Bob Ringma

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

Mr. Speaker, we are addressing Bill C-58, a bill to amend the Public Service Staff Relations Act and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act. At first blush it appears to be just an innocuous housekeeping bill. However, this morning it became evident that the purpose of the bill is solely to avoid paying bilingual bonuses to the RCMP which resulted from the Federal Court of Appeal ruling in the Gingras case.

At the time of the court decision the government said it had no choice but to pay the bilingual bonus. Not only is this untrue as it could have appealed to the Supreme Court but it is also misleading to Canadians as the government has now brought in this legislation as an attempt to quietly circumvent the court system.

I give the bill the label of good news, bad news. It is good news in what it will do with regard to bilingual bonuses. It is bad news in the manner in which it is being brought into being and things that have been quietly put aside in the past.

The Liberals were aware of the potential problems this case could create back in 1990. The Commissioner of Official Languages in the 1990 annual report wrote: "The distribution of this bonus was also brought into question in 1990 when the Federal Court ruled that an RCMP officer was as much entitled to it as a public servant. If the appeal court decision does not reverse this judgment we may see other federal employees in the armed forces or in some crown corporations claiming the bilingual bonus, all the more reason to reform this rickety structure, especially in a period of budget cuts".

The Liberals were also well aware of the reasons for the judgment in that 1990 Federal Court ruling. At that time the court stated: "The exclusion of the staff of these two agencies which are covered by the Public Service Staff Relations Act constituted illegal discrimination under the rules of administrative law". That is the court talking. The Liberals knew this. They were sitting in this House, but they waited more than a year after coming to power a year ago to act on this problem.

In April of this year in this House I asked the Prime Minister to heed the strong recommendation of the Commissioner of Official Languages and eliminate the bilingual bonus. At that time the Prime Minister stated: "I do not think the commissioner has made a strong recommendation". That is what he said, there is no strong recommendation, therefore we do not have to do anything about it.

Before I quote the present Commissioner of Official Languages from his last report I would like to quote previous commissioners on this very issue.

In 1983 the commissioner at that time stated: "Six years and let us say almost a quarter of a billion dollars into the game, any question of the real contribution that the bilingualism bonus might be making to federal language programs has pretty much

been lost from view". There is now nothing to prevent the cost climbing to $50 million or more except that a short, sharp government decision to stop this nonsense now before it does any more harm". How prescient the commissioner was in 1983 saying that because that is precisely the cost, $50 million a year, of bilingual bonuses today other than those of the RCMP.

To go on with comments of other official language commissioners, in 1986 the commissioner wrote: "There was at one point in 1985 a hint that Treasury Board was looking for ways to curtail whatever part of bonus spending might frankly be considered superfluous such as payments to middle and upper managers whose bilingualism is adequately compensated in other ways. It may be that the board is still looking and we encourage it to do so".

Let us move on to 1987 when the commissioner's report contained the following statement, and the Liberals sitting in this House were privy to all of this: "The bilingualism bonus as an instrument to encourage more active work related bilingualism among public servants is not well attuned to present needs. It falls like heaven's rain indiscriminately on the just and unjust alike which is not how bonus incentives are supposed to work".

Similarly at the risk of being boring in 1988 the commissioner stated: "Since the bonus no longer has the incentive effect that justified its creation, we can only repeat our recommendation that Treasury Board review the value of the bilingualism bonus".

That brings us to 1989 when the commissioner wrote: "The awarding of a bilingualism bonus may originally have been a positive measure but over time it has proven to be more of an obstacle to a fair linguistic designation of positions and a source of inequities within the public service".

I have already stated the concerns of the commissioner in his 1990 report so we will fast forward to 1991. That year the commissioner applauded the updating of the bilingualism bonus confirmation process but added: "This updating clearly cannot be called a reform of the bonus system, a system whose disappearance we, like many others, continue to hope for. This bonus which originated in 1966 as a 7 per cent supplement to the salary paid to secretaries truly has nine lives".

The commissioner's 1992 report states: "We are far from sure that this bonus paid to 59,900 public servants constitutes a necessary encouragement to the effective use of both languages. We can only reiterate the recommendation we have made so often that the bilingualism bonus be gradually eliminated".

Finally, everyone will be pleased to know the commissioner's comment from last year: "Unfortunately, with regard to the issue of the bilingualism bonus, it is obvious that the commissioner's repeated recommendations still have not been followed. 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 in the interest of the public finances as well as that of the official languages program. It is high time for the government to take this problem in hand".

That is the recommendation of the commissioner that the Prime Minister said was not a strong recommendation. I do not know how much stronger he could make it based on years of precedent recommendations by other language commissioners.

It is interesting that while publicly the Prime Minister has shrugged off these recommendations, his government today quietly tries to slip through this innocuous legislation which will at least partially achieve what so many commissioners have strongly advocated for more than 10 years.

Let us have a quick look at what the rationale was regarding this bonus within the RCMP in years gone by. Back in 1977 R. H. Simmonds who was the Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police gave as his rationale for not paying the bilingual bonus that members of the police universe who are compared to the RCMP in the amount of pay and benefits received do not receive the bonus and the equations between these groups should remain the same as much as possible.

The Commissioner of the RCMP also said in that year: "The payment of a bonus was seen as a divisive element in a cohesive organization as situations would be created whereby members of equal rank and responsibility working side by side could receive differing remuneration because of different advantages toward learning a second language, perhaps even at public expense".

This was the evidence, part of it, that has been picked up on by various language commissioners over the years.

From my own experience in the Canadian forces I am well aware that members who are bilingual, and this applies to the RCMP as well, already have an enhanced opportunity of promotion with the accompanying increases in remuneration. The bilingual bonus therefore is in effect an additional payment. I might add as well that most members are bilingual because of language training at public expense.

So I ask, in view of all of this background, in view of the evidence presented, why is the government not proudly proclaiming its attempt to cut wasteful spending? Could it be that it is afraid of publicly slaying the sacred cow, which is official languages, no matter how small a knife the government wields?

I congratulate the government on its attempt to right a wrong, but I condemn the government for wrapping this initiative in a cloak of secrecy. Why not tell people the truth? The Federal Court of Appeal ruling in the Gingras case means taxpayers will have to shell out roughly $30 million in retroactive bilingual bonus payments.

The government should say: "We do not agree with this decision. Therefore we are enacting this legislation to prevent further annual payments of nearly $3 million." This is the truth of the legislation and the people of Canada deserve nothing less than the truth, especially from a government that claims honesty and integrity as its guiding principles.

[Petitions, November 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the third petition calls on the government to act immediately to extend protection to the unborn child by amending the Criminal Code to extend the same protection enjoyed by born human brings to unborn human beings.

On behalf of these concerned constituents I am pleased to table these petitions in the House.

[Petitions, November 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition calls on the government to maintain the status quo with regard to same sex relationships.

[Petitions, November 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have three duly executed and signed petitions representing the views of some of my constituents that I would like to present to the House.

The first calls on the government to enforce the existing provisions of the Criminal Code prohibiting assisted suicide. It also asks that no changes be made to those provisions that would sanction or allow assisted suicide.

[Yukon Surface Rights Board Act, November 3rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address Bill C-55, the Yukon Surface Rights Board Act. This bill is essentially a matter of legislative housekeeping and as such contains little of substance to either support or oppose.

However, I would like to take some time to address some of the bill's shortcomings and even its positive attributes.

As everyone in the House well knows, this bill is the companion legislation to Bills C-33 and C-34, two bills which the Reform Party strongly opposed. Our detailed reasons for the opposition to those bills are well documented from debates at the committee level and in the House so I will not revisit those arguments.

However I would like to renew our opposition to the way the government first conceived and then rammed those bills through the House. In case anyone has forgotten, Bill C-33 and Bill C-34 were negotiated over a period of some 20 years, a period of closed door meetings and backroom deals typical of our old governments and old political parties.

To make matters worse, the government then stifled debate in the month of June in the House by evoking time allocation. This entire process was wrong, indeed shameful. It was wrong for the government not to include Canadians and interested third parties in the negotiations. It was wrong for the government to proceed with debate just 24 hours after the voluminous bills were first tabled in the House. It was shameful for the government to limit debate on such crucial pieces of legislation.

Unfortunately this type of action appears to be the rule rather than the exception when it comes to legislation affecting native or aboriginal land claims settlements.

Just over a year ago, in June 1993, another shameful government with the concurrence of the Liberals and the NDP in opposition took the very same tack with Bill C-133. They passed that bill in one day in the House. There was only one member of the House who stood to speak against it. That bill resulted in the creation of Nunavut, a new territory encompassing one-fifth of the Canadian land mass. With one-fifth of Canada at stake because of Bill C-133 the House, with the concurrence of all political parties, took one day to pass it. There was no debate and no public input. That is a shame.

The Reform Party agrees with the need to correct past injustices and to treat aboriginals with the same respect and dignity afforded to all other Canadians, but we do not agree with the means chosen to accomplish this end.

I said at the start of my address that I would also touch on some of the positive aspects of the bill. They are few and far between, but I have found at least one such example. To its credit the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has in fact consulted with the mining industry on Bill C-55. I know this because our critic in this area has also consulted with many interests with regard to the legislation.

Through our discussions it was learned that changes to the bill were made at several stages based on input from the mining industry. That is good news. It is indeed encouraging, especially given the rough ride the mining industry has received in recent times from all levels of government.

I might also add that I hope this spirit of co-operation will continue into the future and expand beyond the borders of Yukon to my own province of British Columbia where the interests of the mining industry have been forced to take a back seat to every lobby group with an axe to grind.

At any rate I commend the government for its consultative approach. However I also know that the mining industry is not entirely happy with the legislation in Bill C-55 or with its companion Bills C-33 and C-34.

While all these pieces of legislation are far from perfect, the uncertainty is over, an uncertainty which has stifled investment in Yukon for more than 20 years. At least the legislation defines the playing field and although that field is still uneven it is a field that can now be played upon.

Another area of concern with the legislation on the creation of Yukon surface rights board is the question of appointments. The board will be appointed by the minister and therefore of course has the potential to become a patronage hotbed.

Appointments to the board must be made according to merit. Individuals with the qualifications and the expertise to make sound, logical decisions must be the ones appointed to the board; not simply those individuals with the oldest Liberal membership card or with the largest campaign contribution, appointments that would compromise the entire process and throw the rulings of the board into disrepute. We cannot emphasize too often that patronage appointments must go. We must cease and desist on all of them, whether it is the immigration board or this particular one on Yukon surface rights.

The board will also have the power to decide which cases it will hear. Its rulings will be final, binding and enforceable through the Supreme Court of the Yukon territory. This is a great deal of power which must not be placed in the hands of a few political friends and insiders. The Reform Party will be watching appointments to the board with a keen interest to ensure that such abuses do not occur.

I have already outlined the callous way in which the democratic process was subverted during the conception and births of Bill C-33, Bill C-34 and Bill C-133 a year ago. This bill is an extension of the process and therefore must be viewed with a healthy degree of scepticism. However we can take some solace in the hope that the government has learned and is learning from its past mistakes.

I would also like to urge the government to follow in the footsteps of my own province, British Columbia. I speak of Premier Harcourt's public pronouncement of September 20 when he stated several principles for openness in land claim negotiations. The principles enunciated include that open negotiations must be the starting point and closed negotiations the exception. The next point made was that all British Columbians must have the opportunity to provide meaningful input into the negotiating process.

His next point is that the negotiators' bottom lines would be made public and that the provinces would pursue the most effective means of opening up and sharing information about negotiating sessions as widely as possible. Finally the mandatory sign off of all treaty settlements would be made by the B.C. legislature.

In this regard I have to say on a parallel track that I had the occasion to meet with the federal negotiator for Vancouver Island on native land claims and with the British Columbia negotiator. The two gentlemen met in my constituency office a month or two ago. If I can take them at face value, we are going to have open negotiations with native land claims and they are actively soliciting input from the general public. I truly hope this is so. If I take them at face value it is so. I hope that is the way we are going. If we are, the future looks much better than it has for some time.

The people of Canada deserve no less from their federal government on these important issues. The old closed door negotiations, complete with mandatory confidentiality clauses and no public input, only breed hostility and undermine public confidence in the process. The public too wants native land claims to be settled justly for all parties.

Bill C-33 and Bill C-34 are classic examples of old style politics. Admittedly Bill C-55 was conceived under less dubious circumstances, but it is still somewhat tainted by the earlier process.

In finishing I urge the government to carefully consider the comments made here today and the comments my colleagues will make. I hope the government will heed this advice as we head down the road of aboriginal self-government.

[Organized Crime, November 2nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, police sources state the hub of Asian organized crime for the world will be situated in Vancouver and Vancouver Island by the turn of the decade. This statement has been acknowledged in part by the Solicitor General who recently supported the deployment of extra drug enforcement officers to Nanaimo.

The situation requires more than just extra police. The government must get serious about reforming and strengthening legislation in the areas of immigration, customs, justice, fisheries and human resources development.

The Reform Party recognizes the need for these changes. In my riding I have already started bringing together concerned members of the immigrant population with municipal, provincial and federal authorities to look at ways to make the system work for all Canadians. Next week I will continue the process and will report the results of this truly grassroots consultation process back to the House.

[The Economy, October 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, last night the Prime Minister stated he wanted people's money to be used productively.

Will the Deputy Prime Minister explain how spending tax dollars to sue the government thus triggering the spending of even more taxpayers' money can be described as productive?

[The Economy, October 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, as we have heard, today marks the first anniversary of the election of the 35th Parliament. While we have seen nothing but foot dragging on social reform, deficit reduction and replacement of the GST, we have seen some minor promises upheld.

My question to the Deputy Prime Minister is why has the government decided to put funding of special interest groups by way of reinstating the court challenges program ahead of much more urgent and wide ranging promises such as meaningful deficit reduction?

[Petitions, October 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to table a petition on behalf of my constituents asking Parliament to revise the Young Offenders Act.

[Royal Canadian Mounted Police, October 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, recently I asked the Solicitor General about the redeployment of RCMP resources to help combat the growing drug problem in Nanaimo. The mayor of Nanaimo, the head of the RCMP in B.C. and others have confirmed the need.

Now we discover that while Nanaimo goes lacking because of tight resources, 100 RCMP officers are being sent to Haiti. If we can send police to Haiti, why not to Nanaimo?