Mr. Speaker, I listened very intently to the foregoing speakers both from the Bloc and from the government. As I look over the motions that form Group No. 1, I see that my colleague from the Bloc has moved that the human resources committee should be the screening process for committee members on the Canada Industrial Relations Board. While we believe that the minister should not have broad autocratic sweeping powers in this area to appoint simply whomever he or she would like as the member has alluded to, we would give mild support to at least seeing the resumés of potential members of the Canada Industrial Relations Board.
Motion No. 2 presented by my colleagues from the Bloc suggests that the vice-chair and the chair should only be limited to one term. I know that the CLRB has had some bad experiences but in the case that we have gone through with the Canada Labour Relations Board we had a chairman that was appointed for a period of 10 years. A period of 10 years is far too long. As a matter of fact I made a representation to the Sims task force that the term should be limited to five years. That is a reflection in the bill which I very much support.
I do not think that limiting the term of the chair or the vice-chair to one term would have much merit. It may be a little difficult to find a person willing to take on the job. I do not see anything wrong with reappointing a very qualified person for a second five year term.
If my colleague from the Bloc is concerned about a patronage appointment, let us take the scenario that perhaps during the time of a chairman's appointment his term runs out and there is a new government or a new minister. That would allow twice as many opportunities for a patronage appointment than at the present time. I believe we would not support the Bloc's Motion No. 2 in Group No. 1.
The bill reduces the term of the members on the board from 10 years to five years and that is supportable. A 10-year appointment is far too long. The Bloc has suggested that it should be reduced even more to a period of three years. I do not believe this is necessary. A five year term is appropriate.
We have had cases that last for months. There have also been cases which are definitely not justified and which have lasted for more than two years.
We should be able to agree that a five year term is a proper length of appointment. I cannot understand the rationale behind my colleague's suggestion that they only be appointed for three years at a time.
It would help with continuity if the terms were staggered. If everyone were to be replaced at once and all the terms expired at the same time, there would be a completely new board at some point in time. If the terms were staggered there would be some experienced members and some not so experienced members. That would certainly help with continuity on the board.
The Bloc's Motion No. 4 provides that when the office of the chair is vacant, the members of the board shall determine who the chairman shall be. That is not a bad system of selecting a chairman. When I was on municipal council the reeve of the municipality was selected in that way. When you ran for a position on council, you did not run for the position of reeve. You were selected from among your peers. That is not too bad of a provision.
I would like to hear more rationale from my colleagues in the Bloc as far as defending their positions. They have only given us cursory rationale as to why they believe we should support their position. I would like to hear more on their position as far as the Canada Industrial Relations Board is concerned.
It is our hope that the government is going to keep a closer eye on the operations of the Canada Industrial Relations Board than it did on the Canada Labour Relations Board. Aside from the very well publicized and documented misuse of public funds which took place within the previous board, there is also the fact that there are cases which have been before the board for more than two years. That is ridiculous. We all in the Chamber are familiar with the phrase that justice delayed is justice denied. That applies in this instance.
There is another thing which certainly has not helped in any way to build up the name of the previous board. It seems that they could not decide on anything among themselves as far as the governing of themselves. The first thing a quasi-judicial board should note is that it must learn to govern itself. What I am talking about is that it managed to rack up something like $250,000 worth of legal costs in internal squabbling in regard to who had what jurisdiction and who had what authority. That is totally unacceptable.
The department, the committee and the House of Commons should have a better handle on what is happening in the Canada Industrial Relations Board. We should be notified as to its operations. We should have a regular report to which the committee, parliament, Canadians and the press can react.
I know we can say that the auditor general has oversight of this entire situation and he does. The auditor general raised this problem time and time again. It was only after much to do was raised by the Reform Party and by the press that these problems in the Canada Labour Relations Board were addressed. We are very sorry that it took so long for these problems to be addressed. We hope that it does not happen like that in the future.