René Laurin

[Quebec Economy, October 16th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, according to this morning's Le Devoir , the American computer industry giant, Ameridata, intends to increase its share of the Quebec market, regardless of the outcome of the referendum. The president of Ameridata Canada, Jan Kaminski, stated that the company was in business, and the results of the referendum were of little importance.

The Toronto firm Falconbridge is not worried about the outcome of the referendum either. It has just announced an investment of $500 million in Quebec. Mr. Pugsley, the president of a subsidiary of Falconbridge, summarized the situation by saying that the company had been doing business in Quebec for 50 years, it was a

good place to do business and, as far as the company was concerned, it was business as usual.

Some businesses are responding to the campaign of fear being waged by Mr. Johnson and the no side by deciding to invest.

[Bell Canada, September 29th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, after being forced by the CRTC to abandon its monopoly, Bell Canada is closing several test centres, business offices and telephone offices, while increasingly centralizing its operations. The company is also setting up several specialized subsidiaries to which it subcontracts work, thus changing working conditions for certain categories of employees.

My question is for the Minister of Labour. Does the minister recognize that Bell Canada's relocated workers would lose neither their union nor their vested rights if they were governed by only one labour code, that is the Quebec labour code?

[Bell Canada, September 22nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, after announcing that it would eliminate 10,000 jobs between now and 1997, Bell Canada refuses to use the voluntary departures of 328 telephone operators in Quebec to avoid having to lay off 100 other employees.

Bell Canada justifies its decision by pointing to the stiff competition which it must face since the CRTC forced the company to end its monopoly.

We can understand that Bell Canada must remain a profitable venture; however, it must not do so at the expense of many families and without any consideration for the economic survival of several Quebec and Ontario regions, which are severely affected by the company's decision.

While all of this is going on, the Minister of Labour remains silent. She does not do anything to reduce the negative impact of that situation on the families concerned. The centralizing approach of the federal government is now being copied by large companies and that is unacceptable.

[Government Organization Act (Federal Agencies), June 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-65 received a lot of publicity. The minister responsible for the bill had announced very proudly that it was very important because it would have the effect of eliminating several government agencies that had become useless and cutting back others.

There is no need to exaggerate the importance of this bill financially since we are talking about savings of only $4 million. For the people who are listening to us, it takes only about an hour and a quarter for the Canadian deficit to absorb $4 million.

Through this very important bill on the streamlining of some agencies and the elimination of others, the government will have made it possible to pay for an hour and a quarter of the Canadian deficit. This is not as important as the minister would have had us believe when he made the announcement.

On the other hand, there is something that could have been more important than the amount of money. We agree with trimming the government, and when it comes to savings, even a paltry $4 million, we must seize the opportunity. This is not the reason why we are criticizing the government. If we criticize the government, it is because while saving these $4 million, it could have taken the opportunity to improve the appointment process in these governmental agencies.

In its red book, chapter 6, the Liberal Party promised to restore integrity in our political institutions. One of the recommendations to increase this integrity is to have a thorough review of order in council appointments.

During all the years they were sitting in opposition, the Liberals were always criticizing the political appointments made by the Conservative government and they were promising to review the whole appointment system for people sitting on boards, commissions and agencies.

Unfortunately, in this bill, the government is not proposing anything radical to change this appointment system which allows the government to reward its friends. If the Liberal Party had wanted to keep its promise, it would have added a clause specifying that all appointments should be approved by a parliamentary committee.

The government did not have the courage to do that. It preferred to maintain an unclear partisan appointment system. Its decision to simply reduce the number of board members is only a diversion tactic. The appointment process in itself remains the same.

To prove it, I would like to quote major changes made in this bill. For example, let us take the Petro-Canada Limited Act. Section 64 to be amended by the bill reads as follows:

"There shall be a Board of Directors of the Corporation consisting of the Chairman of the Board, the President of the Corporation and not more than thirteen other persons".

This was the old section. The new clause reads as follows:

"There shall be a Board of Directors of the Corporation consisting of the Chairperson of the Board, the President of the Corporation and one other person."

The only fundamental difference between these two versions is that the number of directors is reduced from 15 to 3. I can see savings related to the attendance fees paid by these corporations to directors.

The second subclause deals with the way directors are appointed to the corporation. Under the old section, the thirteen other directors of Petro-Canada, for example, were appointed by the minister, with the approval of the Governor in Council, to hold office during pleasure for a term not exceeding three years.

The new clause provides that the director still to be appointed, since the chairperson and the president of the corporation are ex officio members, the director who is neither the chairperson of the board nor the president of the corporation shall also be appointed by the minister, with the approval of the Governor in Council, to hold office during pleasure for a term not exceeding three years. Therefore, nothing has changed.

When we look at both texts, we realize that the only thing changed is the number of board members. Nothing at all has been changed in the vague and partisan process of appointing people to these boards. That is why we say that this system must go. Measures have to be taken to put an end to the patronage system.

Let me quote, as an example, a very well-documented article published in the Globe and Mail of February 7, under the headline: «Liberal loyalty being rewarded with jobs, jobs, jobs». The article explained the philosophy of the Liberals on party friends. According to the article, more than 100 persons close to the Liberals were appointed over the first fifteen months of the Chrétien government: former candidates; a nephew of the Prime Minister; a fundraiser for the party; an organizer, and mostly, more than 15 defeated candidates who have all been generously rewarded for services rendered to the Liberal Party, out of the public purse. This is the function of crown corporations.

The recent appointment of Jacques Saada, Liberal candidate defeated in La Prairie, is one of the most obvious examples of patronage. Mr. Saada, who is a friend of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, was hired to implement a communication plan for CIDA.

Since Mr. Saada is a translator by trade, we have a hard time figuring out where he acquired the experience and the expertise required to prepare a communication plan for CIDA. Moreover, his contract amounts to a tidy $99,150 for one year. What a coincidence. It is just under the $100,000 limit over which the government has to call for tenders, in which case Mr. Saada would likely not have won because of his lack of experience and expertise in that area. The name is Saada.

Sometimes we have difficulty understanding when friends are involved. We can easily forget their names, but I am glad to remind the House of it. That explains the importance they wanted to give to the bill. These are the savings to be made. But fundamentally there is nothing changed. Friends of the government will continue to be appointed to the boards of large crown corporations et large para-governmental corporations. They could at least have done things differently.

Many of those large agencies, and this is another feature of this bill, have an impact on the taxation of provinces and many of those agencies and boards in the bill definitely have an impact. Nowhere in the amendments proposed by the government are provinces consulted nor do they take part in the decisions which are taken. This is why we have proposed an amendment, a motion. That is Motion No. 16 that I moved, seconded by my colleague for La Prairie, which reads: "That Bill C-65, in Clause 64, be amended by replacing lines 11 and 12, on page 17, with the following:"

The board members I spoke about earlier should be appointed by the minister to hold office during pleasure, but not in a discretionary way; they should be appointed by the minister following consultation with the government of each province, since these corporations have an influence on the administration of the provinces, and with the approval of the governor in council and, moreover, of the standing committee of the House of Commons that normally considers matters relating to industry.

If we want to practice openness to improve the situation, if we want to fundamentally change what is not working properly, we must be straightforward and honest and deal with the real problems.

I hope this amendment will be supported not only by my colleagues of the opposition, but also by my Liberal friends across the way.

[Government Organization Act (Federal Agencies), June 21st, 1995]

moved:

Motion No. 16

That Bill C-65, in Clause 64, be amended by replacing lines 11 and 12, on page 17, with the following:

"Minister, following consultation with the government of each province and with the approval of the Governor in Council and the standing committee of the House of Commons that normally considers matters relating to industry, to hold office during pleasure for".

[Business Development Bank Of Canada Act, June 21st, 1995]

Madam Speaker, from what I gather, this means that we will not have to vote on the two motions, unless two others, before them, are lost.

[Business Development Bank Of Canada Act, June 21st, 1995]

Madam Speaker, Motions Nos. 2 and 5 are not among the motions which you mentioned earlier. Since these are motions tabled by a Bloc Quebecois member, we expected to vote in support of our two proposed amendments.

[Electoral Boundaries Readjustmentact, 1995, June 20th, 1995]

So did I, Mr. Speaker.

[Firearms Act, June 12th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I wanted to rise and speak on these amendments to Bill C-68, first because we supported the bill at first and second reading. We supported the principle, because we believe virtue is unassailable.

Surveys reveal that 79 per cent of Canadians and Quebecers agree with the adoption of measures making it more difficult to obtain firearms. We see this as a modern measure with an eye to the future. We want to take steps to limit violence, and this is why we approved the bill at first and second reading.

We also want to continue to support this bill. However, some amendments seem reasonable, and the government should permit some changes to the bill. In some cases, the changes sought are even more stringent than what was proposed. We want legislation that is more balanced and fairer for people.

It must be credible. The people governed by it must believe that it will improve things. If people do not believe in it, it becomes like other oppressive legislation, like burdensome taxes, which we already know about. When taxes become burdensome, what do people do? They start smuggling and black marketeering. They find a way to get around the law.

If people see this legislation, which is so important, as exploiting them, if some people, such as hunters, feel they have to pay a hidden tax, they, and there are more of them than any other group covered by the legislation, will probably be less likely to comply with it, because they find it oppressive.

We therefore proposed certain amendments, on decriminalization among other things, because someone who forgets to register a weapon is not a criminal. This person presents no danger to society. This person does not deserve to go to prison, as someone said before me, at a cost of $50,000, $60,000 or $78,000 a year in a federal penitentiary. This is what it costs to keep a person in prison.

It seems to us that certain sentences are not consistent with their intent or with the offence committed. We understand that a punishable offence must be tied to a reasonable sanction. The proposals we are making, however, seem more reasonable than what the bill currently provides.

We do not think that, if these amendments are voted down tomorrow morning,-or tonight, because we will probably vote tonight-that we will vote against the whole bill. No, that will not be the case. We want to play fair. We therefore propose to the government that it accept some of the amendments that will make it easier for people to accept the bill without putting their peace and security at risk and that will enable it to co-operate, to accept some help from the opposition so that this legislation may be civilized, modern and fair to everyone.

Other inexpensive measures could be implemented. Hunters have never been opposed to safety measures. Quebec already has a law requiring people to store firearms in a separate, locked cabinet, and to keep bullets in another room of the house. We proposed in amendment an inexpensive locking device that can be obtained for $10 or $15.

If the manufacturer were required to supply this device with the firearm, it would cost even less. The purchaser of a firearm would automatically have the locking device and citizens would be safer. This is a small, one time outlay, but the continuing costs of licences or registration certificates are much less acceptable to hunters. If, however, sportsmen in Quebec and in the rest of Canada were certain that, despite the cost to them, the bill would save lives, I think that they would throw their support behind it tomorrow morning. While there is still time, let us take the action that will make it easier for people to comply.

I hope that the government will see the validity of the amendments put forward by the official opposition and that it will vote in favour of these amendments this evening.

[Firefighters, June 12th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, as Bloc members, we are pleased to support this motion made by our colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg Transcona.

This is what we could call a forward-looking motion mainly concerned with the interest not only of a trade, namely firefighters, but also of the public in general.

For one thing, the government has a role to play in the area of occupational safety. In fact, it can play several key roles by the influence it has, the example it sets and the legislation it passes.

Through its influence, the government can encourage employers to adopt more adequate safety measures. For instance, under existing legislation, since legislation does already exist-we may not find it adequate but it nevertheless exists-the government can check and make sure that safety standards are complied with in many areas, such as construction. The most common areas where risks are still high are the agri-food industry, the environment, transport and, of course, sites where explosives may be handled.

Through the way it deals with its own employees, the government plays a crucial role. Naturally, as I said, the government must set the example, for the entire population is governed by the occupational safety legislation it enacts.

Safety standards for government employees must also be monitored closely and, above all, the government must afford its employees the opportunity to put standards in place so that they are well protected. In addition, by introducing new legislation, the government can strengthen those standards which may seem inadequate or at the very least deficient at this time.

In our view, this is a fundamental role of government, especially since new technologies, such as nuclear energy and all the related areas, have developed rapidly.

This fundamental role has become even more essential with the proliferation of chemicals and toxic substances used in various industries to develop new products. Many environmental disasters in recent years have shown how important government action is when it comes to protecting those government employees responsible for managing such disasters.

We need only think back to the explosion-in other countries, but we cannot be spared forever-of the nuclear power plant in Chernobyl or the oil spill off the coast of Alaska. These two examples clearly show the kind of hazards to which government employees are exposed.

Closer to home, the fairly recent devastating fire in Saint-Basile-le-Grand and the lead contamination incident in Saint-Jean are other examples which show that legislation is crucial in this field, whenever chemical and toxic products are used.

The Bloc will therefore support the motion. We were hoping that there would be a vote on it but, unfortunately, the required unanimous consent was not reached. Again, the government must be a leader in the protection against dangerous products. It can, through its attitude toward its public servants and the public, and also by tabling a new bill, make the job of many workers much safer.

Firefighters associations, including the International Association of Firefighters, have been urging the government for years to set up a national computerized information system on dangerous products.

With such a system, as soon as the alarm went off, firefighters would have information on the location of the fire and would be able to react accordingly so as to prevent greater damage or make sure that they did not pointlessly endanger their lives and their health or those of the public.

The presence of dangerous products on the site of a fire can be extremely costly, even fatal, for those involved. Recently, in a small village in Quebec, firefighters answered a call to put out what looked like an ordinary barn fire. However, because they did not have adequate information concerning the premises, the firefighters used normal techniques to put out the fire, without being aware of the danger to which they were exposed themselves.

There was a propane tank inside the barn, that no one had any reason to suspect was there. After they set up their equipment and started fighting the fire, the tank exploded. Seven firefighters were killed instantaneously in the blast and several others were injured. This catastrophe could easily have been avoided if the firefighters had known that the barn concealed a deadly bomb.

Seven lives were lost, and the only thing the speaker who preceded me, an hon. member from across the way, was concerned about was the cost. Do other lives have to be lost before they take action?

Another bill is currently before the House, Bill C-68 on firearms. Why is the government in such a hurry to take action? It is in such a hurry because 14 students were murdered at a university in Quebec by a lunatic who was in legal possession of a firearm. Because 14 human lives were lost, the House is debating a bill on firearms, and the cost of implementing and administering it are of no concern to the government. What it is trying to do is protect the lives of Canadians, protect everybody's life.

There are other causes of loss of human life each week in Canada: toxic spills during transport by rail, oil spills on the ocean, the use of chemical fertilizers which pollute or certain toxic substances, such as pesticides or insecticides. Many toxic substances which are widely used, sometimes carelessly, are decidedly very dangerous in the long run.

We are proposing preventative measures, which sometimes, actually not just sometimes but almost always, are less costly than deterrents.

In the opinion of the International Association of Fire Fighters, the computerized system currently in place, CANUTEC, is not well adapted. Towns with firefighting brigades have already put in place their own systems. I know that, before the new year, cities are going to convert to this system which will inform them before they respond to a fire alarm whether dangerous goods could be at the site. Towns are already absorbing the cost of these systems, so, there is no reason for the government to claim that additional costs will be involved. Local organizations will already be assuming the bulk of them.

Therefore, through such legislation, the government not only would increase the safety of workers but also would give peace of mind to all citizens who have to live near or deal on a daily basis with such life threatening products or environments, which would improve their standard of living and protect them.

For these reasons, we support this motion and hope that it will become votable as soon as possible.