Madam Speaker, I was interested in the member's comments. I would like his opinion on a couple of points that have not been addressed in a thorough manner. They deal with the old board with a new name.
This board has a fair amount of power and yet does not seem to have an opportunity for any kind of recourse for a decision that it may make, regardless of how it may impact on either of the parties. In other words, there is no appeal, for the most part.
First of all, with the power granted to this board it can certify a union, for one thing, without the consent of the majority of the employees. I am curious about the member's opinion on that point.
The CIRB can also order an employer to release to the union the names and addresses of off site employees, which again can be done without employee consent. Again, there is a fair amount of power associated with that kind of decision making. I am wondering what the member thinks of that.
Another point has always been a concern here, especially so since the Liberal government has a tendency to really love these quasi-judicial bodies. They can make decisions and the minister can stand up in the House and say “I cannot do anything about that. That is a quasi-judicial body and I cannot interfere with any decisions it makes”. And there are lots of them over there.
It takes away the responsibility of the minister in dealing with the issue at hand. In other words, he is no longer accountable. I see the same kind of events taking place here with this new labour relations board.
When the board makes a decision, its intents and purposes are supposed to be final. Although the federal court says it will allow for a review of the board's decision, there is no provision allowing this senior judicial body to set aside the board's decisions even if they were legal errors or if the case was handled in an unreasonable way. What is the recourse that an employer would have? What is the recourse even that an employee or group of employees would have?