Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Châteauguay for his comment.
Incidentally, I congratulate him on his fine work in committee and on the amendments he presented. He became the advocate of the public service workers by presenting 120 amendments, which have been ridiculed and rejected by the officials without a clear explanation. This is an enormous amount of work, but Bloc members are willing to do this kind of work because we are here to look after the interests of the people, of Quebeckers and of federal public servants.
I am in total agreement with my colleague's comment, and all the more so because the purpose of this bill is to improve the image of the public service. Because of its bad image, it was necessary to raise the level of interest for a career in the public service. It is obvious that we have a hard time recruiting for the public service the people who have all the required skills. They would rather work for private companies instead of the Canadian public service, because of its shortcomings.
There are many instances of abuse of power and harassment. Public service managers have a very bad reputation. Everyone thought that this bill could improve the situation and the quality of life of public servants. This is not currently the case.
As my hon. colleague was saying, this bill must be reviewed from start to finish. With regard to its substance, its objectives were commendable but, in reality, what we got on paper does not fulfill the initial objectives.
So why did we not adopt the amendments presented? These amendments were the result of meetings with public servants and the unions. The amendments were proposed by these front line workers who spend every day working in the public service; it is part of their daily life. At work, they have seen deficiencies, and they had hoped that this bill would resolve them for the most part.
The Liberal member read us a letter from senior managers; I cannot remember what the association is called—