Bernard St-Laurent

[Ogilvie Mills, December 12th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.

We have learned that, in the ongoing labour dispute at Ogilvie Mills, the company has used the services of a federal employment centre in Montreal to hire scabs to replace the strikers.

Since the minister maintains that he is committed to defending the interests of Ogilvie workers, can he confirm that Ogilvie Mills was able to hire scabs through a Canada Employment Centre for which he is responsible?

[Canada Labour Code, December 5th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, how can the minister justify his refusal to table a bill before Christmas by saying that there is not enough time, when all that is required is a few amendments to the Canada Labour Code?

[Canada Labour Code, December 5th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.

On September 19, here on Parliament Hill, the minister promised Ogilvie Mills workers that, by December, he would table amendments to the Canada Labour Code, introducing anti-scab provisions. Yesterday, the minister reneged on his promise, giving as a pretext that his department was preparing another bill on pay equity.

How can the minister justify his about-face regarding the need to introduce anti-scab provisions in the Canada Labour Code? How can he justify his about-face, except by an obvious lack of political courage?

[Air Transportation, November 18th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, given that these questions are indeed very sensitive, thorny to use the minister's word, does he intend to look into the allegations made by the Quebec chambers of commerce and ask the competition bureau to conduct an investigation into the allegations of collusion, for we are talking about allegations of collusion, an extremely serious charge, between the major airline carriers and their subsidiaries in order to eliminate regional competition?

[Air Transportation, November 18th, 1994]

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

The chambers of commerce in several regions of Quebec have accused Air Canada and Canadian International of conspiring to eliminate competition in the regions. These companies are allegedly fixing higher prices for area service in order to subsidize international flights, where the competition is fierce.

Does the Minister of Transport agree that the staggering increase in airfare since 1988 is killing our regional economies and that it shows that deregulation is ineffective in stimulating competition in the airline industry?

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

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-58 aims at reversing the decision of the Federal Court of Appeal in the Gingras case, on March 10, 1994. As you may remember, the Court of Appeal then concluded that members of the RCMP, most of whom are of course police officers, are part of the public service and must adhere to Treasury Board rules, and that these members are also entitled to the bilingualism bonus of $800 per year. This is a brief summary of the decision.

In May of 1994, the government announced that it had no intention of appealing the decision and that it would pay the bonus to RCMP members, including for part of the years during which the government had illegally refused to grant such bonus. In all, retroactive payments should amount to $30 million.

The decision of the Federal Court of Appeal seems to bother RCMP authorities since, according to some, it means that the RCMP and its police officers will be subjected to the other Treasury Board rules. These rules deal, among other things, with employment equity, the implementation of the Official Languages Act and the rules governing working conditions, with the exception however of the right to set up a union. This is a very important aspect which must not be overlooked.

Before going any further, we have to look at the issue from a temporal perspective, but also in the context of that specific group.

What is the RCMP? We must first make an important distinction between three different groups of employees within that organization. In total, there are 15,500 police officers in the RCMP; there are also 1,983 civilian members, as well as 3,440 public service employees. Again, 15,551 regular members are in fact police officers and are not unionized. The 2,000 civilian members, or 1,983 to be precise, are in support positions and include laboratory and general technicians, experts in various fields, aircraft pilots, as well as an indeterminate number of employees from the administrative support category. Those people are not unionized either.

The some 3,500 public service employees hold administrative and support jobs and include clerks, secretaries, stenographers, nurses, janitors, etc. These employees were all recruited by the Public Service Commission or transferred from other departments. They belong to unions such as the Public Service Alliance of Canada.

What is troublesome with Bill C-58 is that it is an underhanded way of doing what is prohibited by the law. As can be seen in Bill C-58, what bothers the authorities is that for many years some RCMP members have been trying to unionize. Three times already, their attempts have failed. In 1994, unionization should no longer be considered a barbaric action that needs to be countered. For a group, it is the freedom to express its will to protect itself against its employer.

So, the purpose of Bill C-58 is to reverse the Gingras case of March 10, 1994. Bill C-58 would exclude RCMP members from the Public Service, taking away their capacity to unionize, but would give them the bilingualism bonus. Such an opportunity to depict the bilingualism bonus as a favour will certainly not be missed when, in reality, it was originally established to promote bilingualism within the Public Service of Canada.

Now, let us set aside the union aspect for a moment-I will come back to it later-to focus on the bilingualism bonus. I just want to make a few comments to show the unwillingness of the administration to acknowledge some data concerning the RCMP and the bilingualism bonus.

The bilingualism bonus program for public servants who meet the standards of proficiency for bilingual positions was established on November 15, 1976. Its purpose is to promote bilingualism within the Public Service, working as an incentive for civil servants to become bilingual. In 1993-94, the government will again have spent approximately $30 million in bilingualism bonuses, which represents $800 a year for each beneficiary.

As I was saying earlier, in its March 10 ruling on the Gingras case, the Federal Court of Appeal has declared that members of the RCMP are entitled to the bilingualism bonus. However, as far as the government or, should I say, RCMP administrators are concerned, two problems persist. Firstly, the government is repudiating the ruling handed down by the court by refusing to make retroactive payments as far back as the court ordered. Secondly, we have now learned that payment of the bonus has since been granted.

RCMP senior management has reduced by half the number of employees entitled to the bonus. According to the president of the RCMP Employees' Association, this drastic change in the application of the Official Languages Act is based on the fact that the great majority of RCMP members entitled to the bilingualism bonus are francophones. What a coincidence, Mr. Speaker! The President of the Treasury Board must make a commitment, as he is being asked to do by RCMP members, to intervene as soon as possible in order to redress this flagrant injustice. That is what we hear.

Today, this bonus is considered a source of inequity within the public service rather than a real compensation for the added difficulties related to working in both languages. The same amount is paid to every employee, whatever the level of competence, the salary or the frequency of use of the second language. The bonus is granted to public servants, but not to government employees.

According to the Commissioner of Official Languages, it is far from certain that this bonus is an incentive to effectively use both languages whenever it is required by law. If the government really believes in the importance of bilingualism in federal institutions, the bilingualism bonus can be considered a major asset when it provides an incentive for public servants to learn a second language and use it effectively.

The Bloc Quebecois does not, however, agree with those who argue that the cost of bilingualism is too high. We must see things in perspective. As long as the federal government maintains its official bilingualism policy, which is entirely reasonable, it will have to allocate the requisite funding. I suggest that when the annual report of the Commissioner of Official Languages is tabled, the debate should not be about costs but should focus on the government's failure to act in this area and on the long way it still has to go before the federal public service is truly able to offer quality services in both official languages. That was in connection with the bilingualism bonus.

I will now consider the aspect of union membership, to which I referred earlier. I said that Bill C-58 was an attempt to isolate members of the RCMP by targeting the organization's regular members, in other words, the police. The bill creates two groups but only one group will belong to the RCMP, and I am referring to the police officers. In other words, civilian employees and other technicians will no longer be members of the RCMP. Bill C-58 no longer wants to include public servants, the so-called civilians. The people of the RCMP are being isolated.

The question people are asking and I am asking is this: Why are they trying to isolate police officers in the RCMP? There are several theories, of course, and I will tell you mine.

The Quebec government recently set up a rather interesting program in its public service, aimed at encouraging input from public servants who want to discuss, as a matter of economic and social concern, anything that might look like terrible waste and abuse of public funds, in a straightforward attempt to reduce operating costs without, of course, affecting the quality of service to the public. Today, for instance, it would be the quality of service provided by members of the RCMP to Canadian taxpayers.

Clearly, Bill C-58 will prevent these people from making an honest attempt to show up any abuse that might occur within their organization. Bill C-58 confirms that it will turn these people into robots at the beck and call of a small group of individuals who are only intent on controlling situations and thus keeping a certain power over events and the people who are supposed to manufacture those events.

For instance, suppose an RCMP officer were to notice that equipment, to give a simple example, was being used wrongfully by his superiors for their own use. Can anyone in this House imagine just for a second this officer going to his superiors and telling them: "You are misusing public funds, and you are doing so for your personnal benefit"? Not on your life. Even if the alleged incident is illegal or close to breaking the law, he cannot do it because he has no protection. These people are muzzled.

Trade unionism is not a weapon, it is a working tool in a democratic social system, which gives more power to those who use it, no matter where, even in those areas where it is the most difficult to unionize workers, as is the case at the Ogilvie flour mill, in Montreal. Even though the workers there belong to a union, they are now faced with the lack of anti-scab legislation in the Labour Code of Canada. Therefore, they are very close to being under some kind of a dictatorial regime since they have to sit idle while scabs come in to take their place. Negotiations then become meaningless. This creates a dangerous social climate.

Last spring, we had the very same situation, for three months at Q.N.S. & L. in Sept-Îles, in my riding of Manicouagan. Scabs were allowed inside to take the jobs of workers who, in all good faith, wanted to negotiate with their employer. Once again, there was provocation. There is nothing illegal in being unionized, it is perfectly legal.

The Sûreté du Québec is unionized. Its members belong to a group that is there to protect them. The Communauté urbaine de Montréal, otherwise known as the CUM, is made up of police officers. They are not animals or equipment, they are individuals, human beings. They are entitled to some security in their life. The same goes for the Communauté urbaine de Québec. But the RCMP said no.

The rumour has it that the employees tried to unionize on three occasions, but each time, their attempts were unsuccessful. Such tactics, you can imagine, go against the Charter of Rights. But these hypocritical tactics are concealed so well in Bill C-58 that it is impossible to make an official complaint under the Charter of Rights, arguing that the Liberal government does not want RCMP employees to form a union or is trying to prevent them from doing so.

This prompts me to make a connection with the situation of CSIS, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. I think that there is a strategy, that Bill C-58 is an element of a very simple strategy.

First, you prevent the members of the RCMP from unionizing. On three separate occasions already, attempts to do so failed, but pressure to unionize most have been growing and getting quite strong recently, last spring. This gave fuel to the case, the Gingras case, which was brought before the Federal Court of Appeal on March 10.

This case castigates the Liberal government, so it reacted by introducing Bill C-58. Here is the line of thought: because this is a small separate group within forces responsible for national security, unable to unionize and therefore unable to make itself heard and to protect its members against abuse of power on the part of management, before this Parliament is over, a bill will probably be tabled before us to renew the RCMP, perhaps even under a new name! Why not? This group will need a special budget and, as it turns out, no one will be allowed to know what exactly this money is used for. This is where I see a similarity with the Canadian Security Intelligence Service.

Let us take a brief look back at the Canadian Security Intelligence Service,so as to clearly put the problem facing us in its proper context. In 1946, given the increased workload of the RCMP resulting from this added jurisdiction, the staff assigned to this particular function was made into a separate group for the first time. In 1956, the Special "I" Branch became a directorate within the RCMP. I am going quickly. In 1969, the royal commission of inquiry on security recommended creating a civilian security agency. From 1971 to 1974, especially but not exclusively in Quebec, the security service mounted a series of operations, many of which were apparently illegal, to neutralize radical groups, who happen to be separatists, once again.

On March 27, 1975, the federal Cabinet developed a directive for the security service's activities. This directive remained secret until 1978. In 1976, Corporal Samson, who was tried for an incident unrelated to this affair, revealed his participation in Operation Bricole in 1972, which involved breaking and entering and stealing files, as we recall.

Various events occurred over the years, but let us go to November 29, when the members of the Security Intelligence Review Committee were appointed; the chairman was a former Conservative Cabinet minister. In February 1985, CSIS's operating budget was $115 million. This was less than the $200 million it is today, and neither Canadian taxpayers, nor the House of Commons, are allowed to review it. Something is wrong! It is a terrible outfit which not even the House of Commons is able to control any more.

So, to sum up, one, we want to talk about unionization, to move the process along. We intend to talk about unionizing members of the RCMP because the people in that force can find out about the abuses going on in various branches.

Second, they table a bill aimed at isolating the only people with access to compromising documents. Third, I am convinced that, before the end of this parliamentary session, they will pass a bill putting the RCMP in the same class as CSIS, that is, with millions of dollars to spend but without ordinary taxpayers being allowed to look into how this money is spent.

In conclusion,it is my firm belief that it is high time that Quebec achieve sovereignty. Bill C-58 will not make Quebecers change their minds and convince them that it might be beneficial to keep federalism in good shape.

In fact, we do not have to worry about federalism or trying to destroy it. Federalism is destroying itself through bills like C-58.

[International Trade, November 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it is becoming more and more obvious that Team Canada's trade mission in Asia is a vast propaganda effort. The people of Quebec and Canada are led to believe that this mission has generated billions of dollars in contracts for Canada and Quebec businesses.

But the reality is altogether different. Many of these contracts were signed ages ago and Team Canada's mission has nothing to do with securing them. One example of this is the agreement in principle between Bombardier and Power Corporation signed last April.

But there is worse. Several pseudo-contracts rest on nothing but agreements in principle and letters of intent. There are actually three times fewer firm contracts than the government claims, with its far-fetched figures.

As Confucius would say: "A rolling bicycle gathers no moss".

[Criminal Code, October 19th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-226 could have been called "sink the shipwrecked" or "shoot the ambulance". In actual fact, it comes to the same thing. In the society we live in, the light at the end of the tunnel is part of daily life, irrespective of the environment we are in.

For example, we are currently going through an intense recession. The Minister of Finance knows it, he does not see the light at the end of the tunnel either. We have difficulties imagining that one day this country will come out of it, financially. Yet, we do not shoot the Minister of Finance. The system is not perfect, only human, and no human is perfect.

To understand the consequences of Bill C-226, we have to put it back in its context. In 1961, murders fell into two categories: capital and non-capital. Before that, death was the only sentence available for convicted murderers, even though the governor could grant a stay of execution and intervene in favour of the sentenced.

Those convicted of non-capital murder were sentenced to life in prison, but were eligible for parole after seven years. We are talking about 1961.

After 1967, people sentenced to life in prison needed permission of the governor in council to be released. They had to serve at least ten years before becoming eligible for parole.

In 1974, changes to the Criminal Code allowed judges to raise to 20 years maximum the period during which no parole could be granted.

As we can see, sentences are becoming more and more severe. In 1961, we were talking about seven years; in 1967, ten years; and in 1974, we could go to twenty years.

On February 24, 1976, the Solicitor General introduced Bill C-84 which abolished the death penalty altogether. At the time that was a hot topic. We were wondering whether the death penalty should be kept on the books or abolished.

It is still a very contentious issue today, so imagine what it was back in 1976.

Bill C-84 offered a new variation, namely different categories of murders: first degree murder and second degree murder. People convicted of first degree murder had to serve 25 years before being eligible for parole, whereas people convicted of second degree murder had to serve between 10 and 20 years, depending on the sentencing judge's decision, before being eligible for parole.

Therefore, in 1961, seven years, in 1977, ten years, in 1974, maybe 20 years, and in 1976, maybe 25 years. Bill C-226 is aimed at removing any hope of parole for convicts serving a life sentence. Everybody agrees that society must be protected, but to what extent? As parliamentarians, do we have the right to pass laws regarding the probable behaviour of individuals 15 years from now?

As it now stands, the law gives individuals the opportunity to be tried and sentenced to penalties proportionate to the seriousness of the crime which brought them to court. Bill C-226 claims that none of us believes that individuals who are sentenced today will be rehabilitated 15 years from now. It closes the door to hope. It shoots down rehabilitation. Do we have the right to do that?

As parliamentarians, we have rights, but we also have the fundamental duty to do our best so that, when we leave, society is a bit better off than when we arrived. It is to meet this humble objective that we must strive. Statistics show that only 6 per cent of inmates on parole re-offend within six months of their release. That is to say that the present judicial process and parole system are not working too badly.

The controversy surrounding the review process is fuelled by two often contradictory objectives. On one hand, there is the way we feel about crime and, on the other, the desire to rehabilitate offenders, which are often mutually exclusive. The initial reasons for a judicial review are always the same. At the time, in the years 1961, 1967, 1974, and 1976, reactionary views were predominant. There were debates on the death penalty and life imprisonment. Those were the buzz words, back then.

The right wing is back, and we hear the same debate all over, especially with the emergence of victims' rights groups, the word victim being used in its widest sense. The emphasis is now placed on the problems those victims experience. We should realize that arguments for repealing section 745 of the Criminal Code are based on retaliation.

Retaliation does not justify shattering one of the few hopes lifers have left. When you are in prison, the light at the end of the tunnel is essential. I do not mean to put up an all out defence for prisoners, but we must recognize that those people are not animals. They are human beings, and we have no moral right to utterly deprive them of hope.

Let us not forget that judicial review after 15 years does not mean lifers will automatically be released from prison. It is just another step a prisoner has to take before parole is granted. People who sit on parole boards are there to determine whether individuals can be safely released in our society. If not, parole boards have every right to keep them behind bars till the end of their sentence.

I am puzzled by Bill C-226. First of all because I honestly do not think victims will be better protected. Nor do I believe that sentencing will be improved by this bill. Moreover, we have to wonder if Bill C-226 really serves any purpose since there are already, within the parole system, people whose job it is to be sure that the individuals they choose to release will make a positive contribution to society. Obviously, it is important to protect society, but as members of this society we have a role to play. When we see an ambulance going down the street, we do not fire at it. We give it the right of way without even asking who is inside.

For a person who has received a life sentence, the parole system is the light at the end of the tunnel. I do not think that the victims' relatives will suffer after 20 years. They certainly have suffered and everybody deplores that fact. However, we do not have to always give in to the people who shout the loudest.

A politician must be able to stand up and defend his views. My view is that Bill C-226 serves no useful purpose.

[Corrections And Conditional Release Act, October 7th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, in this society of ours, criminality, and particularly the kind of sexual offences Bill C-240 deals with, is a very sensitive subject. Sure, we have to talk about it, but as parliamentarians we have the moral obligation not to turn this into a circus. This is a very sensitive issue.

The death of a child is always a tragedy. Whether a child dies in a car accident, of natural causes, or whether he is abused before being killed, it is still a death.

As individual members of a society, regardless of who and where we are, we have the fundamental and legitimate duty to protect children who, after all, represent the generation for which all of us here work. Indeed, we must protect children. We must do everything we can to provide them with the best possible future in the safest possible world. However, it is wrong to want to eliminate anyone who dares get close to a child.

I want to make it clear that the Official Opposition does not take lightly a tragedy like the one referred to by the Reform Party member, in his speech to this House, on June 10. I am alluding to the case of young Christopher Stephenson who, on the evening of June 17, 1988, was kidnapped and then physically

and sexually abused for over 24 hours by a 45-year-old individual named Joseph Fredericks.

No one in his or her right mind can tolerate tragedies like that. And I mean no one. We often hear people say that inmates are all like this or like that, but the fact is that they have their own code in detention centres. Indeed, even inmates who have committed crimes themselves do not tolerate such horrible crimes. All of us, including criminals, agree that to hurt a child is a terrible thing to do. In January 1992, some inmates in Collin's Bay penitentiary, Ontario, took justice into their own hands and Joseph Fredericks was stabbed while serving his sentence in that institution.

You know, the worst thing is that, whether they have raped, injured, killed or done all of the above, child molesters have to face the judicial system to be sent to jail. They have to go through the whole usual process to be sentenced. And then they end up behind bars.

Once inside the penitentiary, they have to face another type of police, as I indicated earlier. That is why these individuals need the form of protection commonly referred to as inside protection, or the protect as they say.

I am not here to champion unduly the cause of such offenders, but nonetheless, if the judicial system sentenced them once, we should not keep sentencing them over and over, any time we feel like it. The main fault we find with the correctional system is this huge number of inside policies that govern the parole procedure. In other words, giving too much of a free rein to individuals who are not necessarily appointed because of their high qualifications but, in some cases, because of their party affiliation. To put it bluntly, these positions are too often filled by party hacks.

Once a person has been sentenced, members of the parole committee should not be given the authority to "retry" the convict by trying to find out whether for some reason, it would have been better to, or not to, and so forth, because there is no end to the administrative maze. If we do that, we will get into an incredible mess, a real mountain of red tape.

When a judge hands down a sentence-it was a judge who told me this, and I think all judges would agree-he does so on the basis of his assessment that by the end of the sentence, the individual will normally have served his term and realize, after going through the system and the follow-up services that are available, that he must not repeat the offence for which he was incarcerated.

Of course, if this worked every time, it would be an ideal world, and we have yet to achieve that objective.

On the other hand, when we look at cases like the one involving young Christopher Stephenson, everyone deplores the mistakes that were made and, of course, mistakes were made, unfortunately. Everyone deplores such mistakes. However, statistics show-because we must look at both sides of the coin; we were not elected to act in demagogic or dramatic ways-that only 6 per cent of parolees reoffend within six months of their release. Granted, they can commit new offences after the six months are up. But even if we go up to 10 per cent, which is a large increase, it means that the current correctional system still works for 90 per cent of the people. After a period of imprisonment, 90 per cent of the people can regain the freedom to which they, like you and I, are entitled.

We live in a democratic and human system managed by human beings so, on the one hand, there will always be mistakes but, on the other hand, we must also work to improve living conditions for individuals like ourselves. That is what we call community.

There will always be marginal cases; there will always be people who take undue advantage of the system, be they insiders or outsiders. Of course some people will get away, but when a system has a success rate of 90 to 94 per cent, I think that we must start on that basis and try to improve it and not just focus on the 6 per cent and dwell on them and go after them.

Yes, there is work to be done, that is quite true, everyone agrees. But I think that letting people who are not even judges render a second judgement, as the bill would do, is going too far.

I will conclude with that. Of course there is a flaw, as everyone will agree. As I just said, the system is not perfect. Many people from all backgrounds are working on it in good faith, I think. Even people who do not always deal with the public but are in the community or are senior officials. They all work hard and listen to the people.

Yes, we have to look for a solution, but I really doubt that we will find it in Bill C-240.

[Criminal Code, October 7th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice, if the Hon. Minister of Health allows it. We were amazed to learn this week that the judges of the Supreme Court now admit extreme drunkenness as a legitimate defence for sexual assault. This attitude suggests that people can commit serious crimes with impunity if they have consumed enough alcohol or other drugs.

My question is this: Does such a judgement mean that someone with a .30 blood alcohol level could be acquitted by a court while someone with a .09 level would be convicted? It does not make any sense.

Does the Minister of Justice agree that it makes no sense?