Mr. Speaker, I will do my utmost to change the subject. I am sure you are in tune with that thought process as well, Mr. Speaker.
Once again I find myself speaking on Bill C-19, the labour bill, which was also known as Bill C-66 in the last parliament. This time I am speaking on the second set of amendments. Earlier today I spoke on the first set of amendments and earlier this year I spoke on second reading of this bill, which is now at report stage.
This bill is all about industrial relations in the federal sector. One thing I know, and I think all Canadians upon reflection would know, is that when we are talking about people who belong to trade unions we are talking about average Canadians who reflect the demographics, the characteristics, the concerns and all the aspirations of average Canadians.
One of the things that distinguishes this country from many countries of the world is the fact that we all consider ourselves to be living in a democracy. That is an important principle that we must try to adhere to on each and every occasion when we can do so.
This is a very important piece of legislation because it deals with human endeavour. It deals with certification of unions. It deals with the negotiation process in the federal sector. It deals with a whole host of things. It deals with the ultimately very serious matter of who represents who. If that somehow becomes corrupted, if that somehow becomes usurped, or if that somehow becomes a set-up that is not representative, then we indeed have a major problem.
This legislation fails the basic tests of democracy.
There is something very essential here which deals with the whole question of secret ballot voting. It is not a requirement of this legislation.
There is another circumstance which deals with remedial certification and we have the circumstance where a breach by the employer would lead to automatic certification.
This is non-democratic. As an example, we are all here because we were elected. If any one of us had committed a minor breach of the Elections Act, would that mean that the person who we ran against would automatically win? We all know that is incorrect, not appropriate, not proper and does not occur. Why should it occur as a consequence of this legislation? It is totally inappropriate. It is non-democratic. This government should not be doing such a thing or allowing it to happen.
This bill eliminates the need for unions to report on their financial status. That is totally inappropriate. If we are going to have bodies representing a lot of people governed by public legislation, there should be a reporting mechanism. It is only right and proper not only for democratic purposes but also for accountability purposes. The government has an obligation to make that happen under this legislation.
The other thing I find highly dangerous in this legislation in a general way before I talk to the amendments is that there are provisions in the bill to allow the Minister of Labour to suspend collective bargaining and open tenders. This takes us right back to all of those things we want to avoid.
As I mentioned this morning, we want to do things that will reduce confrontation, not increase it. We want to do things that will prevent it if at all possible. We need to change that part of the package as well, for everyone, for the union membership, for management and for society at large. We need to bring a balance into this package. That balance is not there if the minister is going to have that kind of discretionary authority. It takes us back to where we do not want to be.
We talked about the fact that the board will be hand picked. We can make other comparisons. We know the problems inherent in our justice system as a consequence of parole board appointments and the inappropriateness of that. Those tend to slap us in the face. This one is a little more inconspicuous but it is still every bit as important in its own right.
These are leadership issues. We look to these boards for leadership from time to time. These are issues where the public has been sadly let down. These boards are expensive. They are expensive to run and to maintain. When they do not perform, the very people they are supposed to benefit are let down. The people who are supposed to benefit in essence are penalized. We must get this right.
In virtually every endeavour these days, it does not matter whether we are talking about the financial world or any other aspect of society, there are two competing pulls and tugs going on. There is a trend to globalization on the one hand and on the other is the necessity for action that involves local phenomena. One of the ways we can try and balance those two things and make it come together is to utilize federal institutions when there is no other appropriate mechanism. This is the appropriate mechanism and as a consequence it is so important that we get it right.
So many of the things I have described do not portend well in this bill on this front in order to accomplish the things we want to accomplish.
There are four motions grouped. Once again we are talking about Reform and Bloc amendments. The Reform motion is very supportable of course. The legislation as it is written now states that with the 35% of employees signing cards indicating they want union certification, the minister may order this. We are saying in tune with our basic commitment to democratic principles that the board must.
With that I will conclude my remarks.