Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We just went through an exercise of calling quorum and right away we have the government side disappearing again. I would like to call quorum again.
Lost his last election, in 2004, with 36% of the vote.
Canada Labour Code May 7th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We just went through an exercise of calling quorum and right away we have the government side disappearing again. I would like to call quorum again.
Canada Labour Code May 7th, 1998
My colleague mentions there will be a lot more failed Liberal candidates but there will not be a Liberal in charge to appoint them to the various boards so that takes care of that one.
We are opposed to Motion No. 2 put forward by the Bloc. It limits the chair and vice-chairs to one term. At first glance that may seem in conflict with our opposition to appointments. If there is a very good chair who has been elected by the members of the board, we would like to see it made possible to extend that term.
We are also opposing Motion No. 3. The bill reduces the terms of the appointees from ten years to five years while the amendment reduces the term to three years for the chair, vice-chairs and members. Our position is that five years should be the minimum for stability and continuity.
Canada Labour Code May 7th, 1998
One of my colleagues mentioned the name of Mary Clancy, who was appointed to the high commission in Boston.
It is absolutely incredible. We look at those sorts of appointments and we have to shake our heads and ask what other qualifications did they have other than being Liberal. I can bet that we are going to end up with the Canada Industrial Relations Board packed with Liberal patronage appointments.
In terms of the role of the board and the Bloc motions that have been put forward, Reform actually supports the Bloc Motion No. 4 in this regard because it injects at least a little bit of democracy into the board. It actually allows the board to determine by a majority vote who should become the chair if it becomes vacant.
Mr. Speaker, that is an amusing concept to you because I know you are very supportive of the appointment process. The threatening idea that members of the board would actually elect their own chair, what a terrible thought. That would be one of the safeguards that would perhaps remove an element of the patronage and control that goes into those boards.
In reviewing the various motions that are from the Bloc in this group, we are quite supportive of Motion No. 1. The candidates for the chair and vice-chairs of the Canada Industrial Relations Board would be appointed only if the human resources development committee approved.
There is a very good argument for much more transparency in relation to all of this patronage that goes on. Actually I am sure that soon Club Chrétien is going to be running out of candidates to appoint to these various boards. Most of them must have cashed in their mileage points already.
Canada Labour Code May 7th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, the point I was making earlier was that there has been insufficient listening to the consultation on this bill. The exercise we have just gone through indicates that what I said was correct. There are no people listening to what is being said about this bill. The consultation goes on but nobody listens. My colleague from Calgary—Nose Hill made that point quite strongly earlier today.
The fact that 30 different motions are being put forward at report stage, as mentioned by another member a few minutes ago, indicates the amount of dissent there is on the bill. Notwithstanding the argument from one of the members of the NDP that it is a bill they would like to see pushed through fairly quickly, the fact is this is a bill with a lot that still needs to be done.
Instead of looking to the future we are going to be left with some outdated labour practices that will not be taking us forward into the future. Those clients of the services that are covered by this bill will have no alternative in the event of a strike. The procedures contained in this bill for handling problems such as strikes are still outmoded and outdated.
Yesterday in my office one of the representatives of the Government of New Zealand was visiting me. We were discussing the never ending road work that is taking place on Wellington Street. It seems to go on for years and years and now they are working on the road outside the West Block. This is evidence of the type of labour climate we have. These things can go on and on for years and years with no resolution. We need to inject some efficiency and modern practices into government.
The representative from the Government of New Zealand stated that they had suffered from these types of situations as well but it does not happen any more. It is all done by private contract with set dates and responsibility. There are alternatives in the event of strikes. I stray a little from the topic.
I return to the issue of appointments to the Canada Industrial Relations Board. The people of Canada frankly are thoroughly sick of the patronage which riddles every aspect of the various boards like the parole board, the immigration and refugee board and even the Senate. Mr. Speaker, you look shocked that there could be any patronage in the Senate and I am sorry if you had not noticed that it is filled with patronage.
Club Chrétien has been more active than club Mulroney in terms of the rewards that the clubs to members. An enormous number of failed Liberal candidates have been appointed to all manner of boards. We are concerned that they are going to end up on the Canada Industrial Relations Board as well.
I hear a couple of members laughing on the government side because they know that is the truth. We are going to end up with patronage appointees on this board. Then we have to start wondering what are the credentials other than being Liberal. It is certainly open to question. One just has to look at the list. It includes Liberal riding presidents, failed candidates, campaign workers, bagmen, ministerial assistants. These are the types of people who get appointed to that type of board. I can give some examples.
Recently André Bachand, Liberal candidate in 1988 and a long time Liberal president in Brome—Missisquoi was appointed to the National Parole Board. Elizabeth McKall, the wife of a Liberal riding president in Edmonton West was appointed to the National Parole Board.
The immigration and refugee board seems to be the most common recipient of Liberal largesse. No less than 14 appointments of well-known Liberals to the immigration and refugee board occurred during 1997 and 1998. To give some examples: Anita Fuoco Boscariol, twice defeated candidate; Lucie Blais, defeated candidate in 1993; Milagros Eustaquoi, failed candidate; Ronald Guerette, former riding president; Elke Homsi, former legislative assistant; Joan Lylian Kouri, defeated candidate; Gary McCauley, defeated MP; Anna Terrana, defeated MP; and Raza Naqvi, yet another failed candidate. They are just some examples of the type of people who get appointed to these boards, nothing but patronage appointments.
Canada Labour Code May 7th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, as we heard earlier from my colleague for Calgary—Nose Hill, there are a lot of people who are dissatisfied with the consultations which took place regarding this bill. It is the consultations that really bother us. As you said earlier today, Mr. Speaker, holding consultations does not mean that you actually have to listen. We feel that the consultations on this particular bill have not resulted in any meaningful changes, as is the case with a lot of bills on the Hill.
Canada Labour Code May 7th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do not see a quorum in the House.
Elections Act May 6th, 1998
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-399, an act to amend the Elections Act (appointment of election officers).
Mr. Speaker, this bill when passed would implement a recommendation of the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada that patronage be removed from the process of appointing employees to Elections Canada.
Very few people realize that returning officers are all appointed by order in council, by the government in power. In effect they are patronage appointments. Passage of this bill would remove that ability of the government to patronage appoint. The employees of Elections Canada would be selected on their merit and their ability to do the job instead of the party they belong to.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Broadcasting Act May 6th, 1998
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-398, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act (designation of cable channels).
Mr. Speaker, this bill when passed by the House would make it possible for cable channels to be assigned on the basis of market forces rather than the CRTC compelling cable companies to assign them to certain positions on the cable spectrum.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Committees Of The House March 26th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for pointing out that I was careful to reiterate only the material approved by the joint standing committee in its report and not to inject any type of personal or partisan material into my comments.
As pointed out by the member, this is such an important matter that it needed to be drawn to the attention of the House. Unfortunately most of the reports presented in this place are presented but nobody ever takes the time to read them to understand the serious nature of the contents.
I felt it was my duty to make sure that a substantial part of the report was read into the record today so that members present would be able to understand why the committee is treating this matter with such serious consideration. I personally would not have had an opportunity to move this concurrence motion next week. This was my final opportunity to do so.
If it helps the people who find themselves in a restricted position because of sections 56 and 57 and if it helps the solicitor general to go ahead and make a prompt decision on this matter, I would say a lot has been achieved by reading this into the record this morning.
Committees Of The House March 26th, 1998
Mr. Speaker, I would like to make it very clear that this is an initiative of the Standing Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations which is a joint committee of the House of Commons and the Senate. Its members consider the legality of regulations. It is not partisan in any manner.
A report was filed in the House at least two weeks ago. I gave notice of intention to raise this concurrence motion, I would say, seven to ten days ago. It has been on the order paper since that date.