Mr. Speaker, I was talking about the powers the board is going to have, particularly the ones contained in Group No. 2 of the motions now before the House.
When we talk in terms of the make-up of this board, the government wants to ensure the ability to put patronage appointments into this board.
The powers we are discussing in Group No. 2 are the kind of powers we are talking about, people who are put in there by patronage and not necessarily by merit.
I had a situation earlier during the first term of my office as MP where we needed a chair of the unemployment insurance commission board, the board of referees in my riding.
We felt this was very important because it meant not proper representation for the people who have problems in their riding. They had to go all the way to the Okanagan.
We suggested the names of three people to be chairs of boards. This will illustrate our concern under Group No. 2 regarding the make-up of this board. One was the campaign manager for the Conservative candidate, one was a non-Liberal and one was a person whose party affiliation we did not know.
We put their names in because we believed they would be good people. As it happened, we got no answer from the government on what it was going to do and the chair remained empty.
One day my assistant and my wife were at the local college speaking about politics. There also was the assistant campaign manager of the failed Liberal candidate for the riding.
He came to my assistant and said “I hear you are concerned about getting a chair appointed for the board of referees”. It is interesting that he would have that information because we only conveyed that to the government. He said “don't worry about it because I'm being appointed”. I raised that in the House and in the newspaper and made quite a fuss.
A reporter from the Vancouver Sun actually went to the riding and interviewed this individual. He told this individual that his member of parliament was questioning the fact that this was a patronage appointment and asked him how he would respond to that. He said “Of course it is patronage. What is wrong with that? How else would we attract people to our party?”
We do have a great concern about the make-up of this board and how it will be in a position to deal with some of the situations in this bill, particularly in Group No. 2.
Motion No. 6 deals with the potential streamlining of the board. We think that perhaps the Bloc's heart was in the right place when it wrote this but it is a bit of overkill. The Bloc is talking about having no ability whatsoever in relatively minor cases for the board to streamline things. We think it is appropriate. When people are waiting for the board to make a decision on a simple matter and fairly clear cut, we would like to think that the board can pick up the speed of things.
Motion No. 7 is a particularly interesting one because now we are talking about representation. By the sound of what the labour critic for the NDP said on this, I suggest that perhaps he has personal experience which has kind of poisoned his attitude to this process. He is talking about having to march down this line of hostile employers who have the power to read his mind. Why else would he feel threatened? He could have gone in with a big smile and given them a thumbs up. “Isn't that guy a good fellow. Obviously he is going to vote our way”. In other words, he feels they can read his mind and that is what is intimidating him.
Believe me, knowing the hon. member, I would be a little intimidated too if I were him and thought somebody could read my mind at times. I will not even go to the natural line of that out of respect for the hon. member. Even though our opinions differ, I do have some level of respect for him.
When we start talking in terms of votes, the member is saying 35% is good enough. I will bet the Bloc would love to pass this one. Imagine if the Bloc said “Wait a minute, if we can get popular support for this, in the next Quebec referendum we only need 35%”. If we go back to what the hon. member in the NDP said, it is really hard to sign people up. So 35% is good enough. Can anyone imagine what the Bloc would do with that?
Lucien Bouchard may be watching this debate today saying “If this government says 35% is enough, I think we will adopt it in the next referendum. If 35% of the population of Quebec votes to separate we're out of here”. Interesting.
The Liberals may want to think about that when they come to vote on that motion. Do they really want to say that 35% represents the majority?
During the Quebec referendum we heard some people over there suggesting that 50% is not even enough and that maybe it should be 60%. Do they really want to set a precedent that states that 35% is good enough? I really hope they will start thinking about that one.
On Motion No. 8 what we are really looking at is to have democracy, pure and simple. The hon. member from the NDP actually suggested there is no way employees could possibly have a fair vote and if they sign up 35% that is proof positive. He says there is no way they will ever get a fair vote because they are intimidated by the employer. He is perhaps forgetting the case with Wal-Mart where considerably less than 50% signed up. The union that wanted to sign them up said it was unfair management practice and it was interfered with. It demanded that there should be certification because it was interfered with.
The board looked at this and agreed and so it certified them. The employees did not want it and now they are seeking to have the union decertified. So much for the arguments from the hon. member.
I could go on considerably, as the House well knows, on individual parts of this. Comments made from the Liberal side alone could keep me going all day I am sure.
I want to reassure members that I will be back and that they will hear from me later today.