Réal Ménard

[Canada Labour Code, October 2nd, 1996]

I know the Parliamentary Secretary. He is awfully predictable.

In a while, he will stand up and tell us: "Yes, but there is already a process for representational purposes and nothing indicates that they want this process expanded."

I am telling this to put off the Parliamentary Secretary: let us give the RCMP and its employees a legislative framework and leave it to them to take advantage of it. I hope the government will not go on doing nothing, that it will listen attentively and will act to help workers who are victims of discrimination even when faced with a problem.

Let us take a concrete example. Let us look at what happened. As we know, the government is proud to have promoted bilingualism in the public service through all sorts of measures, and the parliamentary secretary believes in this principle.

The commissioner-and this is nothing personal-became an institution through an act of Parliament and was both judge and judged regarding bilingual bonuses. Under this program, when a public servant passes a written and oral test, he is eligible to a bonus of $800. This is not a huge amount, but it is better than nothing.

These workers suffered a prejudice because it was claimed they were not entitled to the bonus, even though the courts ruled in their favour. What did the government do to correct the situation? Rarely does one witness such a lack of sensitivity. The government introduced a bill in which it took a malicious pleasure in legislating

that these workers were clearly not covered by the Public Service of Canada Act or the Canada Labour Code, in spite of the fact that some, mostly Quebecers living in Quebec, are bilingual and were deprived of this bilingual bonus. Such an anomaly would not exist if things were more clear.

Let us talk about the right to unionize. In a democracy, what is the point of having a charter of rights and freedoms? What is the point of boasting about freedom of association and pay equity for all, if this type of discrimination is being perpetuated? If RCMP officers were covered by part I of the Canada Labour Code, the employer would face reprisals if it objected to its employees forming a union. Indeed, the employer cannot interfere if the conditions regarding the application for union certification and the related process are met.

We must keep this in mind when we discuss issues such as this one.

How does the parliamentary secretary intend to restore good working relations in such a sensitive milieu as the RCMP if we deny these workers the fundamental right that all the other public servants in Canada enjoy?

If we were holding a meeting here tonight, not with members of Parliament, but with RCMP employees, can you imagine what would happen? How could one of us explain to these workers who pay taxes, get up every morning, take an oath and serve their fellow citizens, that they do not have the right to sit at the bargaining table and negotiate their working conditions, that they do not have the right to have their grievances heard by a third party, unlike the rest of the public servants? How can we explain that and how can we remain so stubborn when inquiry after inquiry comes to the same conclusion as the most recent report. That report does not date back to the year 1992 before Christ, it is the Sims Report that was tabled last January. The Sims Report, which I have the pleasure to quote quite often in this House, recognizes that these workers are being wronged.

So, I hope that my colleagues both from the government side and from the Reform Party as well as the Bloc members will try to put an end to this type of discrimination.

The one thing we should keep in mind at a time like this is that there are still eight Canadian provinces who retain the services of RCMP officers for policing purposes.

If the government could come up with some examples or if the parliamentary secretary were to rise in this House and say: "Yes, but I would like to tell the hon. member about a police force in Canada that is excluded from the rights that some are asking for", I would really be shaken. I will say that there is something wrong in my rationale, that my arguments were not convincing enough, that there is a lack of information. But it is not the case. Through you, Mr. Speaker, I challenge the parliamentary secretary, who I know is always looking for new challenges. I challenge him, before the Canadian people, to give us an example of a similar police force.

The parliamentary secretary will have to do his homework well, but if he can give us an example of another police force that is denied the right to collective bargaining and that does not belong to a union, I will be contrite. I will rise on a point of order and admit that I was wrong.

But I know perfectly well that the parliamentary secretary will not find one such example because it is well known that this is a case of discrimination, that the RCMP is in a unique situation.

In conclusion, you know that the government will embark on a review of part I of the Labour Code, that there will be a parliamentary committee on which I will sit, and I think we must use this debate to get the government to say that it is willing to give the RCMP the right to unionize and to bargain collectively to finally put an end to a flagrant and unacceptable case of discrimination.

[Canada Labour Code, October 2nd, 1996]

moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should give RCMP officers the right to unionize and to bargain collectively under the Canada Labour Code.

Mr. Speaker, is it not somewhat of a paradox, although it is not perceived as such, that today I should stand up in this House and defend what is undoubtedly one of Canada's best known symbols? This is proof that nobody in this House will be able to say, either in the future or in reference to the past, that the official opposition has not lived up to its responsibilities.

I expect the parliamentary secretary to generously mention it in his reply; as you know, if there is someone who is often critical of the official opposition, it is my colleague, the member for Vaudreuil.

On a more serious note, I believe that as parliamentarians we must realize that discrimination of a peculiar kind has been going on for years within the RCMP. Around 16,000 officers are finding themselves in a legal vacuum the likes of which is unheard of, a very unhealthy situation indeed.

People listening to us must realize that the RCMP officers are protected neither by the Labour Code nor the Public Service of Canada Act. Therefore, the situation is that some clearly essential workers are discriminated against and cannot exercise their rights to collective bargaining.

It is quite paradoxical, because members of Parliament are certainly already aware of the situation.

At least three commissions of inquiry have stated that labour relations were among the difficulties pointed out to the legislator. We cannot rise today and plead innocence saying that we did not know about the situation, that we do not know what it is all about. On the contrary, the situation was brought to the attention of the cabinet and of the parliamentarians. But there has always been some reluctance to act on this issue.

Closer to home, the labour minister, also a member for Montreal, asked for a task force, which reviewed and reported on part I of the Labour Code, which we want to update, and rightly so. Among the recommendations in the report Sims, named for the commission's chairman, there was obviously a finding to the effect it was unacceptable that all police officers in Canada, except RCMP members, had the right to collective bargaining.

It was recommended to take action to see how this group could be unionized. We will come back to what this right to unionize means concretely. Believe it or not, Mr. Speaker, and knowing how sensitive you are, I am sure you will have great difficulty admitting it, but it remains that, despite the information available, despite three inquiry commissions, despite the recent tabling of a report, the minister responsible for this issue has still taken no action.

Let it be clearly understood: currently in Canada eight provinces and 200 municipalities use the RCMP as their police. We have to remind Canadians and the people who are watching us how flagrant this discrimination is since two categories of employees who do the same kind of work do not have the same rights. That is the situation we want to correct.

When I tabled my motion, I had clearly in mind what this means in the workplace, how unhealthy it can be when employees cannot collectively determine, influence and work to ensure they have a voice on the working conditions they will be subject to. That is why, periodically, there have been labour relations problems in the RCMP.

In order to restore a healthy labour relations climate in the RCMP, I think that a certain number of requirements must be met. First of all, employees must have the right to collectively negociate their working conditions. This is not a meaningless statement. What is a collective agreement if not a consensus expressed on paper setting out the rules, procedures and avenues of appeal available if the parties cannot come to an agreement?

Not only are RCMP officers prohibited from making representations on collective bargaining, but they are in a practically unprecedented situation. Anyone who is familiar with labour relations knows how unhealthy this situation is, since, as a manager, the RCMP Commissioner must implement directives and make deci-

sions, acting as both judge and jury. One does not need a law degree to realize how unhealthy this is.

Again, this government-with its cow-like disposition-refuses to step in and take the measures needed to correct the situation.

As I said earlier, for healthy work conditions to prevail within the RCMP, officers must have the right to bargain collectively. They must, of course, have the right to form an association, to have democratically elected representatives recognized as such, and to submit grievances to an outside organization that is independent and neutral.

I trust that the parliamentary secretary will, when he rises in a few minutes, admit that when there are disputes in the Public Service there is an outside third party to judge grievances and reach a decision, as well as appeal mechanisms of which both the employer and the workers are aware. That third party is the Public Service Commission, or in certain specific cases Treasury Board, or the Public Service Staff Relations Board. These are known bodies and have a precise role. Their independence of action is acknowledged, because they are accredited by both management and labour.

This is the crux of the debate. It is all the more admirable because these are not workers who have shirked their responsibilities. They are all very aware of their responsibilities which, moreover, have a special nature in the RCMP relating to national security and protecting the public interest.

This is why the representations they are making to us as parliamentarians are not for the right to strike. That is not what is involved when RCMP employees, through a national association, are calling for recognition of a certain number of rights. What is involved is the right to compulsory arbitration, outside the RCMP of course, but they are not calling for the commissioner to be bound by the decision, and therefore not for a final and binding arbitration such as there is in place today. There are already clauses within part I of the Labour Code which permit this.

The employees of the RCMP have even facilitated the work of the legislator. So much so that they proposed a bill containing a certain number of stipulations. If we wanted to go ahead and be serious about the attention we give employees of the RCMP, any member in this House, but especially the government majority whose responsibility it is, could well introduce a bill giving those employees the right to collective bargaining and the right to group together into an association.

I hope that people who are listening tonight understand that this is what this debate is about, something harmless, the basis of work relations.

Believe it or not, RCMP employees-officers, I am not talking about civilian employees, I am talking about officers-have been waiting for this decision for at least ten years. How is it that nothing has been done? Since 1993, we have seen a total lack of understanding of what is going on in the RCMP.

Let us take the following example: there is currently a divisional representative process. However, this process is more like a small shop union than like what exists elsewhere in the public service. As an MP, I suggest that we give a legislative framework to the RCMP so that those people can form an association and collectively decide, collectively negotiate their collective agreement.

If ever there is no majority, I am quite convinced, and I would even dare to bet on a large beer, Mr. Speaker, that the Parliamentary Secretary will tell us in a few minutes, when he stands up: "Yes, but there is already a negotiation process."

[The Canada Labour Code, October 2nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask the minister to leave it to the opposition to decide whether or not he has provided an answer, and at this point he has not.

The RCMP Association has proposed a collective bargaining system under which there would be binding arbitration without the right to strike. Does the minister intend to accede to this proposal, which is fair, equitable and respectful of RCMP employees?

[The Canada Labour Code, October 2nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour.

The Minister of Labour is in the process of reviewing part I of the Canada Labour Code. The task force he set up for that purpose recommended in its report, the Sims report, which was tabled this past January, that the RCMP be given the right to collective bargaining.

Since RCMP officers are the only police officers in Canada who do not have the right to collective bargaining, will the minister undertake to use the current revision of the Canada Labour Code to put an end to this discriminatory and unjustified situation?

[Manganese-Based Fuel Additives Act, September 27th, 1996]

I see my colleague from the Reform Party shares my opinion. I would like to share with you a letter that was sent to the government by the natural resources minister in the Bouchard government, François Gendron. Let me draw your attention to one aspect of this correspondence. The minister writes: "I am writing again, on behalf of the minister of state for economy and finance, Bernard Landry, and of the transport minister in charge of Canadian intergovernmental affairs, Jacques Brassard, and on my own behalf, to state the firm position of the Quebec government on the bill being studied".

He continues: "That bill, the Manganese-based Fuel Additives Act, will reach the third reading stage in the House of Commons in just a few months. It seems your government is quite determined to follow through with that bill. That bill concerns the importation and selling of MMT in Canada. It seems the Canadian government wants to pass this bill because the auto makers claim that gasoline containing MMT will cause damage to the pollution control equipment in new cars".

This is getting interesting, it should shake up government members a little. It goes on: "With free trade between Canada, the United States and Mexico, recent developments in the United States and Mexico are pointing in another direction".

What does it mean? You will remember that in the past few years the Environmental Protection Agency has been trying to have the use of MMT banned in the United States. The case was dismissed by a district of Columbia appeal court which ruled that the evidence presented was not conclusive enough.

Not only were the United States defeated, not only was the EPA defeated, but now the regulation banning the use of MMT as a fuel additive in the United States can no longer be enforced, and in Mexico-as you might recall, the Mexican president sat in your chair and made a speech to Canadian parliamentarians-they are faced with the same situation.

So, when we are told that if the bill is not passed, we will no longer be competitive, there is something not quite right with government members' logic, since the production and use of MMT as a fuel additive will now be allowed in the United States, our major trading partner-and you know how strong our commercial ties are with them, especially when it comes to the automobile industry. And not only in the case of the United States, but also in the case of Mexico.

So, this is a situation of ministerial stubbornness. The minister is stomping his feet with a rather childish stubbornness saying we must go in that direction, with some sort of determination that is almost unreasonable, no, I correct my words, that is not reasonable at all.

What must we do, as members of Parliament, to convince the minister? What efforts must we make when seven provinces are opposed, when the Canadian Petroleum Products Institute is opposed, when entire industrial sectors are at risk, particularly in regions that cannot afford to lose jobs if they want to maintain their economic prosperity. Of course, I am talking about East Montreal.

So today, we must send the environment minister a cry from the heart so that, for the sake of rationality, he can go beyond partisan considerations and find a reasonable compromise. And this reasonable compromise can only be the public tabling, for debate, of much more substantiated studies commissioned by third parties and focusing on the potential or not, on the beneficial or deleterious nature, of using MMT in gasoline.

I do not think what we are asking today is unreasonable. I do not think the consensus of the seven provinces, regardless of any partisan leaning, is unreasonable. It seems to me if the Minister of

Environment is concerned with the environmental issue, there are other bills, other problems that should hold his attention.

We have been told about the pollution in the Great Lakes. There would be something there that could be very interesting from a legislation viewpoint.

So why take up the time of the House to deal with poorly defined problems, with untested propositions, on an issue where almost everyone is not convinced by or satisfied with the evidence tabled by the minister.

I intend to take a very firm stand on this. Again, there used to be six refineries in the east end of Montreal. The petrochemical sector used to be prosperous, but with measures such as those proposed today-I have a feeling my time is running out, so I make a last appeal to the minister to use common sense and defer his bill.

[Manganese-Based Fuel Additives Act, September 27th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, there is something I would like to make clear right at the outset, because viewers might have the impression that those who care about environment are sitting on that side and those who do not care are sitting on this side. This is an oversimplification.

I want to say right away to people joining us for the debate that it has to do with the fact that the government is proposing a bill seeking a ban on a gas additive, which would have as a major impact substantial adjustment costs for whole segments of industrial sectors, such as oil refineries, without any scientific studies to back it up.

The official opposition, first through its critic, the hon. member for Laurentides, and through successive members, wants to make it clear that, when the environment minister or any other independent third party will be able to table in this House rigorously scientific and conclusive studies showing that this additive called MMT harms the environment or damages antipollution systems in vehicles, the Bloc, as well as the Reform Party surely, will reconsider its position.

It is unthinkable that an environment minister, with a carelessness that is out of keeping with the seriousness of this issue, would ask Canadian members of Parliament to pass legislation that will impose substantial adjustment costs on industrial sectors that are already in difficulty, on the basis of representations made by a auto makers lobby. That is not how things should be done.

I am particularly pleased to take part in this debate because, as you know, I am one of the members from Montreal, more specifically from East Montreal. When I was younger, East Montreal had six refineries. Today there are only two left, because of a number of problems which are international in nature but sometimes have a more national resonance.

I cannot accept, and I fail to understand how the government can do a good job when it asks us to pass a bill that, I repeat, involves considerable adjustment costs for the oil refinery sector, without thorough, scientific and conclusive studies to support its decision.

It does not make sense to have jobs, jobs, jobs as a political mantra when you create problems for those who want to save jobs. In the case of East Montreal, I would like to point out that the two remaining refineries that continue to operate-when I was a kid there were six-employ 4,000 people. I would like to include in my speech a point of view that is typically Montreal and a flavour that is East Montreal by sharing with you two letters I received from

interest groups that represent their community and have a stake in the local economy.

I am not referring to the Saint-Jean-Baptiste Society which is our ally on sovereignty. I am not talking about the Mouvement national des Québécois, but about interest groups, the first of which is called Pro-Est. These are businessmen, people who are concerned above all about the economic recovery of East Montreal.

You will recall that in 1984, there was a wave of business shutdowns which led the people of East Montreal to organize. The result was a group called Pro-Est, an authorized pressure group that tries in various ways to give East Montreal a prosperous economy so that people will want to stay there.

Pro-Est is concerned about the subject matter of Bill C-29. I would like to share this short letter with you, and I would like to recommend its contents to the attention of the government side, so they will understand that the reaction to Bill C-29 goes back to what is at stake in the economy of a number of communities, including East Montreal.

The letter says: "Pro-Est wants to express its concerns about the possible adoption of Bill C-29 regarding MMT as an additive in gas". It goes on to say: "In fact, the passage of this bill would have a negative impact on the competitive position of the industry".

The words competitive position really mean something from the economic point of view, and I hope the government side will appreciate that. So the letter reads: "The passage of this bill would have a negative impact on the competitive position of the refineries of East Montreal. The withdrawal of MMT would oblige refineries to compensate in other ways, which would represent an additional cost of seven or eight million dollars annually for the refineries in East Montreal alone".

So seven or eight million dollars annually for the refineries in East Montreal alone, and earlier we heard a figure of about $40 million for the entire petrochemical sector in Quebec.

The letter goes on: "We remind you that the petrochemical industry is one of the cornerstones of economic development on the east side of the island of Montreal. The takeover of Kemtec by Coastal, the high placement rate of graduates of the Institut de chimie et de pétrochimie and the viability of the Petro-Canada and Shell refineries are a good indication of the consolidation of this sector in our region. Because of these important economic spin-offs and the considerable number of secondary jobs, the petrochemical industry is a key sector in the economic recovery of the greater Montreal area".

As you probably know, the environment is an important issue for Pro-Est, and I may point out that Pro-Est is a group that has identified the environmental sector, the whole issue of plastics recycling, as a sector to be developed in this region. So we cannot accuse them of not being sensitive to this problem.

I will continue reading the letter: "Hence, we agree with several other Quebecers who are suggesting to defer the passing of Bill C-29 until independent experts can clearly show that MMT is environmentally safe. We thank you for your interest-", and so on. That letter is signed by Pierre Bibeau, chairman of the Pro-Est group.

I also heard the same thing from the chairman of the chamber of commerce of eastern Montreal Island, Alain Riendeau. When the businesspeople and all the stakeholders who are concerned about economic growth and who want to ensure the communities remain competitive join together to make representations, something they can do within our system, I hope the majority in office is listening.

Earlier, my colleague, the hon. member for Peterborough, said that a few years back no one would have imagined that lead could become such a problem and a health hazard. Again, when studies carried out by independent third parties show that there is cause for concern, that will be the time to take concrete measures. But this cannot be done on the basis of non-scientific allegations and on the basis, finally, of representations by a local lobby, which naturally has the attention of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister of the Environment who are both Ontario members.

It takes some nerve to come here and tell us that our concern today is for public health. In that case, let us remind ministers that they gave this issue to the wrong minister. If it were a public health issue, if the health of Canadians was really in jeopardy, I would hope that the health minister, the hon. member for Cape Breton-Richmond-East, would stand in this House and explain to us, parliamentarians and, thus, to all Canadians, how this concerns his department and what remedies he intends to take.

Let us go a little further. If this is a toxic substance, why is it that the federal government has not taken any measure so far to ban it and why are imports at issue here? If this substance is a toxic substance, then it is so everywhere. Be it within a province or in interprovincial trade, the toxic content remains the same.

You know, as the last speaker for the Reform Party also said, I think, what we are talking about here are representations by lobbyists, by people who are settled in Ontario and are concerned with the automotive industry.

If auto makers have decisive studies on the operation of anti-pollution systems, and the resulting impact on their competitiveness, that should concern us as parliamentarians, let them make these studies public. In a democracy, the best way to oppose an idea

is to suggest a better one. That is how things can be done democratically.

How accurate was the auto makers' demonstration? What did they contribute to the debate? Not much. They are unable to make a clear and significant demonstration of the dangers that should bring us, as members of Parliament, to ban MMT.

I really want to be very clear about the possible consequences of such a ban in a community like Montreal, where the petrochemical sector has already been under considerable strain for the last ten years. Investments of $7 million to $14 million will be needed to adjust to new production equipment. This is the first reality to keep in mind.

If the Minister is the sensible man I believe he is and anxious to start a dialogue, there is a second reality that should at least be of some concern to him. Right now, there are seven provinces in different regions, with governments of different political stripes, and with different economic bases-that is quite a number of provinces-that have taken a united stand and ask the federal government to review its position and delay the adoption of this bill.

I think the government ought to be impressed by some of the arguments that have been made. If the government cares about the quality of our environment, it will see to it that we make decisions based on accurate and scientifically recognized studies and that we pass legislation based on documentation that is really useful to us in our debates.

I cannot resist temptation. You know how disciplined I am, but sometimes I like to let my imagination go, especially on a difficult Friday such as this one, given the difficlut issue of the referral to the Supreme Court. You know that nothing is simple in this Parliament.

[Constitution, September 27th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice also said that all Canadians would have their say. However, he would not tell us whether he was considering holding a pan-Canadian referendum to determine Quebec's future.

Could the Minister of Justice tell us today whether the government has dismissed the possibility of holding a pan-Canadian referendum on the future of Quebec? Yes or no?

[Constitution, September 27th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice said yesterday that he would recognize the will of Quebec if certain conditions were met.

Could the Minister of Justice tell us in no uncertain terms whether the federal government intends to determine the wording of the question and the percentage required to recognize a referendum?

[Defence Industry Conversion, September 26th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, so that we do not forget he actually exists. In its budget speech delivered on March 6, the federal government announced the creation of Technology Partnerships Canada. According to the minister, this program was to help in the conversion of the aerospace and defence industries. In order to help the minister manage this program and assess projects, an advisory board was to be set up.

Can the minister tell us how many Quebec businesses from the aerospace and defence sectors have so far been helped by Technology Partnerships Canada?

[Motion M-240, September 20th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, having checked with government and Reform members I think you would find unanimous consent to amend Motion M-240 in my name to read as follows:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should give RCMP officers the right to unionize and to bargain collectively under the Canada Labour Code.

It was an error.