers to make appointments to administrative tribunals.

Any change or amendment to administrative tribunals must focus on the arbitrary nature of the process to appoint and re-appoint administrative judges. Political favouritism in the quasi-judicial process should no longer have a place in a modern democracy such as ours.

Obviously, the Liberal government does not hesitate to flout the principles underlying the existence of administrative tribunals. The sword of Damocles that the President of the Treasury Board wants to dangle over the heads of members of administrative tribunals may well taint the whole administrative tribunal process.

Let us now take a look at what certain well known legal figures in Quebec have said on this topic. Jocelyne Olivier, president of the bar of the province of Quebec last year, was very clear when she said, in the Quebec City daily Le Soleil on July 8, 1995, while still holding that position: ``The absence of job security might have unsuspected psychological effects on decisions made by a person

who might be more preoccupied with toeing the line than seeing that justice was done". This is worrisome.

Members of administrative tribunals might even hesitate to adopt a direction favourable to citizens for fear of penalizing the government.

In conclusion, the government's bill is unacceptable because it is an outright attack on two fundamental principles of justice that cannot be ignored. These two principles are the impartiality and independence of members of administrative tribunals.

In the case of superior courts, whether the Superior Court, the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court is involved, even if the appointment is by the Minister of Justice of Canada, there is no doubt about the independence and impartiality of judges.

I think that citizens and clients of our courts have confidence in our justice system. However, as far as administrative tribunals are concerned, if the government keeps up the same patronage system that has existed since Confederation in 1867, there is something wrong.

There are two principles that are fundamental to a modern democracy, two principles that the government seems to ignore without any compunction, just so it can keep the power to make partisan appointments to administrative tribunals. These appointments are often a way to reward friends of the government who may not necessarily have the qualifications to exercise these important duties. The Liberals are merely perpetuating a tradition of patronage that has become their trademark as a government.

In concluding, I would ask the unanimous consent of the House so that, when 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, is adopted on second reading by the Liberal majority of this House, it shall be referred to all standing committees of the House that are responsible for the administrative tribunals affected by this bill.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)]

Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House?

[Some hon. members]

Yes.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)]

There is no unanimous consent.