Mr. Speaker, I was interested in the comments of the member. I am sorry the bill was not addressed fully because there are some important aspects to it.
The member has taken the opportunity, as is his right, to make the debate a partisan one and to look for opportunities for partisan gain.
The member began by making reference to the whole issue of patronage. It is a word that conjures up a lot of negative connotations. He did correctly quote from the red book with regard to the undertaking of the government to ensure that competency and diversity were the hallmarks of approving any appointment.
The member suggested the only people who get appointments are well connected Liberals. I do not think the member would suggest to the House that Liberals need not apply. That has nothing to do with competency or diversity. He referred to some appointments as that their only claim to fame. I do not think he gave any examples or qualified whether competency or diversity was part of the appointment. He referred often to political hypocrisy. I do not see how appointing competent people who represent diverse interests to public bodies or boards has anything to do with political hypocrisy.
Unfortunately when we get into partisan types of debate it tends to paint all members of Parliament with the same brush. It tends to degrade the position of member of Parliament. All members are working very hard to improve the credibility of the elected representatives of the people in the House.
The member should know there is a risk in making an appointment to any board or body. They are subject to the scrutiny of the public at large.
I have a specific question for the member and will conclude with this point. The credibility of an individual or body approving an appointment that is publicly announced is subject to the scrutiny and the criteria of the public at large.
Notwithstanding his remarks, could the member give the House an example of any appointment that does not reflect competency or diversity?