René Laurin

[Auditor General's Report, November 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, since the President of the Treasury Board is now aware of the fact, could he explain why the government is preparing to spend $137 million on a new compensation system without taking the elementary precaution of doing a cost-benefit analysis?

[Auditor General's Report, November 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board.

The Auditor General's report tells us once again that the government is not running a tight ship. According to the report, since 1987, the Public Service Compensation System has cost the government $170 for each of its 200,000 employees in the Public Service, while the unit cost for provincial governments is between $50 and $70.

How can the President of the Treasury Board tolerate the fact that the federal government's management of its compensation system is so costly and inefficient and that the government absolutely refuses to examine many other cases of wasteful spending in its administration, something the Official Opposition has been asking for the past year?

[Canadian Ambassador To The United States, November 18th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian ambassador to the U.S. is trying to muzzle Quebec's representatives in Washington by imposing a chaperon from the embassy at every one of their meetings.

Bloc Quebecois members strongly oppose such interference in provincial affairs by the Canadian ambassador. Quebec directly looks after its own interests in Paris, London, Tokyo, Mexico City and New York. Why is the federal government desperately trying to keep it from doing the same in Washington?

As long as Quebec remains part of Canada, the government must respect the basic principle whereby the provinces' constitutional jurisdiction also applies abroad.

Clearly, the flag war is on again, and the federal government as well as the Prime Minister must both assume full responsibility for the situation.

[Public Service Staff Relations Act, November 17th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the minister introduced Bill C-58 this morning by telling us that, for all intents and purposes, these were mere technical provisions, that they were of little consequence, and that they only aimed at bringing back the status quo which prevailed before the Gingras decision. As everyone now knows, the Court of Appeal ruled that some RCMP employees were part of the public service and not excluded from it.

We wonder if this issue is so simple. Indeed, if it is so ordinary, why is the government acting in this fashion?

It does not seem to be a matter of avoiding additional costs, since the court decision has already been implemented and the bilingualism bonus paid to those RCMP members who are entitled to it. Consequently, it does not look as though this bill will help the government make significant savings in the immediate future.

We wonder why the government wants to act so quickly in this particular case, considering that it still has not done anything in other cases involving a lot more money, such as the now famous Gulf Oil case. In 1974, the government legislated to allow certain tax deductions for oil companies, thereby reducing their tax burden.

Oil companies took advantage of those provisions to the point that after a while the government must have concluded that some were going too far. However, the government merely watched: It did not take any action. Yet, there is a lot of money involved. Since 1974, these companies have avoided-and I am not saying they acted illegally, because the law entitles them to do so-the payment of $1.2 billion in taxes. In fact, every day the government loses $260,000 because of those tax provisions. In this case, however, 20 years later, the government has still not seen fit to change the law, even if it seems to do the exact opposite of what the government intended to achieve, which was to allow companies to increase their research and development activities in the natural resources area.

There are billions of dollars at stake. For 20 years now, we have been studying the legislation and wondering if we should act now, or wait a little longer to see if the law has any impact on other companies. If a bill had been passed right away and if we had said after a few years: "Since the law does not seem to say what we meant to say, we will correct it and change it right now", we would have saved billions of tax dollars.

So, here we are 20 years later and nothing has been done yet. However, the government is in a hurry to pass Bill C-58. The ruling of the Court of Appeal only dates back to March 1994, but already the members of the RCMP who were hopeful to see their situation be legitimized realize that the government had decided to act right away and to say: "Since the court's ruling is at variance with our intent, we will act now and pass an act to clarify the situation and make the act say what we want it to say, which is to stipulate that employees of the RCMP are not part of the public service".

There are some 15,500 regular members and special constables, and, as was said earlier, 2,000 civilian employees in the RCMP. There are also about 3,400 civil servants, currently the only ones who have the right to join a union. Of course, this bill in itself represents a step in the right direction, since it allows civilian employees of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to unionize, which they could not do before.

So, we should commend this part of the bill, thanks to which 2,000 and more employees will be able to exercise their democratic rights.

That is a nice gesture on the part of the government, but it does not go far enough, since it still deprives the vast majority of RCMP employees, and I am referring to regular members and special constables, of the right to enjoy the same privilege, which is the right to organize, to form a union, a right that has been recognized by all other groups in society, all other occupa-

tions and professions, and even by other police forces across Canada. Other police forces have this basic, democratic right which respects the right of individuals to organize freely and to be able to negotiate the terms and conditions of their employment. In Bill C-58, RCMP officers are denied that right.

Why should these people not enjoy the same advantages as their colleagues in the provincial police forces or the rest of society? What is the government's real agenda? Does the government expect to control this police force more readily by removing it from the supervision of Treasury Board, thus turning it into an agency that is not an agency defined by law as another activity sector, that is not covered by a specific department and, in fact, seems to come under the sole supervision of the commissioner, who has a lot of power. Bill C-58 more or less confirms, although it does not say so explicitly, that the big boss, the big decision-maker, is the Commissioner of the RCMP. Occasionally, he gets some help from an outside committee, but mostly he accepts the committee's recommendations to protect his image, while he ultimately has the right to reject those recommendations.

What we want is transparency in the way the government is run, which should include the way police forces are run as well. To exclude them from the public service boils down to treating them like members of the military, who for security reasons, are excluded from this kind of control and have their own justice system and their own courts. However, we do not think it is appropriate to run a police force along those lines.

Would the government want to exempt these 15,000 RCMP members from the policy on bilingualism in the future? We wonder. We can feel that government has the support of another opposition party in this matter. That party has been very clear: the government's approach is not the proper one in this case. Bilingualism should mean two languages in Quebec and only one language in the rest of Canada. That is bilingualism according to the Reform Party. Is the government prepared to adopt that Reform Party policy on bilingualism for Canada? Does the government intend to cut the bonus for RCMP members? We wonder.

What are the intentions of the government in terms of employment equity? Since the courts have ruled that, by virtue of the present legislation, the RCMP should come under the jurisdiction of the Treasury Board, why would the government not accept that RCMP members be treated according to the same standards as those applied to all other civil servants, that is the standards laid down by the Treasury Board?

Why not take this opportunity to give RCMP members the same privileges as those granted all other employees of the public service?

The Public Service Commission is responsible for personnel management in several other departments. As part of the monitoring process, it must make sure that everybody abides by standards and regulations. In the case of the RCMP, the Treasury Board, not the Public Service Commission, had that responsibility. The Treasury Board authorities would ensure a better control of the RCMP.

But Bill C-58 would take that responsibility away from the Treasury Board. Is this another way for the RCMP to avoid having its activities scrutinized by a public body whose role is to ensure transparency and answer taxpayers' questions? What is so secret that Treasury Board should not have authority over the RCMP?

Is there a hidden agenda? Is the government planning again to have the RCMP carry out duties in a covert way, protecting it from inquisitive taxpayers wanting to know why the RCMP is behaving this way or that? Does the government have ulterior motives?

It is hard to say, but it seems rather strange for the government to take advantage of an Appeal Court decision not only to give back to the RCMP Commissioner the same powers he had before, but also, in reality, to reinforce the authority he has now since, to all intents and purposes, he does not seem to be accountable to anybody in particular in the government.

We cannot condone this policy because this bill lacks transparency and does not go far enough. Why is it that something good for 5,000 RCMP employees should not be good also for the remaining 15,000? As the saying goes, what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

Why would what is supposed to be good for support and administrative staff and all other RCMP employees not be good for special constables and regular members of the RCMP? Why should they not benefit from it also?

We will vote against this bill at second reading, and we hope that the government will do an about-turn and abide by its civil service renewal policy, which was supposed to give more decision-making powers to lower levels of government, and not to exclude certain agencies from the decision-making process.

If this is the kind of civil service renewal the government had in mind, we misunderstood its intentions and we must denounce them here and now. Letting authority move from top to bottom, means allowing the decisions to be taken as close as possible to the place where the problems occur.

This is not what the government is doing with Bill C-58. What the government is doing is exclude the RCMP from the jurisdiction of Treasury Board. By making the RCMP come under a single person it enables it to act on the sly, without any openness and in a way unacceptable to taxpayers.

Once again, we think that the government should backtrack and respect the spirit of the program of public service renewal, the so-called Public Service 2000, that it does not seem to hold in high regard and has not really considered up to now. We have a feeling that it has been relegated to the highest shelf and that the government is in no hurry to follow-up on its electoral promises in this regard.

Mr. Speaker, thank you for your attention. I am ready to answer questions if there are any.

[Deficit Reduction, November 2nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, last Saturday, the Minister of Finance said in an interview published in Le Soleil that everything to reduce the deficit was on the table. In other words, the minister is simply ignoring the commitment made by the Prime Minister in the last election campaign that he would not raise taxes. On the expenditure side, the minister tries to justify additional cuts in social programs that might total $7.5 billion, arguing that everyone would have to do his or her share.

Instead of targeting the needy, the unemployed and the middle class, I suggest the minister take a good look at the government's operational expenditures, subsidies to corporations, Defence spending and duplication, and ensure that taxpayers who live on high incomes are the first in line to pay their fair share of taxes.

[Copyright, October 28th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I have another question for the Minister of Canadian Heritage. Will the minister confirm that the economic studies carried out by his department on neighbouring rights are complete? And for the sake of transparency, as he was saying a minute ago, can he tell us when exactly he intends to release these studies?

[Copyright, October 28th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage. It is becoming more and more obvious that the delay in tabling the long-awaited bill on Phase II of the copyright law reform is attributable to the inability of the heritage minister to agree with his colleague, the industry minister, on the scope of the recognition of neighbouring rights.

Will the minister recognize that his industry colleague and himself hold completely opposite views on this issue and that his weakness and lack of credibility could well put him at a disadvantage vis-a-vis his colleague who is prepared to defend the interests of industry at the expense of creative artists?

[Gun Control, October 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, this government has been in power for a year now and for a year the smallest legislative measure seems to have become inexplicably complex. Everything is used as a pretext to justify the government's failure to act. This is an urgent matter. Seven people nearly lost their lives yesterday.

Will the Minister of Justice admit that the delays in tabling his bill are attributable to very strong opposition within the Liberal caucus?

[Gun Control, October 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. Yesterday, in Ontario, seven people were the victims of violent crimes committed with firearms. One took place in a school and the other during a bank robbery. Such tragic events are a reminder of the urgent need to institute better control of firearms in Canada. An undertaking to this effect in the red book was reiterated by the Prime Minister at the Liberal Convention last May.

Why has the Minister of Justice still not tabled his gun control bill?

[Government Finances, October 18th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, there was disbelief on international financial markets after the comments made yesterday by the Minister of Finance. The fact is that these stakeholders are simply asking the minister to take concrete action to stop the wasting of public money. Yet, one year after his appointment, the Minister of Finance is still content to merely look at the extent of the damage caused to Canadian government finances.

The deputy chairman of the Deustche Bank of Canada summarized the concerns of the financial community when he said that the finance minister's pledge to lower the deficit is certainly praiseworthy, but that investors will want to see concrete action. Must we conclude from the finance minister's failure that our 127-year old federal structure is too heavy and obsolete to adequately meet the challenge of improving the situation of government finances?