Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Rimouski-Témiscouata was very eloquent in making the connection between culture and agriculture, as was the Quebec agriculture minister for whom I had the pleasure of working at one point. And she is right. She is right because the federal government's actions as regards culture and agriculture are similar in many respects in that it is trying to eliminate public service jobs for economic reasons to create an agency that will operate outside the public service and that will give more freedom to the governor in council, which, as you know, means cabinet.
The first amendment put forward by the member for Frontenac deals with the new agency, which groups together three agencies that used to belong to three different departments, namely the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Health, into one single agency falling under the jurisdiction of the agriculture department.
However, we can see that people would be appointed by cabinet. If the amendment is not adopted, the agriculture minister, when criticized, could defend himself by saying: "It is a cabinet decision. It is not my fault. I am not responsible. Yes, I am a cabinet minister, but because of ministerial solidarity-"
Finally, it makes the minister of agriculture look good, except that this is a rather special operation. I nearly said "spatial", because there has been so much talk of space today, but no, it is "special". We in Quebec are not all that familiar with this custom. These are measures taken in Quebec in very specific cases, in very specific areas not generally covered by specific departments or sectorial departments.
What is involved here is a food inspection agency, for which at least there is a precedent. At least three agencies have been doing the same thing. As I said yesterday, these various food inspection agencies have been consolidated since 1978 in Quebec. Eighteen years later, we see the federal government developing a desire to do the same thing, moreover in an area of shared jurisdiction, at least where agriculture is concerned. Where health is concerned, however, this would, in principle, be a provincial area of jurisdiction, except where foods from outside the country, or from other provinces, are concerned. But this is not always the case.
We do not, however, have any objection to the principle of consolidating three federal agencies. It is clearer, at least. People will have a clearer idea of whom they are dealing with. But, after grouping the agencies together, they take a diversionary tactic and create one agency which will be able to operate in a different way than the regular sectorial departments.
This leaves a great deal of scope for questions, not that we want to accuse anyone of bad faith, but still. Amendment No. 1 says: "Yes, but why go elsewhere looking for services, when there may be qualified people within the Public Service?" This would be logical, particularly since the fusion may result in early retirement offers or job cuts.
In this context, it seems to me that, before making such changes, thought ought to be given to using the services of people who are already working in the federal public service. That, I would think, would be self-evident. Yet, it seems to me that the government is resisting this amendment.
The other point concerns appointments as legal advisers. Obviously, in Quebec, and I imagine everywhere else as well, there have been appointments following the political trends of the time, and I am not addressing only this present government with this. It seems that the Conservatives also had a considerable appetite for the same thing, which they had had to stifle during the long lean years. It took them nine years to catch up, with a whole series of appointments of lawyers and other professionals, who had all been frustrated during the long Liberal years by not being appointed to legal services.
We in Quebec saw the same thing happen during the Trudeau Liberal years, if not before, and then Mr. Mulroney came along promising change. But the essential change he made was that he appointed different people. When you follow public affairs in Quebec, you see what is going on with federal appointments. With Christmas approaching, I think I could make an analogy with the party game of musical chairs, which it resembles greatly.
Kids like to play musical chairs, but when political appointments are involved, the game is less amusing. The Senate is, of course, the ultimate version of the musical chairs game. When people cannot run around the chairs fast enough, they send them on to the other place. One might call this a kind of compassionate treatment. I do not want to say that everybody in the other Chamber is no good, but this is a costly duplication of an institution.
What we have here is another example, in food inspection. The federal government obviously wants to keep its powers and responsibilities and not delegate to the provinces. It would, however, be much easier to say: "There is an area where duplication could be avoided, because food, fish, products, especially in the context of free trade today, move not only between provinces, but between countries as well". In this context, the government might well want to keep certain responsibilities. In an independent Quebec, in partnership with Canada, mechanisms could likely maintain this situation in cases where products moved between countries.
We have no objection to the mechanism. Our objection is to the way it is set up and to the excessive powers accorded the ministers and the cabinet, because, as we know, the minister can recommend appointments to cabinet. If criticized, however, he will say: "Yes, yes, but it is cabinet. You know, I am only a minister and I must not break ranks with the other ministers". Yes, we understand, but we do not know who is right and who is guilty in this game.
The people of Quebec and Canada want greater transparency and more public involvement in the management of public affairs and political life. It is in this spirit, that the choice of the new leader of the Bloc Quebecois will be by universal suffrage. He will be elected by all members of the Bloc Quebecois. Members of the Bloc wishing to take part will have to wait a few more weeks before the convention.
This is the sort of situation that shows how management of public affairs and political life could be improved.
Why do I say that? Because for a long time, at least in my first years here, I was youth training critic. I was often in contact with young people. What young people do not like about politics-and after being in politics for so long you are aware of this, Mr. Speaker, this will not faze you-is they would like to see some changes, they are tired of the same old ways, especially with regard to patronage appointments. Were the appointees selected because of their hard work for the party, or for their generous contributions to the party? We do not know how it works exactly and people think it is wrong. They would like to see a mechanism such as the one proposed by the member for Frontenac, namely an independent nominating committee.
Mr. Speaker, if I do not have the opportunity to talk to you again, I wish you a Merry Christmas and happy holidays.