Val Meredith

[Access To Information, November 17th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to speak to this motion put forth by my Reform colleague, the hon. member for Red Deer.

Since its introduction just over 10 years ago, the Access to Information Act has had a tremendous effect in opening up government. Government has been forced to be much more careful in the way it conducts business not only by the Access to Information Act but the Privacy Act as well. These two pieces of legislation have probably made for more open and honest government than any other government proclamation.

Countless scandals have been uncovered through the Access to Information Act. Questionable contracts, leases and patronage appointments have all been uncovered through this legislation. The legislation has given substance to some accusations letting the whole country see what really transpired in some questionable deals.

One might even suggest that the very make up of the House of Commons is due in part to the access legislation. Scandal after scandal in the previous government was uncovered or confirmed by this legislation. The public's contempt for the previous administration's lack of honesty and integrity was the main reason that party was reduced to only two seats in this House. It is a legacy that all members of this House have to live with. Respect for politicians is extremely low. It is up to the members of this Parliament to regain that respect.

The one thing I constantly hear from my constituents is that I must strive to make government more accountable. We have to open up the political process and show Canadians that we really are working on their behalf. We do this by making government as transparent as possible. We must start with our own House.

The mere fact that the operations of Parliament are exempt from the Access to Information Act gives the public the perception that we are trying to hide something. The 35th Parliament has taken some steps to be more open. The fact that the minutes of the meetings of the Board of Internal Economy are now being published is a move in the right direction.

We have to ensure that Parliament is not only conducting its business in an appropriate manner, but that it is seen to be conducting itself in an appropriate manner. By making Parliament itself accountable to the Access to Information Act, the public would no longer have to speculate what we are hiding.

Yes, taxpayers may be outraged about the extent that they are subsidizing the parliamentary dining room. If they are outraged, they would have every right to be. After all, it is their money. If we cannot justify the subsidy to the dining room, or any other perk that we receive, then perhaps we should not be receiving it. If, on the other hand, we believe the taxpayers are getting good value for their money then we should not be embarrassed to receive it. Either way we should not be denying the Canadian taxpayers the opportunity to learn how we are spending their money.

Some may suggest that we as parliamentarians would be sacrificing the confidentiality of our constituents by making our information available under access to information. In fact, the confidentiality of our files would be protected as our files would be exempt. The Privacy Act provides a great deal of protection by ensuring that the access request cannot be used to obtain information about individuals. However the way we conduct our business should and must be made available to the public. It is the only way that we can try and regain some of the respect for our position.

Another complaint I frequently receive from my constituents is about how their money is spent by crown corporations. Crown corporations claim that their competitiveness would be adversely affected if they were required to respond to access requests. Competitiveness is a legitimate concern.

The Canadian Wheat Board should not have to reveal in advance what it projects its buying and selling rates are going to be. This information would be of tremendous benefit to its competitors in foreign lands and would end up putting Canadian farmers at a severe disadvantage. The act calls for a specific exemption for information of a competitive nature and this data would not have to be released in any event.

Let us look at a couple of different examples starting with Canada Post. A number of my constituents were concerned about their subsidizing the courier facility with revenue from their mail delivery. They believe that Canada Post would be able to undercut the rates charged by other courier companies because of this subsidy. Access to information would let Canadians know if this is what Canada Post would be doing. However, it is possible that Canada Post would be able to declare a competitiveness exemption. The question arises, should this be allowed? I think the question could best be answered by the access commissioner, and he should be able to respond to it.

However he needs the mandate and this motion would provide him exactly with that.

In a similar situation, officials at CTV recently questioned the validity of CBC bidding on major events. Does the $1 billion taxpayer subsidy permit CBC to outbid private broadcasters for such events? Should CBC's competitors be allowed to utilize access legislation to look at CBC's books?

Some questions about access to information requests as they pertain to crown corporations are easy to respond to. Canadians should have an unfettered right to determine if any government department, agency or crown corporation is wasting taxpayers' money.

Should Canadians be able to decide if the CBC is spending too much of their money on a top heavy bureaucracy? Yes, no question. Should CBC be able to declare an exemption on the basis of competitiveness? Perhaps, but these types of requests can always be resolved by the independent access commissioner.

If this Parliament is to recapture a measure of respect lost by past wrongdoings it must make every effort to provide accountability and transparency in government. This will only occur if we can convince Canadians that we have nothing to hide. Let us start with making our own house open to the people who pay the bills, the Canadian taxpayers.

I call upon all members of this House to support this motion.

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

Mr. Speaker, upon first glance Bill C-58 appears to be a rather innocuous bill. It is only two pages long with four amendments. It seems to be just a housecleaning measure.

The changes in this bill put into statute what has been in practice for years. Police officers within the RCMP have never viewed themselves as members of the public service within the meaning of the Public Service Staff Relations Act. They have a separate superannuation plan. They have a separate means of employee representation. They have a different body to review grievances and they have always considered themselves to be outside the regular public service.

Now we have a bill before us that puts this into statute. It is no big deal. It is really just confirming what is already a reality in one sense perhaps. However, one must look at what prompted the introduction of this bill.

It is not stated anywhere in the bill but acknowledged by the speaker before me, the hon. secretary of state. The motivation of this bill is a Federal Court appeal decision from March 10, 1994. In rendering its decision in Gingras v. the Queen in the right of Canada, the court concluded that the RCMP was included in the definition of the Public Service Staff Relations Act.

As such, it was required to pay the bilingual bonus that has been paid to the public service for years but had not been paid within the RCMP. Not only did the RCMP suddenly find itself having to pay the bilingual bonus, it was also required to pay a significant accumulation of bilingual back pay. This amount will run into millions of dollars.

Last year the RCMP spent $5.1 million on official languages, not including these retroactive bilingual bonus commitments.

Under the Gingras decision, the force will be required to pay all members who occupy positions that were designated as bilingual. In recent years the RCMP has not designated specific positions as being bilingual. Instead it has utilized the unit bilingual complement system.

Ironically, in its main estimates this year the RCMP stated that it was reinstating the bilingual position designation system in all bilingual divisions. These bilingual divisions include headquarters as well as A division, which is the national capital region, C division which is Quebec, J division in New Brunswick and O division in Ontario.

The force stated that it was required to reinstate the bilingual position designation to meet its obligations under the Official Languages Act, particularly as it relates to supervisory positions. The force does not mention how many of its positions are designated as bilingual but if it were to be 10 per cent of the non-civilian positions this would result in an additional expenditure of $1.3 million. If 25 per cent of the positions were to be designated as bilingual that would mean another $3.2 million.

Faced with this unexpected expenditure, the RCMP and government are looking for a way to get out of these payments. They had to look no further than the Gingras decision to find a way to get out of these payments.

It turned out that Mr. Gingras was a member of the RCMP security service in 1984. When that organization became the Canadian Security Intelligence Service he was transferred to CSIS. When it was created, CSIS was designated a separate employer. This means that CSIS employees do not have the Treasury Board as their employer and that the bilingualism bonus plan does not automatically apply to them. On August 7, 1984 Mr. Gingras' counsel asked the director of CSIS, Ted Finn, to recognize that Mr. Gingras was entitled to the bilingual bonus.

In a response dated March 5, 1985 Mr. Finn replied that he had decided to provide the bilingual bonus to employees in the administrative support category only and excluded the professional level position, including the one occupied by Mr. Gingras.

Mr. Finn justified his position by stating that Mr. Gingras did not qualify for the bilingual bonus in his previous position in the RCMP and he would not change that now that he was in CSIS.

In the Federal Court of Appeal ruling the justices found that the RCMP should have been paying the bonus all along. The court ruled that RCMP members were indeed public servants and that the RCMP was represented by the Treasury Board and thus the force was compelled to pay the bilingual bonus.

The RCMP was required to pay Mr. Gingras the bilingual bonus from November 28, 1980 when he first raised the issue until he transferred to CSIS on July 16, 1984. CSIS was required to pay Mr. Gingras the bilingual bonus from July 16, 1984 until March 5, 1985. Why March 5, 1985? Because that is the date that the director of CSIS decided that the bilingual bonus plan would only apply to CSIS employees in the administrative support category.

The court ruled that as a separate employer CSIS had the legal right not to pay the bilingual bonus. Once the director decreed that the service would not pay it to professional categories they legally could avoid paying it.

The court ruled that there were two required elements to avoid paying the bonus. First, the government agency must be a separate employer. Second, the agency must decide not to pay the bonus. Thus CSIS qualified on both points not to pay the bonus but the RCMP did not. Yet the RCMP decided that it would not pay the bonus.

Back in 1977 then Commissioner Bob Simmonds decreed that the bonus did not apply to the RCMP. While this comment was subsequently deemed to be an error in law, his reasoning for not seeking authority to pay the bonus was sound.

Commissioner Simmonds decided that the RCMP should not pay the bilingualism bonus on two grounds. First, other police forces in Canada did not pay bilingualism bonuses even in bilingual cities or provinces, and since the RCMP determined its benefit package in relation to the police universe it was not prepared to be the only police force to pay such bonuses.

Second, the commissioner went on to state that the payment of such a bonus would become a divisive element as it would create situations in which members of equal rank and responsibility working side by side could receive differing remuneration because one or several of them had either the good fortune to grow up in a milieu favourable to learning a second official language or have the equally good fortune to learn it at public expense.

This was sound logic in 1977 and it is still sound logic today. Why should the RCMP spend taxpayers' money to train some of its members in Canada's other official language and then turn around and financially reward them for having a second language? Then again, why should any government department spend taxpayers' money to train some of its employees in Canada's other official language and then reward them with $800 a year bonus?

The RCMP main estimates show that there are other rewards for being bilingual. As I mentioned earlier the RCMP stated that it is reinstating the bilingual position designation in all bilingual regions in order to meet its obligations under the Official Languages Act, particularly as it relates to supervisory positions. Since bilingualism is a required element to obtain a promotion to a supervisory position in a bilingual region then maybe that is sufficient reward for bilingualism.

Whatever the reason, the RCMP and the government have decided that they should not be paying the bilingualism bonus plan to its police officers. That is why today we are debating Bill C-58. The bill will give the RCMP the second requirement to avoid paying the bonus. By removing the RCMP from the Public Service Staff Relations Act the force will therefore be a separate employer. All it will have to do is have Commissioner Murray announce that it will not be paying the bonus and it will be legally exempt from doing so.

Well, almost. The force has decided not to remove its civilian employees from the Public Service Staff Relations Act. For whatever reason, the RCMP has decided that civilian employees, appointed or employed in accordance with section 10 of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, will still be covered by the PSSRA. There may be other reasons for treating them separately from the police officers within the RCMP, but it is clear the force will have to continue paying the bilingual bonus to these employees.

Current management seems to have forgotten the words of former Commissioner Simmonds who stated that payment of such a bonus would have a divisive effect on employees. Some may argue that the bonus is justified for civilian members because they are generally lower paid support staff. In the RCMP the 1,919 civilian employees of the force had an average salary of $46,178 per year. While Commissioner Simmonds' comment may have been made in reference to police officers within the force, the same divisive effect could occur among civilian employees.

Why should a civilian employee of the RCMP in a position that is designated as bilingual receive $800 more than an employee who is doing exactly the same job in a position that is not designated as bilingual? Why should we limit this to just bilingualism in the RCMP?

Consider the following comment: "This year approximately $50 million was once again spent without any assurance that the payment of such a sum was necessary to ensure Canadians of the availability of quality service in the official language of their choice. Given the present economic circumstances we are more than ever convinced that the bilingualism bonus should be eliminated gradually by negotiating with the parties concerned. In the interests of public finances as much as that of the official languages program, it is high time for the government to take the problem in hand".

If those words sound familiar, they are. They were spoken by the Commissioner of Official Languages in March of this year when he presented his annual report for 1993. While I take some exception with the commissioner's comments about eliminating the plan gradually, I fully agree with his recommendation that the government should turn its attention to this problem without delay.

The government should not have to resort to such sleight of hand legislation as Bill C-58. The RCMP should not be paying out millions of dollars in bilingual bonuses to regular members and special constables. Nor should the RCMP be paying the bilingual bonus to its civilian employees. Nor should any government department, agency or crown corporation be paying any of its employees the bonus. The government must come to terms with reality. That bonus must be dropped. When even the Commissioner of Official Languages is calling for its elimination it is time to drop the payments.

Bill C-58 seems like an innocuous bill. I am sure it was intended to be. The government certainly does not want to be seen as attacking any portion of the official languages program, but it intends to use the bill to circumvent it.

The time has come for the government to be straight with the Canadian public. It is time to scrap the entire bilingual bonus plan. We will support the bill because it takes a step toward eliminating the bonus, even if it has to take ten steps sideways to take one step forward.

[Communications Security Establishment, November 15th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to speak to the motion put forth by the hon. member for Scarborough-Rouge River.

The question today is not whether this House should support this motion but rather why has it taken so long to be considered. More than 10 years ago Parliament passed legislation ensuring that the activities of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service were reviewed by an independent body.

Nobody on the government side of this House would suggest that CSIS should not have an oversight body. Yet a few weeks ago ministers tried to convince this House and all Canadians that the Communications Security Establishment did not require a review body. In response to a number of questions put to her by the official opposition, the Deputy Prime Minister used the following response over and over again: "The CSE has no mandate to spy on Canadians".

This response is interesting for a couple of reasons. First, the Deputy Prime Minister was not asked about the mandate of the CSE. She was asked if it ever spied on Canadians. She refused to answer that question, opting instead to refer to the mandate of the CSE. Let us look at the mandate of the CSE. Actually, I would love to look at the mandate of the CSE but I cannot. It does not appear to have one, certainly not by statute.

In September 1990 the special committee on the review of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act and the Security Offences Act tabled its report entitled "In Flux, But Not in Crisis". On page 153 of this report there is the following passage on the CSE:

This organization clearly has the capacity to invade the privacy of Canadians in a variety of ways. It was established by order in council, not by statute, and to all intents and purposes is unaccountable. While the committee understands that this agency must be shrouded in secrecy to some degree, it believes that Canadians should be in a position to understand what the organization does and should not have to wonder whether their rights and freedoms have been infringed. The committee has evidence that both the RCMP and the service have asked the CSE for assistance and as such, the committee believes that the Communications Security Establishment should have a statutory mandate that provides for review and oversight mechanisms for the agency.

Here we have an all party committee of the last Parliament calling for an oversight and review of the CSE. It is not surprising that one of the members of that special committee was the hon. member for Scarborough-Rouge River. He recognized then that there was a need for accountability and he continues to call for that accountability. Unfortunately his call has not been heard by members of his own party who sit in cabinet.

The Minister of National Defence believes there is already sufficient review of the CSE.

In response to a question from the official opposition on October 24 the minister made the following comments: "With respect to the CSE in particular, it is a fully constituted part of the Department of National Defence. The Communications Security Establishment reports to the Minister of National Defence who is a member of cabinet and who answers to this House of Commons".

The minister believes he has firm control of the CSE and that his being held accountable in the House is sufficient. Perhaps the minister should review the contents of the government's response to the special committee report "In Flux" entitled: "On Course: National Security for the 1990s". On pages 54 and 55 of this report the following statement is made: "CSE is under the control and supervision of the Department of National Defence". This is totally consistent with the comments of the current Minister of National Defence. "The chief of CSE is accountable to the deputy minister of national defence for financial and administrative matters and to the deputy clerk, security intelligence, and counsel, in the Privy Council Office for policy and operational matters".

Does this sound like a fully constituted part of the Department of National Defence like the minister suggests? He only has control of CSE's finances and administration. He does not have control of CSE's policies or operations. How can he be accountable?

Actually there is another interesting comment in "On Course". The previous government stated that it had been considering providing the Minister of National Defence with some additional capacities for review of the CSE. This statement would suggest that even the minister did not have complete authority to review the operations of the CSE. If the CSE does not have to answer to the minister, who is it accountable to?

That is why we are addressing this motion today. In this day and age Canadians will not accept comments from a minister that everything is okay, trust me. There has to be some form of external review.

It is well known that I am not a big supporter of the Security Intelligence Review Committee. I feel like my official opposition members that there are some real problems with the appointment to SIRC but I do feel it is a logical body and is in place to perform this review.

Canadians recently got their first significant look at the CSE with the release of the book Spyworld . It was written by a former employee of the CSE and provides Canadians with a glimpse of one portion of that organization.

When it was released Spyworld created a minor sensation with some of its accusations that the CSE had been used to spy on Margaret Trudeau, on some of Margaret Thatcher's cabinet ministers and on René Lévesque.

These incidents are peripheral events in the book. Barely any script is used to describe those incidents. However, they did emphasize the need for external review for the CSE.

It did not appear that anybody was up in arms with the main thrust of the book which was that Canada intercepts communications for intelligence purposes. It was only a few questionable incidents that caused the furore. While electronic eavesdropping may be offensive to some, it is a fact of life in today's electronic information highway.

Is our government outraged at the prospect of other countries intercepting our government communications?-no. Instead it has taken measures to combat it. Offices are electronically swept and phones are encrypted. It is part of today's reality. Similarly, no one is overly concerned that Canada may be doing the same thing to others.

As "In Flux" states, this organization clearly has the capacity to invade the privacy of Canadians in a variety of ways. This is confirmed in the book Spyworld when the author states that when CSE employees were testing or tuning their equipment they routinely listened to the conversations of Canadians. It is that capacity that has to be monitored to ensure that it is not abused.

The best way to ensure that there are no abuses is to open the operations of the CSE to external review. I therefore call upon all members of this House to support this motion put forth by the hon. member from Scarborough-Rouge River.

[Petitions, November 4th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, in the third petition the petitioners are praying that Parliament ensure that the present provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada prohibiting assisted suicide be enforced vigorously and that Parliament make no changes in law that would sanction or allow the aiding or abetting of suicide or active or passive euthanasia.

[Petitions, November 4th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, in the second petition the petitioners are praying that Parliament will act immediately to extend protection to the unborn child by amending the Criminal Code to

extend the same protection enjoyed by born human beings to the unborn human being.

[Petitions, November 4th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to present three petitions to the House today.

In the first one the petitioners are praying and requesting that Parliament not amend the human rights code, the Canadian Human Rights Act or the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in any way which would tend to indicate societal approval of same sex relationships or of homosexuality, including amending the human rights code to include in the prohibited grounds of discrimination the undefined phrase sexual orientation.

[Justice, November 3rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, this House is great at reports and in studies and I think what the Canadian people are asking for is action.

The Liberal red book states that as a government it will introduce measures to protect women and children. Yet in the majority of the above noted cases the victims are females. Over half the cases of manslaughter, over half the convictions for manslaughter have resulted in sentences of less than five years.

Will the minister advise the House when this government will live up to its red book commitment to protect the women of this country?

[Justice, November 3rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the recent Supreme Court decision confirming the defence of extreme drunkenness was only a milestone in developing trends of defensive intoxication.

This year in British Columbia there has been a 50 per cent increase in the number of murder trials that resulted in convictions on lesser charges. The majority of these cases are due to the defence of intoxication.

Why is this government prepared to wait while the intoxication defence is allowing criminals to literally get away with murder?

[Petitions, November 2nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, in the second petition, the petitioners pray and request that Parliament not amend the human rights code, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in any way which would tend to indicate societal approval of same sex relationships or homosexuality, including amending the human rights code to include in the prohibited grounds of discrimination the undefined phrase sexual orientation.

It is my pleasure to present these to the House.

[Petitions, November 2nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to present two petitions to the House today.

In the first, petitioners pray and request that Parliament ensure that the present provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada prohibiting assisted suicide be enforced vigorously and that Parliament make no changes in law which would sanction or allow the aiding or abetting of suicide or active or passive euthanasia.