Paul Crête

[Dairy Products, September 17th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, since August, the government's decision to terminate the industrial milk subsidy has resulted in a higher price for milk solids, and that increase will be reflected in the price of dairy products. Consumers will, in fact, have to pay an average of 4 per cent more for their dairy products, and this hits the less well off particularly hard.

This is only the first step, for the end of the industrial milk subsidy, as announced in the last Martin budget, will continue to have repercussions for the next five years.

It is unfortunate that low fat products will be the ones most affected, since these contain more milk solids. This will eventually have an impact on the general health of the population and, strangely enough, at the very moment the federal government is also pulling out of funding health services, by cutting back its transfer payments.

[Criminal Code, September 16th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased but also rather concerned about having to speak on this very serious bill on judicial review and parole ineligibility.

When dealing with these issues, we must be careful not to become excessive, as the Reform Party tends to do, but we must also avoid giving in to what I would call election-related pressure. This is not an issue that must be influenced by election-related pressure or constraints. Rather, it calls for a serious and thorough review that will allow us to see if the measures that have been part of the Criminal Code for quite some time are good. Have these measures been effective? Have they provided interesting results? Do we need to change them?

This is also an issue about which we must be careful not to become emotional but, rather, rational. Let us look at the overall situation in terms of those affected by this measure.

As of December 31, 1995, there were 175 eligible inmates; 76 of them had applied for a judicial review of their parole ineligibility. In other words, these people wanted to have the opportunity to be paroled after the 15th year and before the 25th year of their sentence. Of these 76 applications, 13 are pending, while a decision has been made in the other 63 cases. A reduction was granted to 39 inmates. It is important to mention that only one of them reoffended. And it was not murder, but armed robbery.

One has to realize that this is not all black and white. We need to ponder this issue carefully and make a balanced judgement instead of resorting to anecdotal evidence. It is really a terrible situation when a crime is committed. The impact on the family members and relatives of the person who has been killed is horrendous. We often tend to look for remedy for the guilt and the grief by demanding a severe punishment for the murderer. Maybe not as severe as the crime itself, but a sentence long enough to make sure the murderer is not back out on the street.

It has been proven that families who have this ultimately quite natural reaction do not experience a lessening of their grief because the murderer has been severely punished. It has been proven both in Canada and in the United States. The grief for the lost one remains, and there is no connection whatsoever with the punishment.

We have to get to the bottom of this issue and see whether the steps taken have given the anticipated results. For example, I am told that 39 inmates got a reduction, that 38 have not reoffended and that not one of them has been convicted for a new offence. This means that the vast majority of the people have been able to come back out into society and to make a positive contribution.

Therefore, we now have to determine the real purpose of our criminal justice system. Among the offenders sentenced to 25 years in prison, there are career criminals, but also people who have committed a crime, who have made a terrible mistake under some kind of impulse, an act that was not necessarily premeditated.

We also have to know what direction the system is taking. Is there an increase or a decrease of the crime rate in Quebec and in Canada right now? The figures show that the crime rate is declining everywhere, at least in Quebec.

We need to compare what we have with the other systems where the measures taken are getting tougher and tougher. We can often compare ourselves to the Americans in this regard. The way the

system works in Canada, how it ultimately affects the crime rate, the reintegration of people into the society and the costs of the system. I think our approach, that is, the one which was developed in the last 15 or 20 years, compares favourably with the one that has been developed in the United States. I think we must build upon our successes.

The real objectives of the government can be called into question. When we look at the statistics and see that of the 73 individuals who asked for a review, 63 obtained one and 39 were granted a reduction in their sentence and only one committed an offence subsequently, one has every reason to wonder why the government introduced such a bill.

This bill appears to have been introduced in reaction to pressure and ultimately will not solve much. We can see what has been proposed for multiple murders. This will create terrible confusion and injustice. It is not the fact that a person has taken one or two lives that is important, it is the type of crime that has been committed. The number of victims seems totally irrelevant to me.

The other element concerns the decision committee. Again the government appears to be closing the door completely without having the political courage to say so. It should take a clear stand in favour of abolishing this provision or say that the present system is working well and prove it to all Quebecers and Canadians so they can judge for themselves.

I also think that it is typical of politics nowadays. It is very easy to slip into demagogy. It is very easy to say that we have a typical example, a horrible situation, the kind of things we occasionally see in the newspapers. It is terrible to see and to experience this kind of thing; it stirs up lots of emotions. It is a personal situation that can be very difficult to go through.

We are not here to make a sensation. We are here to pass laws that will have a real positive effect and that will, ultimately, make our society more equitable and less violent, more evolved and more aware of new ways of rehabilitating criminals.

Even if tomorrow we could arrange for nobody to be eligible to have their ineligibility reviewed, we would not have solved the problem. There is no link between murders that have been committed in the past and those that will be committed in the future. People who are in such situations of violence are not calculating whether, if caught and sentenced, they will be able to apply for a review of their situation after 15 years. This is not how it works. This is not what is going through their head. These situations are more likely to arise after a number of years in prison, when individuals have lived through more, and have had the idea that they are capable of reintegrating into society. There is a whole process provided for the assessment of these cases.

I feel that the present model needs more thinking and more study before we come up with measures such as the one the government is proposing or, even worse, such as the one the Reform Party was advocating. If we were to adopt very tough legislation or this bill, we would have the feeling that we had done our job, but with the corrective measures, those that will come in the future, will we, five or ten years down the road, be able to say that we truly improved the situation?

Rather, might we not try to hide things a bit, saying that, in the end, all those measures we took did not settle anything or improve the situation, that the recividism rate cannot really be lower than what it is. We have to make sure that those who must act in these decisions may do so rapidly.

I will conclude on this. It is important that we make a balanced judgment. I encourage the government to do its homework. If there are changes to be made in this section, they should be made after more careful study with no regard to the temptation put in the way by the Reform Party, which wants to create a mockery of justice. I do not think it is in the interests of Canadians and Quebecers that things be done this way.

[Pearson International Airport, June 20th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the minister is just as irresponsible as the Senate. We have been calling for a commission of inquiry for two years, not since yesterday.

The Government Leader in the Senate said, following the vote yesterday, that they would do everything in their power to ensure no Conservative interest group would benefit from the agreement.

What assurance do we have from the minister that Liberal interest groups will not benefit from this agreement either?

[Pearson International Airport, June 20th, 1996]

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

The other House definitively signed the death warrant for the bill on the Pearson airport yesterday. The government is now faced with damage suits, and the Liberals' blunders could cost taxpayers up to $662 million. All because the government has been refusing for the past two years to listen to the official opposition and to hold a public hearing to bring this whole political and financial scandal to light.

Rather than submit yet again to another partisan study behind closed doors, and because the government is in a tight spot, is it the minister's intention, finally, to hold a real public hearing into this whole matter?

[Lévis Gas Pipeline, June 20th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the premier of Quebec and the Prime Minister of Canada pledged to extend the gas pipeline from Lévis, in Quebec, to Nova Scotia, through New Brunswick. A similar commitment is expected from the New Brunswick premier.

This project will maximize spinoffs within the Canadian economy. Natural gas is an environmentally friendly source of energy. Making it available to businesses in the lower St. Lawrence, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia regions will promote their economic growth.

For eastern Quebec, this project will make it possible to set up several businesses that will be competitive thanks to this initiative. The Bloc Quebecois will work to ensure that the project becomes a reality, since it will be a mutually profitable economic partnership for Quebec and Canada.

[Civil Air Navigation Services Commercialization Act, June 20th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the other place sent us back Bill C-20 with some rather technical amendments. I take this opportunity to say that, the day after the Pearson airport legislation was killed, we have yet another example of the uselessness of the other place, which can even be a nuisance. Yesterday, a House of unelected people blocked a very important government bill. We should reflect on this.

As for Bill C-20, the proposed amendments are of a very technical nature. The government's excuse for not having moved these amendments earlier in this House, either at third reading or report stage, is that the Senate is there to do the work. How much did it cost to let the other place debate the issue, including the costs generated by the additional delays?

Today, the session is coming to an end. We are forced to pass bills while taking into account many elements and deadlines. Had it not been forced to send the bill to the other place, the House could simply have passed it at the end of debate here, and the government would have been accountable for it.

And had there been omissions such as the one corrected by the Senate, the government would have had to take responsibility for them. We should not rely on a House which is not accountable to Canadians to correct mistakes.

This example, along with yesterday's much more catastrophic end of the Pearson bill, shows once again a lack of seriousness on the part of the government. Let me tell you that, regardless of one's opinion on the Pearson bill, it was neither flattering nor pleasant to see that an unelected house could kill a bill that had been debated and passed here. Even though we were against this legislation and felt that many changes were needed, including the establishment of a commission of inquiry, the fact remains that this is a rather telling episode.

I think it is important to remember the reasons why the Bloc Quebecois will vote against Bill C-20. During the clause by clause examination in committee and the debate at third reading, we proposed amendments regarding safety that we thought were very constructive.

These amendments were intended to ensure that the new agency responsible for managing air navigation would be required to give priority to ensuring the safety of carriers. The intention was to have this obligation included in the legislation in the form of a preamble that would have served as an interpretation clause. The government did not yield to our arguments in this regard. Neither did the Senate. There is no recommendation along these lines.

We were not listened to. When the government does not listen, that may be what it chooses to do, it may think that this is not the right course of action. But as for the Senate, that is a concern they should have had. They could have presented us with something more useful than the three tiny amendments we have before us today.

The other point the Bloc Quebecois emphasized, and which was ignored, concerned the representation of small carriers on the board of directors of Nav Canada. We think that a few years down the road, it will be realized that this decision will have significant negative economic effects on a number of outlying regions in Canada, where there are carriers specializing in chartered flights, tourist flights, and utilitarian flights, and not necessarily regular passenger flights.

It is true that the composition of Nav Canada's board of directors includes almost all the stakeholders in the economic sector concerned, but we feel that large carriers are over-represented on the board, to the exclusion of small carriers. We think that will have an impact on charges. When it comes to deciding how charges will be levied, the voices that will be heard the loudest will be those of large carriers, and the small carriers will be lost in the shuffle.

It must be borne in mind that there was a need to rationalize in this industrial sector, a need to organize so as to reduce costs, and a good many of these objectives will probably be met by Bill C-20. What we would have liked to see was the pendulum swinging in the other direction in order to guarantee safety, something not found in this bill.

It seems to me that, at this final stage, that the Senate amendments do nothing to change the basic question. There has been no additional important element introduced by the Senate. The bill, in the opinion of the Bloc Quebecois, is identical to the way it was on third reading. For these reasons we will be voting against it, in order to let people know that the Bloc Quebecois feels safety ought to have more importance attached to it than the government has done in this bill.

We hope there will be no unfortunate accidents to prove us right.

We hope this will never happen, but we believe that, even when the bill is implemented, at least if there was no will to change it in the text, in connection with the administration of Nav Canada, there will be representations by the government to ensure that this is a concern in the day to day administration of Nav Canada, and that costs will not be the only concern.

To conclude, after this debate at every stage, I believe a number of members of this House, those on the committee with which I was associated at the end of the process, have worked very hard. I feel they have produced good legislation. It is unfortunate that they have not heeded the arguments raised, for the most part about safety, for if they had we could have joined with the government. I feel it would have been worthwhile, and important, for there to have been unanimity in the House on a bill of this type.

[Parc De L'Aventure Basque, June 19th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, Trois-Pistoles has been shaped by over 300 years of history and presence in America, but it is also the site of the Basque adventure on this continent. The Basques, a people of proud sailors, started hunting whales in the Gulf of St. Lawrence in the late 17th century. The ovens they used to melt blubber can still be seen on île aux Basques.

The Parc de l'aventure basque en Amérique opens June 22. This multicultural crossroads highlights the Basque presence in America and the history of this people.

The people of the Trois-Pistoles region are proud of this past and even named their regional county municipality RMC des Basques. I wish to congratulate the people behind this project. Knowing where we come from makes it easier to determine where we are going.

[Railway Safety Act, June 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate on Bill C-43, an act to amend the Railway Safety Act and to make a consequential amendment to another Act.

I would love to share the optimism of the parliamentary secretary. Unfortunately, certain statistics tell me that, while this bill seeks to correct certain significant technical flaws and while the official opposition may help improve it during the review by the committee, some major issues linger with regard to railway safety in Canada.

Let me give you a few figures. In 1994, a total of 1,189 accidents were reported to the Transportation Safety Board of Canada. That was 17 per cent more than in 1993. There was a net increase of 8 per cent in the accident rate, which climbed to 14,4 accidents per million of train-miles travelled.

Then there is the fact that most accidents on main lines occur at level crossings. This suggests that improvements could be made, and that human or technical errors are often to blame.

It is also reported that, each year, some 300 accidents involve transporter cars. Worse still is the fact that, in 1994, 114 people died in train accidents. These figures make us realize that the situation is much more worrying than the government would lead us to believe.

Some of the objectives of the bill are to: "provide for greater involvement by interested organizations in making rules about railway operations; provide for the regulation of the use of train whistles in municipalities; strengthen and clarify provisions dealing with railway security". No major initiatives are taken to correct existing problems.

The government's good intention to tackle the issue should be reflected in amendments to the bill that would give it more substance and to face the real issues relating to railway safety.

The bill is silent on a very real problem, particularly in Quebec. They say there are 3 to 10 times as many defects in the tracks located in Quebec, because they are older and less well maintained, a result of the available resources and the fact that rail has long been considered a sort of homespun way of travel and not given the chance to become a tool of development. Today, we are paying the price for this.

To add insult to injury, it has just been announced that the Charny maintenance shop, in the riding of my colleague from Lévis, is to be closed. The job loss is regrettable. True, 90 jobs in such a region is not all that significant, but on top of that there is the significant impact on safety, since now the only track maintenance shop for the whole of eastern Canada will be located in Winnipeg, Manitoba.

Imagine, then, that on the CN lines in Quebec there are 51 defects per 65 miles, or 100 km of track, and on the CP lines 31 for the same 65 miles or 100 kilometres. Yet these figures are not

likely to improve in future because, as well as not having maintained the track properly, now they are moving the people with responsibility for maintenance further away, and their territory is being increased still further. This is tantamount to abdicating from any responsibility for safety.

The federal government must be judged clearly by the public on this. Yes, it is entitled to want to propose choices, to privatize companies. It is entitled to make those choices. We are entitled to judge the choices, or the way they were made, as the right ones or not, but there is one thing that must not be sloughed off: the responsibility for safety.

In this connection, Bill C-43 really contains no measures for dealing with the situation, or for improving it to any significant extent. A major debate needs to be held. There are, for example, newspaper reports stating that the Transportation Safety Board of Canada contradicts the CN on the number of accidents, yet this is the body responsible for providing a true picture of the situation and it is also less in conflict of interest than the companies operating the railways.

Questions will have to be asked in committee as to why the statistics I have just given you have not been able to be improved, and what should be done in future to remedy the situation. We are told that the number of railway accidents has been constantly on the increase for the past five years. This again comes from the Transportation Safety Board. They arrived in February 1996, when two derailments had just occurred in the Quebec City region within two weeks.

There is regularly talk about accidents, every month, as I mentioned in talking about level crossings earlier, for example. So clearly we have to look a lot deeper at the Railway Safety Act than the government is doing. At the moment, we could say it is doing nothing more than fulfilling its obligation to review the Act every five years. Review does not just mean simply making technical changes. The point of the review is to ensure that our railway system is the best it can be. If we have in fact under-used and under-maintained the rail systems in Quebec and Canada, we must ensure today, with the vision we want for our system, that we take every means possible to remedy the situation.

Railway transportation was declining 10 or 15 years ago. Today, it is on the rise with the use of containers. Furthermore, VIA Rail for one is trying to revitalize operations and must therefore break the vicious circle in which rail transportation is not used because it is inefficient and because it is inefficient less money is allocated to its operation and maintenance. The end result is poor service that fails to meet the needs of the people.

It will therefore be important, when this bill is being studied in committee-because the government has decided to go directly to committee rather than do an in-depth analysis at second reading-to study it thoroughly. There will be experts of different sorts, no

doubt employees who know something about such things. I think they should enjoy a certain impunity in committee, so that we get at the truth, can see things as they are, can propose amendments and make relevant changes.

This way, when the law is next reviewed, perhaps in five years, we will be able to say results were achieved and the statistics, instead of increasing by 17 per cent, will be stable at least. We will have made it so that the cause of accidents will only be unexplained human error, and not the system, poor operation or an insufficient investment in prevention.

In conclusion, the official opposition intends to be very vigilant and to ensure that our rail service operates totally safely for the welfare of individuals and for an improved economy.

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

Mr. Speaker, I believe it is very important to speak on this group of motions because the bill before us was introduced following a court ruling called the Gingras ruling, which has completely changed labour relations for employees of the RCMP.

The government showed very little planning in its response. The bill it introduced sets a very paternalistic framework for the RCMP officers. I believe this legislation is the best proof of it. If this bill is passed in its present form, the officers of the RCMP will find themselves excluded form the protection of the Canada Labour Code in the areas of occupational health and safety. This is astonishing proof of improvisation on the part of the government.

We all know very well that occupational health and safety is a very important issue in the work of police officers. They undergo considerable stress that can have serious physical and psychological effects. Police officers often have to go through stressful situations and have to deal with difficult human cases. This group of our society shows a very high suicide rate, family problems and all kinds of situations due to difficult working conditions.

Because this government is excluding them from the protection of the clauses on occupational health and safety in the Canada Labour Code, the RCMP officers will be somewhat powerless in terms of their rights to occupational health and safety. Yet, this group of workers is more exposed than others to work accidents and we are not talking here about small accidents but situations which can be very difficult, complex and have very serious human impacts.

We should not be holding this debate again today and this is why we believe the House should support this motion because we have

stressed the fact in the previous groups of motions-and I believe we proved our point-that this government is improvising and that this bill will give the Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police powers which really are greater than those an employer should have, in a police force.

This motion is an example of the exclusion of RCMP officers from a significant area of particular concern to them, perhaps more than other categories of personnel, because of the impact of work-related accidents and health problems that may be experienced, due to the nature of their work.

Another example concerning police officers. They may develop back trouble, for example, because of ergonomic problems, and these are not recovered from quickly. Sometimes we have a bit of a tendency to scoff at such things, but for the person in that situation it is no joke. Police officers, particularly those in patrol cars, have about the same situation as people who drive for a living. The long hours they spend in a car requires ergonomic studies, processes to ensure that recurring problems are eradicated, for instance all the back problems these people are liable to develop. It would be important to ensure that, should they be dissatisfied with how things are being managed by the RCMP, they would have access to the appeal process and to adequate protection.

There are other safety elements. Police officers carry fire arms, and often have to deal with criminals and with illicit substances. There are many aspects of their work that involve safety, and it seems to me to be inappropriate that their labour relations regime can be modified with a bill containing only four clauses.

It has been decided that, in future, they would no longer be protected by the rules that apply to the public service as a whole. There has been a decision by a judge that they are to be considered members of the public service, but this decision has been modified considerably because the government does not accept it, and is taking advantage of the opportunity to deprive officers of proper protection. What should have been proposed is a model reflecting the needs of these peace officers. But, no. The decision was made to simply include them in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act, without any sort of protection.

It is a bit like taking people back to the beginning of the 20th century and forcing them to start a whole series of fights for working conditions all over again. Both employees and employers can be the losers in such fights. If occupational health and safety were not regulated for the public sector across Canada, we would find ourselves in legal proceedings.

Peace officers will perhaps be obliged to follow the traditional legal route, which takes a lot of time and creates a lot more frustration but produces essentially the same results in the end. Why would the government not listen to these proposals?

If the government does not want the framework governing the working conditions of the RCMP to be well thought out, it should at least give RCMP officers appropriate protection in matters of occupational health and safety to permit them to do their work in acceptable conditions and to give them recourse when difficult situations arise.

An officer of the RCMP in Quebec is involved primarily in the fight against drugs or similar matters. Elsewhere in Canada, officers also do patrol work. From personal experience, I know that the people in this area need special support to remain in good physical condition and to meet the demands of their work. In many instances, before there were relevant regulations, difficult situations arose.

People had to take legal proceedings, which they sometimes won and sometimes lost. It is not just in the interest of the officers concerned to have this problem properly resolved, it is in the employer's interest too.

These amendments relating to occupational health and safety, in a way, send the government a message that it did its job in a makeshift manner, that it should have provided a labour relations framework which would have allowed negotiation of acceptable work conditions. However, this is not the position the government opted for. Today, we are faced with this situation.

I would not be surprised if, one or two years from now, this framework needed to be changed, if a new proposal was introduced in the House to give back to the RCMP employees an acceptable labour framework. Occupational health and safety is an area where paternalism can be particularly pernicous.

In the field of occupational health and safety, there is a basic principle according to which the best way to address a health and safety problem is to eliminate it at the source. Very often, employers tend to seek solutions for the problem once it already exists. The best example is noise. The first thing that was done was to force the workers to wear ear plugs in order to reduce the decibel level. In the medium term, having a broader vision, it was realized that what needed to be addressed was the source of the noise.

In the absence of a proper framework to address this kind of problem, the employer is often going to close his eyes to cases reported reported to him, and the peace officer concerned will not have the appropriate means of redress. Then, we will be faced with more and more regular referrals to health professionals, more and more regular use of existing legal processes, because when the labour framework does not provide employees with the proper means of redress, they tend to seek justice through other avenues.

As an employer, the government would be better off if it took the time to change the bill we have before us, to flesh it out so as to ensure that employees can be satisfied with their work conditions, feel more secure and do their jobs properly. The framework for negotiations will allow employees to change regularly their working conditions without necessarily having the Sword of Damoclès over their heads in the person of the commissioner, who could say: "With the authority given me, I can take action if you make too many demands".

I hope the House, or in fact the Liberals, will accept to act on these amendments concerning occupational health and safety in order to give RCMP officers adequate working conditions and also to avoid numerous legal proceedings for employers, which would create significant costs and spoil the job atmosphere for police officers. If this were the case, it is mostly the client, the citizen that pays the price of such internal conflicts and, therefore, the government would not be carrying out its mandate to serve the population adequately.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am rising at the report stage on this bill which provides that only civilian employees of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police will now be governed by the Public Service Staff Relations Act, and that staff relations for police officers be governed by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act.

To start with, I have to confess that when I was informed that I would speak on this bill, my thoughts were that, in Quebec, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police is not the police force with the most positive image. We had a few major incidents. I will simply remind hon. members that some RCMP officers were accused of planting bombs. Others stole the list of Parti Quebecois members; a list on which I am proud to say I was. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police in the rest of Canada is also a municipal police force. It is a force which is more or less the equivalent of the

Quebec Provincial Police for Quebecers, since it deals with everything from traffic to Criminal Code offenses.

It seems important to me that a police force like that one should have room to manoeuver, enough independence to avoid a paternalistic system. When you look at Bill C-30 which we have before us today, and was C-58 in the previous session, we realize that it is exactly what it will bring. We will create a paternalistic system whereby the Commissioner of the RCMP will have almost life and death power over his staff. If, for example, an officer is not satisfied with a given situation, or with the way a case is being handled, and files a grievance, contrary to all the rules of staff relations, the adjudicator will be appointed by the commissioner. Therefore, we will have more or less the situation of a small shop union, a situation similar to what we had in the past in other areas, and this is not very good for staff relations.

This is not healthy in a processing plant, for example, but it is even more dangerous in a police force that has to apply the law in Canada. This may even lead to very difficult situations where police officers who work in Quebec could be asked, in a critical situation, to behave in a manner that is not necessarily in keeping with the law. These officers who are living under a fear regime to a certain extent would find themselves facing unacceptable situations and would have to choose between their job and their loyalty to their vision of things. In this regard, the government is trying, with the bill, to escape a reality, to pull on us a little bill that completely changes the relationship with RCMP officers, which I find unacceptable.

We must remember that this bill is the result of what we call the Gingras decision, where the courts said RCMP officers were like other public servants and should be covered by the legislation governing the public service. And the government decided that was not possible.

Should there not be indeed a special regime for peace officers as opposed to public servants? That is possible. That is very likely the right solution, but not in the form the government is giving it. It seems the government is stretching the limits, is trying because the Gingras decision, which was not favourable to it, to reverse the position in such a way that officers will become a little dependent on the commissioner and RCMP authorities. I think this is wrong in itself.

There are three different types of relations in the federal government labour relations spectre. There is the one governing the public service, with negotiations, which give certain results. On the other extreme, there is the one the government is proposing in this bill, where RCMP officers will ultimately find themselves with a very weak negotiating power. In my opinion, this legislation, if passed in its present form, is only the prelude to other actions where workers' rights, the rights of those who work as peace officers will be gradually eroded.

Instead of taking advantage of the situation as it is now doing, I think the federal government should take the time to analyze the situation, to really negotiate with the union representing RCMP officers within a framework modelled after other similar frameworks that exist elsewhere. Of course, as we saw in the past, issues like the police's right to strike are very dangerous and can lead to unacceptable civilian situations. However, there is a way to manage labour relations so that RCMP officers still have the power to negotiate beneficial agreements with the federal government while remaining independent and not being in the untenable position of being unable to defend their views.

I think that, in the medium term, this decision benefits the government as much as it does RCMP officers. Because failing to create an acceptable climate could lead to events, to difficult situations, to lawsuits outside the established framework, which could translate into higher costs and situations that will penalize both the employees and the government.

We are not against having a special framework for RCMP officers, but against creating a paternalistic system that will give the RCMP commissioner inordinate powers over relations with the employees he manages.

Striking a balance is important because the police must enjoy sufficient freedom of action. We should heed the old horror stories concerning several police forces back in the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s, when these forces were underpaid or had to work in unacceptable conditions so that officers were forced to moonlight. They were very vulnerable to bribes and that kind of thing. A police force ought to be able to work in conditions that keep such temptation at bay.

At a time when the government is looking to cut everywhere to reduce operation costs to a minimum, it could be dangerous to create a framework where officers are not given enough leeway and where what powers they have and the working conditions they should have are being whittled away. It is not to play very fair to impose a framework like the one the government has in mind now, especially since there will not be only RCMP officers in the organization, but also civilian employees, and these employees will be subject to public service legislation.

This kind of situation, as we saw with the Department of National Defence, causes impossible imbroglios and often results in unnecessary expenditures. There will be cases where we will see two categories of employees competing within the same office. Difficulties will arise concerning hours on call and that sort of thing. The model developed for the Royal Canadian Mounted

Police officers, constables and so on must be compatible with the existing model in civilian life.

If we want both models to be compatible, then the model they are being offered must allow for real negotiations, where comparisons can be made between what they are offered and what other employees are being offered and where, in the end, a decision can be made that will foster sound labour relations for years to come. What we are doing today-and it is somewhat surprising that it all fits in a bill barely two pages long, containing just four clauses-is completely changing employee-employer relations in this police force. This is not a very serious approach.

If we really want this police force, which is the most prominent one across Canada and which deals with extremely diversified matters-for example, outside Quebec, it deals with everything from traffic offences to criminal offences of all kinds, while in Quebec and Ontario, the provincial police takes care of some of that.

I think that dealing with the whole issue of setting precedents in a bill merely four clauses long will create a climate of confrontation for RCMP officers, their representatives and management, which may well be to the government's disadvantage, because, in these circumstances, the officers, when the time comes to define their-