Mr. Speaker, this morning we are in the fourth stage of Bill C-19, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code. Report stage really deals with what came out of committee examination of the bill. There are numerous amendments that we are considering today at this stage of examining the bill.
I was interested to hear the parliamentary secretary's remarks about this bill, waxing eloquent about the amount of consultation that had been done. A great deal of consultation did go on with respect to these changes to the Canada Labour Code.
However, what the parliamentary secretary did not mention and what is very unfortunate is that a lot of the results of these consultations were simply ignored in the final construction of the bill.
There is not a whole lot of merit in having wide consultations, a long and detailed report and then having recommendations coming out of those consultations if the government simply goes its own way at the end of the day in constructing the legislation. To a large degree this is what happened following the so-called consultations.
Consultations should be very largely reflected in the final result but, I would submit, that is not the case with this bill.
The parliamentary secretary also made a rather strange and bizarre assertion that if no one is happy with a piece of legislation then it must be good. I find this a little hard to credit, particularly when there are interest groups involved in the formation of this legislation which to my knowledge have never expressed themselves satisfied with any degree of accommodation of their wishes. There always seems to be with perhaps all groups that the blue sky and the green grass is always a little further over the horizon.
That should not be the litmus test of legislation. The litmus test really should be whether this bill serves the Canadian people and our country. I did not hear any of that discussed by the parliamentary secretary.
The parliamentary secretary did talk about the goals of the bill being a productive and viable economy. It is certainly debatable and we will be debating whether this bill does anything to ensure and enhance a productive and viable economy. I would argue it does not meet this goal at all. It will have an adverse, negative effect on the economy in many respects.
For all the talk about balance and all the talk about doing what gives the best balance in the competing interests involved, it is debatable that balance is not achieved in this legislation.
The first group of amendments proposed comes from the Bloc. Amazingly enough, some people will say Reform supports and is approving of the thrust of these five amendments. We do not agree with every detail of them but I think these amendments were well considered and put forward in a very constructive way.
The first amendment is particularly constructive because it states that appointments to this board which wields a lot of clout in the affairs of our country, particularly in the labour and economic affairs regulated by the federal government, should be made by parliament through its committee which deals with these affairs, the HRD committee.
The present legislation leaves the appointments strictly to the government, the cabinet and the minister. Surely we have seen the repugnant effects of government patronage appointments to these important positions. There are hundreds if not thousands of examples of how government cannot and should not be trusted exclusively to have the final say over these kinds of important designations.
We would strongly support all members of parliament's having a strong input into who fills these important positions. I agree with my colleague from the Bloc who indicated this would ensure that all points of view are heard.
If the government is serious about balance in this legislation surely it would welcome an amendment which would move a long way to ensuring the kind of balance it pretends it wants to achieve by making sure all points of view are heard regarding who sits on this important industrial relations board.
The second of the five amendments talks about limiting the term of the members of the board to one. term. I suppose we have to ask ourselves as parliamentarians would we feel it would be appropriate if we were allowed to sit in parliament for only one term. Some people would say yes. If we have to put up with the rascals for one term that is plenty.
During our first term we are on a steep learning curve as members of parliament. We gain valuable experience which allows us to go on with an enhanced level of competence. If we are diligent and well meaning we can achieve this in our first term and provide a very valuable service.
There may be members of the board who do not rise to those higher levels of competence and ability. They could be weeded out. But if there are extremely effective, knowledgeable and well informed people on the board who know what they are doing, who know the players and who have a great deal of insight into the process, they should not be turfed out after only one round.
On the three year term limit that has been suggested rather than five, three years goes pretty fast, especially the older we get. I had a birthday yesterday and three years does not seem like that long ago, nor does five years seem that long ago. I am not sure that is a very substantive debate. That has been proposed as the third amendment and I do not have strong feelings about it.
The fourth represents changes to the legislation. Presently if the chair becomes vacant, the minister will fill the vacancy. The legislation proposes that the board members fill the vacancy. If Motion No. 1 is passed, the board members will be chosen in a balanced way through input from all members of parliament. I presume there would be a pretty good balance on the board and it would have the best chance to choose a good replacement for a vacant chair. Board members would know the players since they would have worked with them. They would undoubtedly choose someone who had their highest respect and whom they felt they could work with effectively and efficiently.
The fifth amendment is that any report with respect to disciplinary or remedial measures relating to members of the board would not just fall silent at the minister's level but would be passed on to parliament through the relevant committee, the HRD committee. That committee could ensure that if remedial or disciplinary measures were recommended, they would be properly followed up on. This would lead to accountability on the board, something Canadians want.
I commend my colleagues from the Bloc for some pretty well thought out amendments. I hope these comments will help members deciding whether they should be supported.