Yves Rocheleau

[Supply, September 30th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. I think that, in the case of recreational boaters, this is indeed a disguised tax. It is ill-advised to implement such a measure. In the case of Quebec, it might make sense if, at least, it only applied to those waters, including the St. Lawrence River, where the Coast Guard is present.

However, supposedly for reasons of public safety, this applies to areas where the Coast Guard never set foot and does not provide any service. There is something which I did not mention earlier, but which I find very annoying. I am referring to the purported benefits mentioned by the Coast Guard to justify the registration of boats and the implementation of user fees. As regards these benefits, the Coast Guard issued the following press release on April 30, 1996:

Benefits: The establishment of a computerized system to store up-to-date information on boats allowing the organizations responsible for search and rescue operations and for implementing the act, to have quick access to reliable data, 24 hours a day. This system would greatly increase their effectiveness during investigations relating to theft and other offences, and to search and rescue operations. All those who use Quebec waters would benefit from this improvement.

I am certainly in favour of law and order, but I see imminent dangers in letting everyone, including Fisheries and Oceans and the Coast Guard, monitor the public. Every Tom, Dick and Harry is giving himself a mandate to oversee the public and, if we let it happen, there is a risk that we will find ourselves in a quasi-police state, where any stakeholder with any kind of power can, given the current sophisticated technology, find out a great deal about his neighbour's private life.

It will be possible, thanks to the rowboats and pedal boats, to follow the comings and goings of citizens around the clock. The intention may be good but, as we know, there are a lot of people who can manipulate this sort of information. Some people know how to make lists. Therefore, a debate should be held regarding this issue. As a parliamentarian, I am increasingly annoyed by this type of behaviour.

This is a tax, hypocritically disguised. We are witnessing, as with gun control, a tighter control over the public. There should at least be a real public debate to find out what kind of society we want to live in, given the existing dangers. As we know, studies show that some dangers exist because of sophisticated means involved in this issue.

[Supply, September 30th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to commend my colleague from North Island-Powell River for putting forward today's opposition motion on behalf of the Reform Party.

We will use the time allocated to the official opposition to show how, at the eastern end, on the Quebec side, the federal government's malfeasance and attitudes have also impeded progress, especially in Quebec.

For the benefit of the people listening to us, I will read this motion:

That this House support British Columbia as Canada's gateway to the Asia Pacific and recognize British Columbia as a major economic power in the region, and as a consequence, this House condemn the federal government for impeding progress in Western Canada by its management of the affairs of the nation, exemplified by the government's mishandling of the west coast fishery, Coast Guard services, the closure of military bases at Aldergrove and Chilliwack, B.C., the elimination of federal Ports Canada policing in B.C., the movement of grain to Prince Rupert, B.C. and other issues detrimental to the state of the nation.

You will agree with me that, in several instances, if the word "Quebec" were substituted for the words "Western Canada" or "nation", one could come to practically the same conclusions as

the hon. member for North Island-Powell River. I will address the part of his motion dealing with the Coast Guard, which could lead to other federal issues that have hurt Quebec and its economy for some 30 years.

I am very happy to participate in this debate on the Coast Guard, among other things, as an associate member of the fisheries and oceans committee, as the member for Trois-Rivières, which is a port city, a maritime city, and also as the official opposition's critic on regional development.

The Coast Guard has launched a full-scale attack against what could be called Quebec's overall economy. It is leading a frontal attack against St. Lawrence Seaway, its ports and those who use them and it is also carrying out an assault that is more deceitful, hypocritical and irresponsible in economic terms against ordinary citizens, ordinary Quebec consumers unlucky enough-as we will see in a moment-to own a pedal-boat, a kayak or a rowboat and to use it on one of Quebec's lakes or little rivers in their free time.

We will start our review of these two issues by looking at the Coast Guard's plan to charge users of the St. Lawrence River and the St. Lawrence Seaway. A decision was made a few months ago, at the beginning of the year, to charge users of the St. Lawrence in three ways: first, for the use of navigational aids such as beacons, buoys and telecommunications, most of which are managed by the Canadian Coast Guard; second, as early as this fall, for ice removal, for the use of icebreakers and: third, for the dredging of the ports on the St. Lawrence and the channels leading from each port to the St. Lawrence.

The project was the subject of what is termed consultation at the Coast Guard. The IBI report, according to all those who appeared before the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, involved bogus consultation; it is not even worth the paper it is written on, for all its irresponsibility and biased questions responses.

That was the position at Fisheries and Oceans and at the Coast Guard, but following strong representations made by the official opposition, the minister finally had to admit that the fisheries and oceans committee should be consulted and users invited to at least express their views publicly, which was done.

About fifty users from across Canada came to testify, 75 per cent of whom requested a moratorium, in part because, the IBI study did not include an impact assessment to determine how a decision to impose a tariff would affect the users. In many cases, the shipowners using the St. Lawrence River are foreign shipowners, and they will now be charged for the use of the river, which will seriously jeopardize the competitiveness of ports along the St. Lawrence.

There has been no impact study, although the industry concerned, the stakeholders were prepared to participate in a joint government-user study. Instead, the government took a unilateral, arbitrary approach, deciding to impose, as a first step, new tariffs for navigational aids.

Governments, and not the least significant ones, namely the governments of Ontario and Quebec, reacted very strongly against this. But as far as I know, while the Quebec Minister of Transport, Mr. Brassard, who is responsible for this issue, has repeatedly asked to meet the federal minister responsible. No meeting has taken place. This goes to show the arbitrary way this government goes about things and the true extent of its willingness to co-operate.

Another decision was made later on. Contrary to the decision made at the time when a uniform tariff was being considered, that is to say a single tariff applied throughout Canada, from coast to coast, the government gave in to lobby groups from across the country and decided to divided the country in three regions.

There is a specific objective: user fees. The Coast Guard has a mandate to come up with X millions of dollars as its contribution in the fight to bring down the Canadian government's deficit. Nobody has come right out and said so-it is the Coast Guard's share.

With all of Canada facing a real problem, they decided to carve up this vast, wonderful, united country into three large regions: the West; central Canada, meaning the St. Lawrence River and the Great Lakes; and the East, that is the Maritimes, with the Port of Halifax obviously being the focal point. They have carved Canada up into three large regions with three kinds of user fees.

There is one fee for the West, one for central Canada, and one for the East. As if by chance, the central region, including Quebec and Ontario, the St. Lawrence Seaway and the Great Lakes, is being asked to contribute the most. Forty-eight per cent of the revenues from these fees will come from the central region, 30 per cent from the East and 22 per cent from the West.

The concept of user fees being proposed, furthermore, is truly astonishing. Not only were there no real consultations, but it has been decided that people travelling on the St. Lawrence use the services of the Coast Guard.

In not one case has it ever been shown that any services are actually provided, but the Coast Guard has decided to charge fees anyway.

The result is that, for North Shore ports, such as Baie-Comeau, Sept-Îles and Port-Cartier, a single buoy, an aid to navigation, will cost users $5 million. This is a small example of what happens when the powers that be fail to consult the client where the concept of user fees is involved.

The overall result is that, without any impact study, it seems that, according to users, there is a serious danger, given the very fierce competition that exists, that the competitiveness of ports on the St. Lawrence, and even in the Great Lakes, but especially ports on the St. Lawrence, will be jeopardized by the additional costs resulting from these new rates, which will put St. Lawrence ports at a disadvantage compared to ports in eastern Canada, particularly Halifax, ports on the American eastern seaboard, and even ports on the Mississippi.

There is talk in certain sectors, and not the least important ones, and this view is supported up by SODES, the Société de développement économique du Saint-Laurent, that the existing fees could double with the introduction of this new scheme.

Do you know what SODES is? It is not some little backwater special interest group. It has 110 members. They come from practically everywhere in Canada, although mostly from Quebec, given the name. Its members include: the Association de l'industrie de l'aluminium du Québec-all the aluminum smelters in Quebec belong to SODES-the Association des armateurs du Saint-Laurent, the Association des industries forestières du Québec, all the pulp and paper industries, and the Business Development Bank of Canada. The federal government belongs to SODES, and SODES feels that there is a likelihood of the fees doubling. Canada Steamship Lines is a member-and I hardly need draw you a picture to show that its federal connections are not very distant ones. St. Lawrence Cement, the entire Quebec City Urban Community is a member, as is the Quebec-Cartier Mining Company, Trois-Rivières grain elevators, in my riding, le Groupe Desgagnés, le Groupe Océan. Industry Canada is also a member of SODES.

SODES is, therefore, very concerned about the effects which are, to use its members' own words, potentially devastating for the economy of Quebec, the cities and ports along the St. Lawrence. Industry Canada is a stakeholder in the SODES evaluation. The Quebec Maritime Institute, Lavery & de Billy-a major law firm-, Logistec Corporation, MIL Davie, Oceanex. Fisheries and Oceans Canada is also a member of SODES. The consistency of this government is quite evident.

Irving Oil too is a member. No less than Irving, of the fine province of New Brunswick, whose owner, let me remind you,-there must certainly be an element of family trust in this story-threatened to cut his children out of the will if they did not move out of Canada to avoid paying tax, to avoid his estate's ending up in Canada's tax coffers. Irving Oil is a member of SODES, in brackets, and is also threatened by the federal plans. The central St. Lawrence pilots, the port of Montreal, the port of Sept-Iles, the port of Trois-Rivières, the port of the Saguenay, to name just a few. The Shipping Federation of Canada, the Société du parc industriel et portuaire de Bécancour, Transport Canada-also a member-, Ultramar, the City of Montreal, Quebec City. I could go on and on; there are 110 in all.

So this is just the first step. We are talking about navigational aids only, because more information is available on this particular subject. It will be necessary to recover $20 million in 1996, out of projected $180 million to be recovered between now and the year 2000: $20 million this year, $40 million in each of the two following years, and then $60 million annually, the other items being deicing, the use of icebreakers and dredging of harbours.

Another source of irritation to users is the fact that, contrary to what was called for, there was no cost cutting by the Coast Guard itself, which might have reduced fees to users.

According to our information, the Coast Guard has never embarked on an exercise to streamline its operations, which would have made its case more convincing. We must realize that putting the burden on the shoulders of users weakens the competitive position of St. Lawrence ports and makes it less attractive for shippers to do business with us. The cost-cutting exercise never took place. As I pointed out earlier, there was no explanation of the actual services the Coast Guard offers its users on a day to day basis.

One of the points that, in my opinion, illustrates the disastrous consequences of lack of co-operation between Fisheries and Oceans and users concerns the way fees are charged, which is a very important aspect. A decision is made to charge fees, but how will this be done? Apparently there were two methods known to those in the industry. The first one is based on the size of the ship. I will give you a fictional tonnage: a ship that has a tonnage of 30,000 always has a tonnage of 30,000, wherever it may be.

The other method is according to the tonnage of cargo unloaded, which makes all the difference and is a sore point between ports of destination and ports of call. In this case, we have a major port of destination, the port of Montreal, and a major port of call, the port of Halifax. If we take the method based on the size of the ship, all ports are equal, but if the fee is based on tonnage unloaded, this works out to the advantage of the port where the unloading takes place.

So of course the port of Halifax has an advantage if the fee was based on the tonnage of cargo unloaded. So what was the Coast Guard's decision? It decided that fees would be based on the unloaded cargo tonnage, thus obviously favouring the port of Halifax at the expense of Montreal. Another good decision designed to favour Quebec's economy, right?

An additional consequence is that, again according to calculations made by SODES, which I mentioned earlier, these costs could reach one dollar per ton. There was so little consultation-and

SODES is a responsible organization, as we saw earlier-that, according to the Coast Guard, these additional costs could result in an increase of ten cents per ton.

There is therefore, as we can see, a huge gap between the estimates of two organizations that are supposed to be responsible, competent and capable of issuing an opinion. Someone may be wrong, but this discrepancy definitely shows that there was no co-operation.

A direct consequence of this is that, should things remain the same, the north shore region, including Baie-Comeau, Sept-Îles, Port-Cartier and other ports, not using icebreakers since there is not enough ice build up in that area, will be charged a fee for the use of icebreakers, even though there is no need. This will be the case because it was decided that, in such and such regions, under such and such conditions, it will cost so much money for the use of icebreakers. People are very concerned because, again, this situation will adversely affect these ports, in terms of their ability to compete with other ports.

What the Coast Guard did last spring shows that it did not know where it was going. For example, over two weeks, from the end of February to the middle of March, its overall fee schedule rose from $3.40 to $4.48, an increase of $1.08 or 33 per cent per gross ton. This is very important as it, in my opinion, contributes to this whole exercise's lack of credibility with users, because every time the Coast Guard is pressured by a lobby group into changing its fee schedules or procedures, it just so happens that the changes are made at the expense of Quebec's management and infrastructure. A $1.08 increase over two weeks is quite impressive when we are talking about three or four dollars.

Another practical consequence is that, according to what we have learned, a 25,000-ton ship will have to pay $112,000 a year just for navigational aids. Users will eventually also have to pay for ice breaking and dredging operations. Do you not think that this represents a serious threat to us all, at least in Quebec? Since all this is being managed from Ottawa, since Quebec has no say in these decisions, Quebec's overall economy may be seriously compromised by such actions if we fail to mobilize more against them.

Since I have only two minutes left, much to my surprise, I will quickly move on to the other decision made by the Coast Guard, which is a beauty. I am talking about recreational boaters.

The government has in the works an elaborate mandatory registration process for small craft: canoes, kayaks, rowboats and pedal boats. The fee will vary from $5 to $35 per craft and covers training courses and a penalty system. Again, the consultation was bogus-that is what we were told-strangely similar to the consultation process involving the users of the St. Lawrence River.

The great excuse given for meddling in this area is public safety. But how will paying a $25 fee before they set foot in their boats make recreational boaters more safety conscious? I think this is a relevant question. How will this make pleasure boaters more safety conscious, especially since this is based on the principle of user fees?

Fisheries and Oceans is responsible for lakes. It is pretty outrageous, in fact, for Fisheries and Oceans to look after the lakes and small rivers in Quebec, while the Coast Guard has jurisdiction over the St. Lawrence River, the Richelieu River, the Ottawa River and the Saguenay River. Those who vacation in Quebec, who spend money in Quebec and Canada, who take a rowboat or a pedal boat along any small river or lake in Canada are being obliged to pay up. They are being charged a fee while the owners of sumptuous boats are not being bothered. They have to register their boats, but can do so for free. Yet, they are the ones really who make the most use of the buoys, communications facilities and locks.

Do you know how much it apparently costs to move a 30-footer through a lock? The rate is 50 cents per foot. This means a mere $15 to get a lock opened. But they want to tax the individual who enjoys a ride on a pedal boat along the shore of a small lake. That is what it is, a tax, a disguised tax, which-and I say this as the critic for regional development-penalizes Quebecers and Canadians who vacation in Quebec and Canada. Perhaps some thought should be give to that, to how this affects those who spend at home instead of abroad. They are being penalized by this anti-regional development measure, among other things.

I could go on about this, but my time has expired.

[Supply, September 26th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, on the subject of experts, I would like to reassure my hon. colleague from Etobicoke North by telling him that, if ever the government stops covering things up, as it just managed to do in the finance committee and is trying to do in the public accounts committee, if the government will take its responsibility and accept to shed light on the matter, you will see that experts can be found, perhaps mainly in Quebec but also in Canada, whose hands are not tied. They are not legion,

but they are distinguished. The Bloc had identified a few; we found some and I am told that they will testify.

But we must realize, and I have on good authority, that the auditor general is having huge problems with high finance officials, high finance advisors, because these people are not at all pleased with the auditor general passing this kind of judgment on their work, which goes against public opinion.

Perhaps my hon. colleague from Etobicoke North should bear in mind that the auditor general is having a very hard time because free-thinking advisors are hard to find. They are all related parties because this is their livelihood.

As for the Quebec fact, I hope that my hon. colleague simply misheard. When we talk about the Canadian tax system, about the flight of $2 billion from Canada, about $400 or $500 million in uncollected taxes, I do not think that we are talking only for Quebec. I think that we are doing our job as the Canadian official opposition, representing the interests of small taxpayers and middle-class taxpayers, who are being bled dry and are paying for those who should be paying more.

[Supply, September 26th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this very important debate.

As the hon. member for Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead just pointed out, the Bloc Quebecois has long been concerned with this issue. Our founding president, Lucien Bouchard, now the premier of Quebec, had made it one of his primary concerns, as has our finance critic-this is part of Canadian Parliamentary tradition. Given the rule of secrecy and the lack of transparency, the Bloc Quebecois lacked a source. Therefore, we must congratulate and thank the auditor general for having had the courage to tell parliamentarians and Canadians about this scandal, back in May.

We are not among those who seek to discredit, to condemn and to attack institutions because we are not pleased with them, as did former Liberal Prime Minister Trudeau-the Liberal party has a long tradition in this regard-when he lambasted the auditor general of the time for questioning the transaction whereby Petrofina was to become Petro-Canada.

The auditor general had to go to the Supreme Court to find out what his real powers were, given Mr. Trudeau's arrogant and contemptuous attitude. The chairman of the finance committee, who used strong arm tactics with the auditor general as an institution and as an individual, also displayed a similar attitude.

We will not get into this; we leave it to others in this House. We feel that, by raising the issue of transfer, otherwise known as tax evasion and the flight of capital, the auditor general should be highly commended for bringing the public debate back on the issue of family trusts. This is the point I want to focus on.

Family trusts promote a concentration of wealth in the hands of some very rich Canadian families. Given the solid arguments made against family trusts by ordinary people, it is time we led the debate and the fight against secret investments. After all, our tax system is supposedly based on a fundamental rule of fairness, whereby everyone must pay his due to the taxman. Since the month of May, this has given us an opportunity to learn a bit, not much mind you, but a bit about family trusts and their very existence.

We learned from the public accounts committee and the finance committee that, according to the revenue minister, and contrary to what a deputy minister seems to have said in committee, family trusts exist for those who want to be sure they can pay for a retirement in some southern clime.

The finance minister sees them as a way of protecting his children. Very original. As for the deputy minister, he said a number of months ago that he did not understand the Bloc Quebecois' obsession with family trusts, because they exist to protect families with handicapped children.

We therefore learned, since the revelations of the auditor general who asked the deputy minister of revenue how many family trusts there were in Canada, that there were 100,000. A few weeks later, at a meeting of the finance committee, this 100,000 became 140,000. When we know that two of them represent one billion each and that their transfer to the United States has apparently deprived the tax man of $400 to $600 million, we are not talking peanuts. These are large amounts of money.

On the topic of family trusts of one billion dollars each, we asked a deputy minister how many there were of $500 million and up. He replied that he could not say, that he did not have that kind of information. It is a scandal. It is a scandal because, according to the spirit of the Income Tax Act, there is a fundamental rule, which is perhaps tacit, that everyone must contribute according to their means.

When they come up with strategies like these, with the backing of the financial advisers whom we know, who advise wealthy families in order to help them move their money out of Canada and Quebec and to protect them even when they keep it inside the country, that is what is going on right now, it is in order to help people who have the means not to contribute their share. And everyone else must therefore contribute that much more.

In the times we live in, as my colleague was saying earlier, with public finances in the state they are in, the most rudimentary sense of morality would require that everyone contribute according to their means and that, in so far as possible, this type of strategy be prohibited.

We know about the cuts now being made throughout Canada in the fields of health, education, social assistance, unemployment insurance, culture, and public housing. We know about the cuts being made to community groups that provide assistance to the most disadvantaged. We know about the alarming increase in the number of food banks across Canada. We know about the increase in unemployment. We are aware of the whole ideological trend to dismantling the state, to limiting the role of government, one of whose main roles is precisely to better distribute the wealth, but this is contradicted by the discourse, attitude and language of the chairman of the Standing Committee on Finance, who criticizes one of the taxation ombudsmen who exists in our system, which works reasonably well when the rules are followed, furthermore, which makes Canada a developed country, a great democracy. When you make the claims that are made here, in this country, you must be consistent all the way.

In these times when money is lacking-for what Canada has is not a problem of spending but a problem of revenue-that problem is highlighted in a most extraordinary way by the question raised by the family trusts and the way they are reducing tax revenues. It is therefore necessary to have a precise idea of family trusts, to

know exactly how many have been set up following their creation under the Trudeau government in 1972. The figures will have to be broken down into categories, because not all family trusts may be billion dollar ones. We would have to know how many involved $100,000 or more, how many between $100,000 and $250,000, how many between $250,000 and $500,000, and so on. How many between $1 million and $5 million, how many between $5 million and $100 million, how many $500 million and up, as well as details on all the billion dollar ones. We would have to have precise information on their impact on the Canadian tax system and on each of the provinces of origin. It seems likely, for instance, that there would be some such family trusts in the Maritimes, New Brunswick, in particular. Without naming names, one might well think that the government of New Brunswick may have been deprived of some very considerable tax revenue by this sort of subterfuge.

Ontario and Quebec, which have prominent families, also come to mind. We are entitled at least to exact figures on the effort required of other taxpayers, who have no choice about, for they cannot afford to hire the top tax guns, those same people invited by the chairman of the finance committee, who, despite all of their unarguable qualifications, are clearly in conflict of interest.

We must know exactly what the situation is. We must know, for each province, what the impact is of a measure that was introduced by Pierre Eliott Trudeau, the man of the just society. We see the dishonesty of these people who are prepared to sign documents, as they did, to protect and reinforce the government's position.

I am nearing the end of my speech. Instead of trying to confuse the issue, the government must examine not only the Revenue Canada ruling of December 23, 1991, but the whole issue of the existence of family trusts and their impact on the tax system, and this in order to really protect the credibility and integrity of our tax system, which, as I said earlier, was a big issue with one of the experts. As a member of Parliament I attended this incredible evening, this masquerade, when one of the Bay Street experts told the chairman that he was shocked by the attitude and behaviour of the auditor general, who should never have revealed to the public and the Canadian people that such practices existed because it would undermine the integrity of our Canadian tax system.

This means that they go along with it. There are mechanisms to ensure that those who can pay their taxes, who should pay their taxes, who have the means to pay taxes-We know that in Canada today, there are people who do not have sufficient income to pay their taxes. Those who do, those who are lucky and those who have worked for their money, but must realize that others are not that lucky and that we live in a civilized society. Wealth must be spread around, and this has to happen through the government, because we live in a society, and the government apparatus is a symbol of the well-organized, civilized and developed society we have. It means we have elections, elected representatives and mechanisms to redistribute wealth. We must protect those institutions, but the government's present attitude is very disturbing. We should not be

surprised when citizens become increasingly cynical and critical of institutions like ours, when these institutions no longer appear to be doing their job.

[Supply, September 26th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, our Liberal colleague, the chairman of the Standing Committee on Finance, continues to insist that the present government is not

touched by the December 1991 ruling, because the ruling was made under the former government.

If that is true, why is the present government refusing to shed light on everything that preceded this meeting? Why does it approve of the fact that there were no minutes? Are we to understand that this shows better than anything that they could say that Canadian Conservatives and Liberals are as alike as peas in a pod, that they owe their existence to the same slush fund, that they are both in cahoots with financial circles, as was clear one evening when I took part-as I will tell you shortly-in the farce at which leading Canadian lights that advise wealthy families came to tell elected representatives and the public that they should mind their own business, that we were attacking the integrity of the Canadian tax regime?

I would like our honourable colleague, whose arrogance occasionally creeps through, to comment on this.

[Questions On The Order Paper, June 19th, 1996]

Can the Minister of Public Works and the Minister of Human Resources Development indicate the rent and rent-related costs of the Human Resources Development Canada premises in the Bourg-du-Fleuve building on rue des Forges in Trois-Rivières, as compared with the anticipated costs of that department's moving to, arranging, and settling into new premises to be located in the Shawinigan area according to the government's plan?

[Questions On The Order Paper, June 19th, 1996]

Can the Minister of Human Resources Development Canada indicate whether, as part of its restructuring of service points in Quebec, Human Resources Development Canada carried out comparative studies on the advisability of locating the regional Canada Human Resources Centre in Shawinigan or in Trois-Rivières and, if so, what were the findings of those studies?

[Questions On The Order Paper, June 19th, 1996]

Can the Minister of Human Resources Development indicate whether representations or interventions were made by officers, employees or other persons from the Privy Council Office or the Office of the Prime Minister to officers, employees or officials from Human Resources Development Canada, in order to ensure that the regional Canada Human Resources Centre would be located in a municipality in the constituency of Saint-Maurice, rather than Trois-Rivières, and, if so, who were the persons who intervened, and what reasons were given for the move?

[Questions On The Order Paper, June 19th, 1996]

Can the Minister of Human Resources Development indicate what recommendations were made by the committee analysing the restructuring of service points in Quebec, on the advisability of locating the regional Human Resource Centre of Canada in Shawinigan or Trois-Rivières?

[Public Service Staff Relations Act, June 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few comments on the issue of staff relations between RCMP officers and their employer, the government, from a perspective which concerns me somewhat, namely staff relations and public offices which RCMP members can hope to hold.

I am referring, as you know, to the case of the RCMP officer who got involved in a municipal election and was sharply reprimanded by his superiors. Such is the current staff relations policy within the RCMP regarding this issue. Incidentally, such an attitude also prevailed elsewhere, including in the Quebec public service, of which I am a former member. Until 1976-77, any public servant who got elected in Quebec had to resign from his or her position in the public service.

This, of course, was a serious injustice to public servants, who not only had to make the major decision of whether or not to run for office, but to accept the fact that they would have to resign if they did get elected. I am among those who fought at the time to ensure that the employer, that is the Government of Quebec, treated its employees more decently and more fairly and in a less arbitrary and demanding way.

The act as it stood in 1975, 1976 and 1977-which had been as all acts enacted by men and women-was amended by the Parti Quebecois government and nowadays the Quebec public servants who have the honour of being elected in their ridings to the National Assembly of Quebec do not have to resign, since they are entitled to a leave of absence without pay for the whole time they sit as an MNA and when they leave politics they have the choice, depending on the length of their terms, of simply going back to their jobs in the Quebec public service.

That gives you an idea of how far we are from implementing that type of solution with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Government of Canada and their employees. I met the officer who ran in some municipal election and who brought down his employer's wrath upon himself. That man was badly hurt; he was a victim, I think, of a major injustice, of some kind of abuse of authority, of the latitude given to his employer, because there is no rational or justifiable reason for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to be so hard on its employees, to be so demanding.

The right thing would be for these people, as for all other workers, to be able to get a leave of absence without pay and to go back to their jobs after their terms, if it is possible, and I am talking here about members of Parliament. We could even stipulate that Royal Canadian Mounted Police officers cannot be elected to the House of Commons, because they would then be part of one of the entities acting as their employer, since the Government of Canada is the employer of the RCMP. But to go so far as to prevent an RCMP officer from running as mayor or town councillor is, I think, an abuse of authority worthy of condemnation.

It seems that with this bill now before us, the government is maintaining that policy which restrains rights. It is a question of fundamental human rights to recognizethat somwone is entitled to be chosen by his community to represent it. We cannot, for purely-not to say meanly-administrative resaons, deprive someone of a right as fundamental as the right to run in an election.

I am pleased to have the opportunity today to share my personal experience with you. Legislation in Quebec in this regard has changed significantly. If one was a public servant in Quebec, one had to resign after having been elected as a member of the national assembly. This law was passed by men and women.

Today, because the government listened to peoples' demands and representations, the law was changed so that now a leave without pay is granted. Why do we not do the same thing with RCMP officers, maybe with the required differences and subtleties?