Norman E. Doyle

[Fisheries, June 10th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, Canada was a world leader in the fight for the 200 mile limit, but the 200 mile limit by itself has not been enough to stop the rapid decline in world fisheries resources. The recent cod fishery closure in eastern Canada, with all of its social and economic hardship, is the most recent example.

The current international fisheries conservation regime is long on promises but short on action. Something needs to be done. It is time for Canada to again take a leading role in developing a more comprehensive and enforceable fisheries conservation program on the international scene.

A nation is known not by the challenges it encounters but by the challenges it has the courage to take up. A hungry world is crying out for leadership on fisheries conservation while there are still some fish left. It is time for Canada to take up the challenge and answer the call.

[Question No. 220, June 10th, 2003]

Could the Minister of Finance confirm that if a Newfoundland parent of three disabled children in a family with a total income of $35,000 were to earn an extra $1,000 working overtime in 2003, the following would be lost to taxes and clawbacks: ( a ) $220 in federal taxes; ( b ) $162 in provincial tax on taxable income; ( c ) $50 in clawback of Goods and Services Tax credit; ( d ) $321 in clawback of National Child Benefit and Child Disability Benefit; ( e ) $50 in clawback Canada Child Tax Benefit; ( f ) $15 in Employment Insurance net of federal and provincial tax credit; ( g ) $36 in Canada Pension Plan net of federal and provincial tax credit; and ( h ) the total of the above being $854, which equals to an effective marginal tax rate of 85.4 per cent of the additional amount earned?

[Question No. 219, June 10th, 2003]

Could the Minister of Finance confirm that if a Manitoba parent of three disabled children in a family with a total income of $35,000 were to earn an extra $1,000 working overtime in 2003, the following would be lost to taxes and clawbacks: ( a ) $220 in federal taxes; ( b ) $149 in provincial tax on taxable income; ( c ) $10 in clawback of Manitoba family tax reduction; ( d ) $50 in clawback of Goods and Services Tax credit; ( e ) $321 in clawback of National Child Benefit and Child Disability Benefit; ( f ) $50 in clawback Canada Child Tax Benefit; ( g ) $15 in Employment Insurance net of federal and provincial tax credit; ( h ) $36 in Canada Pension Plan net of federal and provincial tax credit; and ( i ) the total of the above being $851 which equals to an effective marginal tax rate of 85.1 per cent of the additional amount earned?

[Public Service Modernization Act, May 28th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, first, I find it difficult to comment on the member's question because I am really not all that familiar with the bill. I am not the critic for this portfolio. I am speaking today and making these remarks on behalf of my colleague, the member for Kings—Hants.

I believe it is very important that unions be consulted and made a part of this process right from the very beginning. I will make my colleague aware of the hon. member's concerns, and he probably will talk to him on that.

[Public Service Modernization Act, May 28th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member says that it is not a problem. It is not a problem for him because he represents an area in Ontario. It is not a problem for him when these job postings are not available to everyone else in Canada. However I can assure him that it is a real problem for the people in eastern Canada and western Canada.

As I said a few minutes ago, all it really takes to solve this problem is political will. The hon. member says that this would require a computerized approach. Well, I am sure the Public Service Commission does not use slide rules when it is trying to fill jobs. It uses computers. A computerized approach in the 21st century is not really too much to ask, and if it takes a computerized approach, then fine.

I think what it takes most of all, by the government, is the political will to really do something about it. However I do not believe the government has the political will to do anything about making all parts of the country equal when it comes to access to employment opportunities.

[Public Service Modernization Act, May 28th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, there may be practical problems in delivering it but that does not mean that it cannot be delivered.

The member for Cumberland--Colchester has, on a number of occasions, spoken to officials at the Public Service Commission on this particular issue. He has made some progress on it but not enough to say that the problem is solved.

Yes, we realize that not only the nation's capital would be affected with regard to job postings, but if people happen to live in Newfoundland or in Halifax it would throw those jobs open to them and to the rest of the country as well, and we would have a truly national job posting policy that everyone could take advantage of.

We are not advocating that people can only apply for jobs in the nation's capital and leave our neck of the woods alone. These are federal jobs that would be open to everyone in every part of the country.

I think living in this kind of country, one that is so huge and so geographically dispersed, there is no reason why people should not, in this day and age, have access to jobs in any part of the country.

[Public Service Modernization Act, May 28th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure it would not take a great genius to figure out how this could be done. It is only a matter of actually directing the Public Service Commission to post these jobs and make them available in all parts of Canada.

As I said a few minutes ago, it gives greater mobility to people who find themselves unable to find employment in certain parts of the country because industries have closed down and they now have to move to other parts of the country.

If an individual who happens to live in Halifax or in Newfoundland is aware of the fact that he can apply for a job here in Ottawa, it is a lot easier for him to be mobile and to move to other parts of the country that have employment opportunities.

As I said a moment ago, it is a fairly simple matter for the Public Service Commission to address. It simply takes political will on the part of the government to do it and I think it can be done fairly easily. As one of my colleagues said a moment ago, it helps build all regions of the country and it makes jobs available to people in all parts of the country.

[Public Service Modernization Act, May 28th, 2003]

Yes, that is a good point. The Minister of Labour might want to make a few comments on this as well.

If we need 7,000 people a year just to keep pace with the number of people who are retiring, why are we so restrictive in the way we hire people? Why do we not throw it open? After all, we are a country, a democratic country. If people happen to live in Halifax or Newfoundland, why can they not apply for every single job that becomes available within the public service? It stands to reason that they should be able to do that.

We need 7,000 new people every year just to keep pace with retirement. A hiring process that lumbers on for months often sees the best people and the brightest job applicants scooped up by the private sector. When we add to this a looming shortage of skilled workers in all sectors as the baby boomers retire, the public service is going to be very hard-pressed to obtain good workers.

If there is a criticism of the government here, it is that it has taken this long to act on the reality of the looming skills shortage in all sectors of the economy. As for the act, it appears to be very thorough and very detailed. The devil, they say, is in the details. Lawyers and labour leaders have combed through the fine print. If there are major problems, other than the ones I have outlined, I am sure we will be hearing from the various stakeholders in the system. The public service unions have expressed concern and hopefully some of these concerns will be dealt with.

I think it is important that managers have a greater say in the hiring process. After all, the people being hired are people we have to work with every single day. As an employee and an employer, I have often seen the wisdom in having a harmonious productive workplace.

I recently read an article that referred to a study on the issue of who did the best hiring, the area manager or the technocrats from the human resources section. The study found that while both entities could assess applications on their level of technical competence, the manager did a much better job of picking an employee who also fit into the organization. Simply put, personality counts.

Most of the amendments that have been introduced make for greater clarity and do not detract from the overall thrust of the bill. However I am curious as to whether the government will support in the House an amendment passed in committee.

Clause 3(5), on page 158 of the original draft, indicates that:

A Commissioner holds office during good behaviour for a period of seven years, but may be removed by the Governor in Council on address of the Senate and House of Commons

In the amended draft, clause 3(5) now reads:

The President and other Commissioners shall be appointed by the Governor in Council. The appointment of the President shall be made by commission under the Great Seal, after approval by resolution of the Senate andHouse of Commons.

I assume that means that the appointment of the president of the Public Service Commission has to be ratified by Parliament. I consider that to be a positive development.

However, as I said, the bulk of the amendments are matters of wording and clarity and generally give some strength to the bill.

I do not know if we can vote on certain parts of the bill but we do support the thrust of the bill. I would like the minister to address some of the practical concerns that I told her about today, and hopefully she will.

[Public Service Modernization Act, May 28th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to say a few words on Bill C-25, the public service modernization act. I make these comments today on behalf of my colleague, the member for Kings—Hants, who is unable to be here today because of his commitment to Her Majesty's business in another area.

We are all aware that in Bill C-25 we have an overhaul of the way the federal public sector functions. I wish it were a more complete overhaul, but we do have an overhaul. By the government's own admission, over the past few decades the federal public service has remained structurally and functionally a top-down organization. It is somewhat stiff in its functioning, a lumbering giant that often requires a department to go through a maze of several months of paperwork and meetings simply to hire a file clerk.

I wish the minister had been a little more thorough in addressing some of the issues that really affect people in this country when it comes to hiring. We are often told by government, the federal government especially, that when we are unemployed in a certain part of the country we should simply move to another part of the country. It seems like a very simple process if a person happens to be living in central Ontario, or in central Canada period.

My colleague, the member for Cumberland—Colchester, has worked quite diligently in bringing some public attention to some of the problems people in this country have in being able to find work in other parts of the country. MPs realize, with people coming to them on a continuous basis looking for work, that people have a great deal of trouble accessing work in certain parts of the country. As I said a moment ago, the member for Cumberland—Colchester has worked quite hard in trying to bring public attention to some of the problems we have in that regard. For example, why is it that a person who lives in any part of this country cannot apply for a job that might be available in any other part of the country? This is why I am a little bit disappointed that the minister has not addressed this particular issue. It is a very important issue.

Today I was handed two or three different examples of what the member for Cumberland—Colchester has been talking about with respect to positions that become available in Ottawa.

For instance, I want to make members aware of a position for a paralegal in Ottawa. It is within the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade. The salary is between $32,000 and $38,000 a year.

Who can apply for that position? The Public Service Commission says that people can apply who reside or work in eastern Ontario or western Quebec and who have a home or a business postal code beginning with K1 to K7, K8A to K8H, K0A to K0J and on and on it goes down through the postal codes. One would be tempted to say, and to say with some accuracy, that this is discrimination by postal code. Why is it that a person who lives in any part of the country, whether they happen to live on Vancouver Island or in Bonavista Bay, cannot apply for a position in the nation's capital? The way things stand now within the Public Service Commission one cannot apply.

That is not the only example I can give. It is a very serious issue. We feel and have always felt as part of our policy that all jobs in every part of Canada should be available to every single person in Canada.

Here I have one for an architect; it is not for a rocket scientist but an architect in Hull, Quebec. Who may apply for the job as an architect? Architects come from every part of the country. They are trained in every province in Canada, from Vancouver to Newfoundland, as I said, and who may apply for a job as an architect over in Hull, a job that pays between $44,000 and $54,000 a year? Again it is people who work in eastern Ontario or western Quebec. But if people happen to live in Saskatchewan, if they happen to live in British Columbia or if they happen to live in Newfoundland and are unemployed, they cannot apply for the job. That is not fair. That should not be happening in a democratic society like Canada. People should be able to apply for these jobs no matter what part of the country they happen to be living in. These are not jobs that the federal public service is finding difficult to fill.

For instance, I have one here for a secretary here in Ottawa. The salary is $32,000 to $35,000 a year. Again, who may apply? One can apply if one happens to be in eastern Ontario or western Quebec. Again, secretaries are available in every part of the country and come out of trade schools by the score in British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Newfoundland, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, but they cannot apply for the job.

I have a funny one here for a real property officer trainee wanted in Halifax, Nova Scotia, to work within the Department of Public Works and Government Services. Who can apply for the job in Halifax, Nova Scotia? It is open to people in Kings--Hants, Colchester, Antigonish, Pictou and Lunenburg counties, one county in Prince Edward Island and all the island of Newfoundland. If one happens to live in western Ontario or Quebec, one cannot apply for that particular job in Halifax, Nova Scotia. Again it is not fair. It is not fair to the people of Ontario or the people of Quebec that they cannot apply for a job as a real property officer trainee in Halifax, Nova Scotia.

These are some of the real concerns. I have a whole stack of applications here for a project officer for Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, and for a Halifax maritime search and rescue support officer. People who are on the doorstep of these jobs cannot apply. There is one for a dental assistant in Greenwood, Nova Scotia, but people have to be from Halifax, Lunenburg or Queens in order to apply to be a dental assistant. People from Ontario or Quebec cannot apply. And on and on it goes.

We had an overhaul of the public service, but we did not have a complete overhaul of the public service. People are very upset about this particular issue. The minister who is responsible for this act, the minister from the Treasury Board, has not done the kind of job she should have on this. I am sure she has had a number of complaints from people all across the country who have concerns about this particular bill. I really do wish that when the minister stands to sum up debate on this issue she will address some of the very real practical problems people have.

There are many good points contained in this bill, but the minister had been made aware of this problem by the member for Cumberland--Colchester and her department was made aware of this particular problem by my own office and by numerous MPs in the opposition. She failed to do anything about it and I do not know if she intends to do anything about it. She is shaking her head that she is going to do something about it, but we see no evidence of it, not in the act so far, so I can only assume that the minister for the sake of convenience is saying that they are going to do something about it. But as usual, they say it here in the House of Commons and it never seems to get on to the Public Service Commission. The real practical application of doing something about it never really gets done.

However, not to be totally negative about this bill, there are some good points contained in the bill. It provides for more flexibility in staffing and managing people. Managers within certain levels will have more power over hiring and whom they hire, just like out in the real world. Applicants who feel they have been shortchanged in the staffing process will be given access to redress under the public service staffing tribunal.

The bill also stresses the need for a cooperative approach to labour-management relations. The intent is to make employees part and parcel of the process of running the workplace, and I believe that to be very good. Nobody knows how to do a job like the people who do it every day, and if the intent of the bill holds true we should in the long run probably have a much happier federal workplace.

The bill provides for the overhaul and consolidation of staff training and development processes of the federal public service. Also, it more clearly delineates the roles of key players in the human resource area: Treasury Board, the Public Service Commission, and the various deputy ministers and their various equivalents.

However, I have to say that the public service has not kept pace with the absolutely frantic pace of the private sector in the modern world. Many public servants are baby boomers who are about to retire. I am told we need about 7,000 new people every year just to keep pace. If we need 7,000 people every year, why is the Public Service Commission being so restrictive in the way it posts jobs in this country?

[Income Tax Act, May 27th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to say a few words on Bill C-325, an act to amend the Income Tax Act, regarding a deduction for voluntary emergency services. At the outset I want to express my support for the bill to the hon. member who introduced the bill. It or something like it should have been introduced in the House of Commons a long time ago. It is long overdue.

The bill is only one page long but it says a lot. It amends section 60 of the Income Tax Act by adding a paragraph to that section. It indicates that an emergency service volunteer could avail of a $3,000 tax deduction if he or she has performed at least 200 hours of service in the previous year. It is a very good bill. As I said, it is a bill that is long overdue and one which we should all support.

Section 60.03 is added. It requires a volunteer to obtain a certificate from the relevant authority attesting to the 200 hours of volunteer service. It stipulates that training time can be included in the 200 hours. It is a reasonable safeguard against the deduction being abused by people who have not put in the necessary time or effort on behalf of their community. As I said, it is a one page bill but it says an awful lot.

We are all very much aware that volunteers are the heart and soul of our community. Volunteers are also part of the economy. I do not know if members are aware that Canada has 7.5 million volunteers. We have 175,000 not for profit organizations. It is a little difficult to believe but those 7.5 million volunteers put 1.1 billion hours of work annually into the Canadian economy for various causes.

Believe it or not, the volunteer work is estimated to be worth about $16 billion annually. That translates into about the budget of four medium size provinces, or four provinces the size of Newfoundland and Labrador. That is $16 billion and it is the equivalent of 578,000 full time jobs. That is remarkable.

In my constituency there are 12 to 15 volunteer fire departments. I very often have the opportunity to attend their various banquets and what have you. I can tell members firsthand of the great contribution these people make to their communities. I feel very lucky to have been the minister of municipal affairs in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador for about three and a half years. I had the opportunity to visit just about every volunteer fire department in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

It is only when we see the kind of contribution that these people make and we visit so many of them that we actually get a feel and a flavour for all of the hard work they put into emergency volunteer services. We need to be very grateful for the contribution, sometimes of life and limb, that these people make.

Volunteering in the emergency service sector is especially important to our small communities across the country. For many small towns without volunteers there would be no local fire department, no local ambulance service, or no local search and rescue team. While these services are vital to the security of the community at large, they are often a danger to the life and limb of the people performing them. I see absolutely no problem in endorsing a special income tax deduction for people who provide these very important services.

We all have our blue books and red books when we go into campaigns. The Progressive Conservative Party in our blue book, our platform in the 2000 general election, said “A Progressive Conservative government would provide a tax credit of $500 per year to all emergency service volunteers”. Our party's reaction to the government's $1,000 deduction for volunteers in receipt of an honorarium, is it should apply to all emergency service volunteers.

I think it was Winston Churchill who said that we make a living by what we get, but we make a life by what we give. It is appropriate to make that quote here. Bill C-325 seeks to give back a little to the volunteers who give a lot. As I have said, at times they probably, God forbid, give everything, life and limb included, to make our communities better and safer for all of us. This initiative is even more important in a post-September 11 world.

I congratulate the member for bringing in the bill. I wholeheartedly support moving it forward in the business of the House.