Debates of Oct. 23rd, 1995

Points Of Order

[Bob Ringma, Reform, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Journals of Thursday, October 19 show the vote on Bill C-106 was deferred by the chief government whip to today at 5.30 p.m. pursuant to Standing Order 45. However, according to Standing Order 45(6)(a):

A division deferred on Thursday is not held on Friday, but is instead deferred to the next sitting day, at the ordinary hour of daily adjournment.

The next sitting day is today and the ordinary hour of daily adjournment is 6.30 p.m., not 5.30 p.m.

The chief government whip cannot unilaterally defer a vote from Thursday to Friday to Monday to any other time but the ordinary hour of daily adjournment, to wit 6.30 p.m. He could do it pursuant to Standing Order 45(7) but as as you know, Mr. Speaker, he would need consent from the three whips for that.

He did not ask me so that leaves him with only one option which is unanimous consent. If it was done by unanimous consent the records would indicate that. The records show the vote was deferred pursuant to Standing Order 45.

Mr. Speaker, if you would also check Hansard and the video for that day you would find that unanimous consent was not sought. In fact the government whip was not in his seat to be in a position to ask for unanimous consent; he was in front of the Speaker's chair. As you know, Mr. Speaker, it is from there that he asks that votes be deferred according to the authority granted him under the standing order. The standing orders in this case do not give him the authority to defer a vote from Thursday to 5.30 p.m. today.

It may not even be necessary for you to rule, Mr. Speaker. The problem can be solved if the House gives its consent to have the vote at 5.30 p.m., which consent I and the Reform Party are prepared to give.

My concern is not really with the time of the vote. The point is we should be careful about following the rules. Our distinguished table officer, Stanley Knowles, once said that the opposition has only the rules for its protection, hence the authorities on parliamentary procedure emphasize the great importance to the opposition of the only protection it has, the protection of the rules.

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is quite right in his vigilance in seeing that the rules are correctly applied and interpreted. I commend his efforts in this regard.

I note that he is not objecting to the fact that the vote is scheduled for 5.30 p.m. this afternoon. I submit that the decision which the Speaker made at the time of the request last week was correct.

I refer the hon. member to Standing Order 45(5)(a)(ii):

During the sounding of the bells, either the Chief Government Whip or the Chief Opposition Whip may ask the Speaker to defer the division. The Speaker then defers it to a specific time, which must be no later than the ordinary hour of daily adjournment on the next sitting day that is not a Friday. At that time, the bells sound for not more than fifteen minutes.

When the request was made on Thursday it was deferred in accordance with this standing order to the next sitting day that was not a Friday, which was Monday, at a time not later than the ordinary hour of daily adjournment. In other words, the chief government whip, who I believe made the request last Thursday, made it in accordance with Standing Order 45(5)(a)(ii) in requesting that it be deferred until Monday at 5.30 p.m. I believe he had that right under that standing order.

I know that Standing Order 45(6)(a) deals with Friday divisions. It was intended as a rule to deal with divisions which might otherwise take place on Fridays, in saying that it went to the ordinary hour of daily adjournment on Monday. In respect of Thursday votes, that was intended as an explanation. However, the rule which allows the time to be fixed was set in Standing Order 45(5), not in Standing Order 45(6).

No doubt the hon. member makes a very neat point. However he has missed the other part of the rule, which in my submission applies in this case. That is the rule to allow the chief government whip or the chief opposition whip to set a time earlier than the ordinary hour of daily adjournment on any day when a vote is deferred.

It would be incongruous if the rule relating to Thursday divisions was different from that relating to divisions deferred on any other day. If, for example, a division is demanded today, the chief government whip or the chief opposition whip may defer the division to any time tomorrow not later than the ordinary hour of daily adjournment. It would be incongruous if the rule were interpreted, as the hon. member has suggested, that where a division is demanded on a Thursday it must go to 6.30 p.m. on Monday and not to any intermediate time. It cannot go to Friday. That much the rule is clear on.

I submit that Standing Order 45(5) allows for discretion in asking for a vote any time during the day on Monday, assuming that Monday is the next sitting day, no later than the ordinary hour of daily adjournment. That is the purpose of the rule, in accordance with the interpretation which has been placed on it over many years. The decision which was made last Thursday to defer the vote until 5.30 p.m. today by the Chair on request was absolutely correct.

[Bob Ringma, Reform, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, for today, as I have said, we are quite happy to accept 5.30 p.m. as the time for the vote. I submit it is your prerogative to examine the case put forward today versus that of the government benches to see what the technicality is.

[The Speaker]

I thank both members for their intervention on this matter. I have re-read the rules. What I would like to do at this point with your consent is have a brief look at the tapes and to revisit Hansard . I will rule formally later this day.

Regional Rates Of Pay

[Ron MacDonald, Liberal, Dartmouth, NS]

moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider abolishing the Regional Rates of Pay, now in force for certain federal government employees, in accordance with its stated policy of pay equity.

Mr. Speaker, it is a good way to start off on a Monday morning, dealing with an issue that is not just temporal or philosophical. This is an issue that fundamentally affects far too many public servants right across our country.

I do not know if it is luck or what it is, but this is the third time in two Parliaments I have been lucky enough to have my motion drawn for debate. The first time was in the second session of the last Parliament, in June 1990 and again in the third session in September 1991 a similar motion was also drawn for debate.

It is an issue that is near and dear to my heart. It is an issue that has affected, over the years, tens of thousands of federal employees. And it is an issue, once again, that I believe should be brought to the attention of the people who are elected to represent these public servants. As members of Parliament we are supposed to be affirming in the House the equality of employees, the equality of individuals, the equality of opportunity and the equity of people's labour.

I will talk a little about the regional rates of pay so that people understand exactly what they are. In years gone by, the federal government through the collective bargaining process, came to an agreement with its federal public employee unions that there should be regional rates of pay.

This was done at a point in time when the economies were much different than they are today. It was done at a time when one could argue that there were vast differences in economic conditions in various parts of the country, say in Winnipeg, in Halifax, in Sydney and St. John's, Newfoundland.

As total or global packages were negotiated it was agreed that there should be regional rates of pay. It meant that employees of the federal government who did a similar or identical job would get paid at a different rate based on where they lived.

As time went on, initially the rates grew in numbers. With the development of our economy, with the genesis of the economy and the consolidation of transportation infrastructure across the country, it became increasingly apparent that to continue a discriminatory wage practice based solely on a single factor of the employee living in a certain area was clearly discriminatory.

Over the last 15 years through successive collective agreements each and every time there has been the global negotiation, the number of regional rates has collapsed.

They have gone from a high of 35 or 40 down to today where only 8 or 9 regional rates of pay are left. That is solid recognition that individuals' pay should be based on their qualifications and the job they do and not on where they live. Their fundamental wage package should not be based on where they live any more than it should be based on their language, colour, gender or culture. It is discriminatory. Today it still stands as a discriminatory practice. What does this mean? It means quite a bit to the people who are affected by these discriminatory wage rates.

During the 1988 federal campaign one of the big issues in the Halifax-Dartmouth area was dealing with the general trades and labour group at the ship repair unit in Halifax. Its members were in a legal strike position. Treasury Board and the Tory government of the day in their haste to go to the electorate forgot to designate

them as essential employees. Therefore for the first time ever the potential was that those employees might be in a strike position.

One major stumbling block for those unionized workers in the negotiations going into the campaign was the regional rate of pay. They were doing the same job at the ship repair unit in Halifax as was being done in British Columbia. They had the same job classifications, the same jobs and were working on the same classes of ships, but in some cases the wage differential was as high as 28 per cent.

The regional rate of pay was made an issue in the campaign, that it was a discriminatory practice. They were not seeking a commitment from the government of the day to collapse it all at once. They wanted a commitment that it would be recognized over the next one or two collective agreements that the rate should be collapsed.

In 1989 a ships crews strike tied up the St. Lawrence Seaway. The government was not concerned until there was a freeze-up and the possibility that commerce going up the St. Lawrence Seaway would stop. At that time the ships crews strike caused legislation to come before this place to break the strike and put them back to work.

What was the issue that caused that ships crews strike? It was the wage differential between the two regional rates. There was a west coast rate and an east coast rate and the dividing line went right down the middle from the Arctic Ocean. Conceivably, if a ship was in trouble in the Arctic it could be responded to by ships crews from either the east coast or the west coast. If they both got to the troubled ship at the same time, there was as much as a 20 per cent or 25 per cent wage differential. They were doing the same jobs on the same ships on the same high seas, sometimes in 15-metre swells. They were going out to save lives and there were two different wage rates which were based on where they lived.

How much money did they get? This whole strike was caused because the ships crews from the east coast region were making between $19,000 and $21,000 a year. They wanted their pay package to go up to what it was on the west coast, about $22,000 to $23,000 a year. That was what caused the strike.

When it went to binding arbitration after the legislation passed the House, the first thing that happened with the tripartite panel was that it collapsed the regional rate of pay. It saw it as discriminatory. The panel then went on to other non-monetary issues. The history with the last three or four cases that went to binding arbitration where the regional rate was an issue is that it was immediately seen as discriminatory and was collapsed.

The east coast ships crews after they saw what happened at the tribunals told me: "The next time we are not going to bargain in good faith. We will just tie it up and hope it goes to binding arbitration because the binding arbitration process will find the rates discriminatory and will collapse them".

There is a principle here which we should listen to carefully. It is the principle of equal pay for work of equal value. That is it, straight, clean and simple. Some will argue that if you live in Halifax you should get paid less than if you live in Winnipeg. If that is the case, why are 91 per cent of federal employees in Canada paid under national rates of pay? That means that while the ships crews or the ship repair unit charge hand in Halifax get paid up to 28 per cent less than their west coast counterparts, other employees of the federal government are working in the same area and are getting identical rates of pay as their counterparts who are doing identical jobs in Toronto, Sudbury, North Bay, Victoria, Vancouver and St. John's.

It does not make sense. It cannot be argued that a regional rate of pay has to be maintained so that it does not disrupt the local private labour market when at the same time 91 per cent of the employees are on national rates of pay. It simply does not make sense and is discriminatory.

The government of the day of which I am a member will say that we are in a period of restraint. I understand that. Collective bargaining was suspended in the 1994 budget. That was not something I supported then and it is not something I support today. It is wrong. I support the collective bargaining process. I said it when that legislation came forward in the House and I will say it again today.

The government indicated that once it got beyond its $900 million or $1 billion in savings which it was trying to accommodate by the wage freeze and the suspension of collective bargaining, any further savings would be reallocated back into the pay packet. It would perhaps talk about the increments but certainly it would look at some of the pay equity issues.

I implore the government today to see this not as one of those issues that affects just a few people. This is an issue of pay equity. Just as the government has committed itself at the earliest opportunity to address those inequities in pay equity as it is traditionally defined, I ask the government today to also extend that definition to regional rates of pay.

What does it mean? The best numbers I have are from September 1994 and they have changed. In September 1994 there were 211,823 employees on the federal public service payroll. There were nine groups that were still under regional rates of pay which amounted to 23,233 people. That means 9 per cent of the Public Service of Canada is being discriminated against based on no other factor than where they live.

Should we tell the charge hand down in Halifax who is being paid 13.7 per cent less than the west coast charge hand that he should work only 86.3 per cent as hard as the individual on the west coast? Should the general trades and labour individual who is paid

13.2 per cent less work 13.2 per cent less hard? No. The performance evaluations they face are exactly the same no matter where they live. I submit that their pay rate should also reflect that similarity.

How much would it cost? To completely eliminate regional rates of pay in one round of negotiations would cost the government less than 1 per cent of its total pay envelope. It would cost less than 1 per cent to stop discriminating against 9 per cent of its federal employees.

As the government moves toward a time when it can reinstate collective bargaining, when it can start treating public servants with the type of respect they deserve, one of the number one priorities is pay equity. One of the number one priorities within pay equity is addressing the discriminatory practices of regional rates of pay.

Looking around the Chamber there are members from all over the country. There are members from the west coast, from the great province of Quebec, from New Brunswick, from Saskatchewan, from Ontario. There are members from every province and territory in this place. All of us are paid the same based on the job we do for the people of Canada, not based on the place we represent.

I close by urging members of the House to agree with the motion before us. Tell the government it is imperative that the horrendous discriminatory practice of regional rates of pay must go and must go quickly.

[Mike Scott, Reform, Skeena, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the member for Dartmouth's comments. I must say that while I understand his motives I certainly disagree with some of the arguments he raised.

In looking at the different regions in Canada, very quickly it is found that there are substantial differences in the cost of living for people in various regions. For example, in Vancouver the cost to acquire and maintain a house is much higher than in rural British Columbia or rural Saskatchewan. Looking at the cost of living from region to region, some people may do very well on $35,000 or $40,000 a year. However, other people are just skimping by on that kind of wage simply because so much of their earnings are going into their cost of living, particularly their housing.

One size fits all does not and cannot work for a country the size of Canada. This is a huge nation geographically with hundreds of thousands of square miles of land. There are different realities in all parts of Canada. We cannot impose a one size fits all standard on a nation this size. That is why the collective bargaining process has recognized this disparity in the cost of living and why we have the differences in pay rates. I would argue it is not a discriminatory practice, but rather a recognition of the reality of the cost of living in Canada by region.

If we are to impose this kind of a one size fits all standard and do away with regional differences in pay, the people who are currently paid less to reflect the reality of their lower cost of living are going to benefit greatly. However, the people who are to be the losers are the ones at the top end of the scale right now who require their income to maintain their households and their cost of living.

The member and the government have said that they want to run the government like a business. We agree with that. We think governments should be run like a business. I come from a business background and I know what it is like. In the construction company I formerly owned, people were working in different parts of British Columbia. The pay scales differed to reflect the reality of where they worked. For example, people were working in camps far away from home in areas that were remote and expensive to live in. Their pay scale was altogether different from that of people who could get up in the morning in the community they resided in and go to work.

If we are to run government like a business we have to understand that the method of dealing with employees has to be reflective of that. We cannot adopt a one size fits all standard if we are to run government like a business. We have to look at it from the point of view of what makes sense.

The other major concern I have with this motion is that it could be perceived by some as the thin edge of the wedge. Is this the beginning of an imposed minimum wage right across the nation? Will we have a minimum wage level established based on the most prosperous regions where the cost of living is highest and then have that imposed on the entire nation? There is real concern that may be the direction we will be going in if we adopt this kind of philosophy and attitude.

With the greatest of respect to the member, I think I understand his motivation, but I certainly disagree with his arguments. For that reason we on this side of the House, certainly myself, will not be supporting this motion.

[Dennis Mills, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, because of the strong interest from government members in supporting this motion and in supporting our colleague from Dartmouth who has been working on this motion for many years, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour and I will be splitting our time. We will each have five minutes.

I congratulate my colleague for once again bringing this motion to the floor of the House of Commons. Whenever there is a motion

in the House which deals with national standards, I always try to stand and speak in favour of the motion.

I am a passionate believer that Canada needs more, not less, regulation, programs and activities wherein the national standards of the country will be promoted and upheld. I happen to believe national standards represent the galvanizing feature or the glue that holds the country together.

[Mike Scott, Reform, Skeena, BC]

More regulation, more government.

[Dennis Mills, Liberal, Broadview—Greenwood, ON]

With respect to the member for Skeena, I did not say more regulation. I said regulations that have national standards.

I come from industry as well and I have always favoured less red tape, much more efficiency in government and less duplication. However I believe the national government has a role to play in the country. I for one am totally frustrated. I do not feel comfortable with the offloading and dismantling program we are going through.

The member has put forward a very good bill. Its impact on the treasury of Canada will be minimal versus the positive output from it.

I say to the member for Skeena that I do not ever remember any member of Parliament on the government side saying that government should be run like a business. Government cannot be run like a business. If we are talking about efficiencies, absolutely, but I come from business and the difference between government and business is that business is only interested in earnings per share per quarter. It is only interested in profit. That is not the government's bottom line. Our bottom line, rather than the business bottom line, is people. We are interested in people. Business is only interested in profit as a bottom line. That is a big difference.

It is nothing personal with the member for Skeena. It is an ideological view I have. Governments, and I cite my own province right now, are becoming so lean in their attitude that the people factor is really being hurt. We are here as members of Parliament not to look out for the advantaged. We are here to look out for the disadvantaged. I get a sense that governments are becoming so businesslike that we are almost becoming mean as governments.

[Ed Harper, Reform, Simcoe Centre, ON]

No.

[Dennis Mills, Liberal, Broadview—Greenwood, ON]

The member whom I have immense respect for from Orillia says no. I am concerned about this matter. We should be skating with our heads up.

I am happy to stand in the House to support the bill. I campaigned in my first election in Broadview-Greenwood for a strong national government. I believe the best way to help disadvantaged regions and people who are disadvantaged is to make sure the national government is strong enough to ensure that those regions receive the same treatment as downtown Toronto, whether it be in education, hospital care, service to the public or whatever.

I am happy to continue that thought process here. I salute my colleague from Dartmouth for making sure the government holds true to its red book commitment to be the government that rebuilds national standards in the country. What better area than to start with the Public Service of Canada which used to be recognized as the best public service in the world. The way we have been battering it around lately, it needs confidence and support to once again become the greatest public service in the world.

I salute my colleague from Dartmouth for putting us back on the right path.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. member for Joliette, on a point of order.

[René Laurin, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know how much time is left. Normally speeches are 10 minutes long. When they are 20 minutes long, there are 10 minutes for questions and comments. And I think the 10 minutes must be nearly up. It would be difficult to allow an extra 5 minutes, as the member across the way announced earlier.

I think that when 10 minutes are used up, by one party or the other, it is a total of 10 minutes.

[The Deputy Speaker]

On the question about dividing the 10-minute time period in private members' hour into two 5-minute blocks, Standing Order 43 refers to government business and giving notice to the Chair through the whip and so on.

Given that we have only six people who wish to speak it would be better if the hon. parliamentary secretary would finish his 10 minutes. Then we will move across the floor and back to his colleague.

[René Laurin, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. member for Joliette, again on a point of order.

[René Laurin, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I beg your pardon, but you have just told the parliamentary secretary that he might finish his 10 minutes. He is not entitled to 10 minutes, because the Reform Party has already used up a certain number of minutes. All that he can use is what remains after the remarks by the Reform Party member.

Otherwise, provided a member announced his intentions in advance, he could book in advance all of the time reserved for a

party by indicating that the 10 minute period would be shared with a colleague, if he were the first speaker.

I believe that you should acknowledge everyone in turn, without going beyond 10 minutes.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The parliamentary secretary has 3 or 4 minutes more, if he wishes to use them.

[Dennis Mills, Liberal, Broadview—Greenwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, today being Monday we are heading into the final week of the referendum. It is nice to hear a positive spirit coming from the Bloc. Hopefully it is a sign as we go through the final moments that Bloc Quebecois members and some of their constituents are starting to realize that being a part of this great Chamber, being a part of Canada, is a much more exciting challenge and a much more worthwhile one than separating and going on their own.

Once again, my commitment is to national standards, which is essentially what the bill is all about. We are reinventing ourselves as a government and a country. We have to look at every opportunity presented to us to keep the country working. Often it is public service motivated because the Public Service of Canada touches every aspect of the economic life of the country. A vibrant, forward looking, well motivated public service plays an essential role in ensuring the economy and the policies related to the economy of the country are the right ones.

The bill respects the contribution the Public Service of Canada makes, so let us all get behind it.

[René Laurin, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, let me begin by thanking the hon. member opposite for acknowledging my positive spirit. He is extremely perspicacious, and I would remind him that yes is the response associated with positivism.

I have listened with a great deal of attention and interest to what my colleague from Dartmouth has had to say. Let me congratulate him as well on his sincere concern with this problem. I feel that efforts must be made to ensure wage equity in all areas. It is a desirable thing for there to be wage equity, no discrimination according to gender, skin colour, race, religion, or geographical location.

Because, regardless of where a job is done, I am thinking for instance of a plumber who fixes a sink, whether in Trois-Rivières or James Bay, obviously it is the same job. Where this causes certain problems, and I think that certain differentiations need to be made, the issue cannot be decided as simply as that. Serious problems crop up in trying to attain this principle of equality.

Of course, one could say: equal pay for equal work. But there are often differing incidental expenses in performing that work which need to be taken into consideration.

The hon. member himself just now said that all members of this House are paid the same because that is normal, we all do the same work. I am sure that a member from British Columbia is just as good at his job as a member from Quebec, and vice versa. Except that the member from British Columbia who comes to do his job here in the House is given points for travel time, just as I, as a Quebec member, am given points when I come to do my job in the House, but the value of these points is not the same.

We have the same salary, but when the member leaves Vancouver to do his job here in the House, his plane ticket costs a lot more than the mileage I would be allowed to come and do my job in the House. If the member had to pay this out of his own salary, he would be at a disadvantage. Today, he has the same salary, because someone else pays for incidentals and costs directly related to his job in Ottawa.

The same applies to a plumber. Suppose a company is doing work at James Bay. If the company wants to attract qualified employees to James Bay to do certain jobs, such as electricians or plumbers, the individual who agrees to go and work in a remote area where his expenses will be higher will insist that by the end of the week he should have about the same net salary as his counterpart in Montreal. The hon. member did not mention this in his speech.

I refer to remote areas, but we could also talk about isolated areas. When someone is asked to go to work in a location that is not easily reached except by plane, for instance, this individual will spend more to get to his job, in addition to suffering the inconvenience of isolation.

Working in an isolated area is worse than working in a remote area, and there should be some compensation. If the hon. member means equal pay for equal work, fine, but members will have to suggest ways to compensate for additional expenses. Perhaps we could call it a remote area or isolated area allowance, or even an occupational hazard allowance, depending on the area.

Take a firefighter, for instance. Someone who works as a firefighter in a small community of 15,000, 17,000 or 20,000 does not run the same risks on the job as a firefighter who works in a big city like Montreal or Toronto. The risks are not the same. The buildings are higher, and exposure to chemical products may be more frequent. The working conditions are quite different.

If these differences are not reflected in the salary, it will be necessary to find a way to acknowledge them by providing an allowance. If an allowance is used, we still have the same problem, which is how to determine the amount of the allowance.

The union has argued that it is not easy to judge to what extent one job location warrants a higher salary than another location, because the work is the same. If there is a problem with salaries, determining the allowance will also be a problem.

The hon. member for Dartmouth has remained silent about these issues. I am aware of union demands that everyone should be equal, but when they talk about making everyone equal, they mean raising the lowest salaries to the highest level in a given occupation. So that the hourly rate proposed for a plumber living in a small village of three or four thousand inhabitants where the cost of living is not particularly high is the same as a plumber working on a construction site in Montreal.

Obviously, no plumber is going to turn his nose up at a salary increase in such a region, without its being either remote or isolated. But these have to be taken into account.

Getting back to the remote regions, a person has to pay more to get to work and, then, on top of that he has to pay more for everything he buys in order to live in this remote place, all of which comes out of his salary. A pound of butter in James Bay does not cost the same as in Montreal, because it has to be transported by air.

So, if I pay employees the same salary for their work, the one living in James Bay will not have enough salary to live on there. It does not cost the same to build a house in James Bay or to live there or in Manicouagan as it does in Montreal or Toronto. I am in favour of equalizing by taking the best salary being paid in each place in society, but we do not want to end up with other inequities that would be just as unfair.

We have to be careful in this matter before we legislate, because we also have to allow the business, the employer, to find labour, which at times can be hard to find. If you ask me-I was in education, I was an administrator in education-most teachers from Montreal or from my riding of Joliette, a beautiful riding in the province, asked to go and teach in Port Cartier, a very remote region, would not voluntarily go and work there for equal salary. As the region of Port Cartier would not have been sufficiently self sufficient to develop its own teachers, it would have had to go without competent people to teach there.

The same thing would have happened in James Bay, Manicouagan and in other areas in other provinces. I am thinking of remote areas, in the woods, for example, areas hard to reach. Sometimes competent workers would not be hired, in order to be able to provide everyone with the public services to which they are entitled. This has been discussed with respect to certain trades but health care could have been chosen just as easily as my example of education.

When people are entitled to equal services, their wages must enable them to pay for these equal services to which they are entitled, in all fairness and independent again of their gender, age, skin colour, religion and so on. These are the sorts of things I would like to see addressed by the hon. member for Dartmouth, who seems to have a well intentioned bill here, but one that does not seem to be detailed enough to ensure it would improve the situation instead of creating other areas of inconsistency or other labour relations problems.

I would also like to see these matters discussed between employers and employees, and I think that good personnel administration means that, when disputes of this type crop up, they are discussed together, negotiated, in preference-by far-to letting the courts decide, as has been said.

I am totally in agreement with the unions on this approach when there is a problem, instead of letting grievances develop and going before the courts to have the issue decided, which takes time and runs into thousands of dollars in costs as well. What is preferable is to allow employers and employees to discuss the true nature of the problem and to look together at where solutions lie.

This motion will not be voted upon at this time, but it does show good intentions, and I hope the government will show an interest in it. I hope also, however, that the motion will be able to be translated into a bill which will do more justice to workers, to employers as well, and to the regions. Care must be taken to ensure that the regions do not end up in a situation where they will be unable to have with the services necessary for a quality of life and an environment to which they are as entitled as everyone else.

I hope therefore that the hon. member for Dartmouth will seek the assistance of his colleagues in addition to his own opinions on this, and I am anxious to hear their input.

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Fredericton—York—Sunbury, NB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to support the motion put forward by my colleague from Dartmouth this morning. As we approach the second anniversary of the election that brought us here, I have come to appreciate the many opportunities available to members in terms of how items are put on the agenda and I realize just how talented the member for Dartmouth is in bringing these items to the attention of the nation. I bring to the attention of the House the credit he deserves on not only this one but on other issues.

Before speaking to what I believe to be the merits of the motion I will address some of the concerns that were raised by colleagues who spoke previously.

In response to the Reform member for Skeena, I think the first argument he made against the motion was on the grounds that we really had to recognize the differences in the cost of living in various places in Canada in terms of remuneration public servants receive. I challenge that on a couple of grounds. The country, the courts, and public sympathy are headed in the other direction. So even in the context of being responsive to the will of the nation, we are heading in another direction.

More appropriate to the political affiliation of the member who made the suggestion, I wonder about the cost of bureaucracy in trying to determine pay packages on the basis of regional costs of living. I believe there would have to be a new department of the cost of living. I cannot see that being consistent with decreasing the cost of governance in Canada. Quite the contrary. That would be a pretty expensive proposition and one I think the member should reconsider in the face of his own party's positions on those issues.

The second issue raised by the member for Skeena and repeated by the member for Joliette had to do with isolation pay and the need to recognize cost of living. I had the good fortune of visiting Iqaluit last fall with the social security review group, and I was shocked at the price of a banana in that community. I reassure both the member for Joliette and the member for Skeena that isolation pay and bonuses related to isolation would not be affected by the intentions of this motion. This would all be a part of job classifications and pay related to job classification and not related to isolation. Hopefully some of their concerns would be reassured by that.

The member for Skeena mentioned that he was fearful that this was the thin edge of the wedge. I agree with the member, but I think we are heading in the other direction. I would turn that metaphor on its head and say quite appropriately that we are heading to the narrow point of the triangle, not to the wide edge of the triangle, and it is just a matter of time.

It should not be surprising that I have fewer exceptions to take with the member for Broadview-Greenwood in terms of his comments, other than whether or not the nation requires national standards, the nation requires national values. Questions of fairness in remuneration speak to the need for a national value in Canada. That value is fairness, which the government has to acknowledge and respect. I say that because this discussion follows the recent debate on Bill C-64 on pay equity. It strikes me that the values behind this motion and that bill are the same. How can the government that supports the notion of pay equity based on questions of gender or minorities continue to support the notion of regional disparities in terms of how much public servants are paid depending on geography?

The other important consideration is the inevitability of this happening anyway. I suppose this would appeal to members represented by the member for Skeena and the Reform Party in terms of the savings involved in doing this as an act of will rather than being forced to do it through the courts with all the costs associated to have these decisions forced upon us through the legal system. It is very important for us to recognize the need to do what ultimately will happen anyway without having to be told to do it.

By way of history, the previous government reacted to the strike in 1989 in Halifax and Dartmouth by enacting back to work legislation contained in Bill C-49. At that time as part of that back to work legislation a conciliation board was established that concluded that regional rate policies would not be maintained much longer. That conciliation board labelled the policy discriminatory and ordered a new collective agreement to bring east coast and west coast workers into parity.

We have already been told by a process the previous government put in place to deal with this inequity. It is long overdue that we do that. It is an important opportunity for this government to meet the commitments that were made to act in a fashion that is consistent with what we said in opposition. At that time many members said these were discriminatory practices.

As I said before, this government is promoting equity in terms of pay regardless of gender and ethnic background. It would only be fair to eliminate discrimination based on geography as well.

I will speak for a moment on the question of where this regional pay package idea came from. I do not know for certain but I assume there are a couple of historical factors that come into play here. My sense is that at the time these pay regimes were affected jobs were probably less well defined. Consequently what one did in terms of a job classification in one part of Canada was probably quite different from what one did as a part of a job classification in another part of Canada.

In the course of collective bargaining over the years job descriptions and categories have become much tighter. The level of degree that was contained in the practice and exercise of some of these jobs has probably diminished significantly. The argument that might have been in place at one time no longer exists. I also think that at the time these regional pay packages were put in place there was a lot less mobility of labour. We are obviously moving across the country today with a good deal more frequency and efficiency than we did some time ago.

The most important reason to support the motion by the member for Dartmouth is it reflects Canadian values. Many Canadians have lost their faith in this fine institution and in governance in general because they see things that they think should be fixed and which do not get fixed as quickly or as efficiently as they perhaps should. This is one of those things. People look at this and say if you are

doing the same job it seems only fair that you should be paid the same, wherever you do it in Canada. We have to respond to those common sense arguments to win back the trust and confidence of those Canadians who watch every day as we make decisions.

There was a point made that perhaps in the low wage areas a higher pay scale that would reflect the national number would have the effect of making it difficult for the local communities to compete with the public service in terms of pay packages. If 100 per cent of the employees of the public service were affected then an argument might be made for that, although I would not accept it. However, given the fact that it is only 9 per cent of the public service left, it does not strike me that they should be the people who bear the brunt of that argument.

I encourage my colleagues to support the motion put forward by the hon. member for Dartmouth. It is important to recognize that federal government employees are competent, efficient, hard working and deserving of the same compensation regardless of where they live.

[Bob Nault, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of the motion put forward by the hon. member for Dartmouth that in the opinion of the House the government should consider abolishing regional rates of pay. It is an important issue for the hon. member and I am glad to see it being debated in the Chamber.

As hon. members may or may not be aware, regional rates of pay have been in place in the public service since the 1950s. Under this system federal public servants performing the same jobs, with the same qualifications and the same experience, are paid different wages depending on where they live. This is clearly discriminatory.

The federal government is committed to pay equity which quite simply means equal pay for work of equal value. We rightly condemn wage discrimination based on gender, race or religion. I believe discrimination based on geography is also wrong.

In the public service we have people who are working for the same employer. Yet as of September 1994 over 23,000 federal employees were being paid lower wages than others doing the same work. In some cases the discrepancy is 25 per cent. There are two people doing the same job, with the same qualifications and seniority, but one earns 25 per cent less simply because of where he or she lives.

I will give the House an example of how different that is in the public sector from what it would be in the private sector. I come from a railway background. In the railway industry there are unions. Some are conductors, some are engineers and some are in maintenance. We negotiate a collective agreement on a year to year basis. No matter where a conductor, an engineer or a maintenance person working for CP Rail lives, they get the same pay based on a collective agreement. Quite frankly that is the way collective agreements have always been negotiated.

I do not think it takes a leap of logic or great faith to understand that we cannot go on doing this in the public sector. Over the years the number of classifications affected by regional rates of pay have been dropping steadily. We have been moving however slowly in the right direction. Now the question is when we will take the final steps to rectify a situation that should have been rectified many years ago.

Some members will be concerned about the cost of ending regional rates of pay. I agree that this is an important consideration. Treasury Board estimates the cost of removing regional rates at around $87 million per year. This would represent a 1 per cent increase in our total outlay for public service wages. While it may be difficult to argue for such an increase while we are cutting back in everything, at some point it will not be a discretionary expenditure.

Members of the Chamber often wonder why there are regional rates of pay. The reason for them is that the argument can be made that people should be paid less based on where they live instead of being paid the same amount. Everyone seems to think we are asking for people to be paid less when we are asking for people to be paid a reasonable rate of pay at the same level as someone else living in Montreal, Toronto, Sioux Lookout or Dartmouth.

I was in the House with the hon. member for Dartmouth when east coast ships crews went on strike in 1989 over discriminatory rates of pay. I recall the hon. member seizing the issue and holding the government of the day accountable. I remember Bill C-49, the back to work legislation, that was brought forward in this case. It established a conciliation board under the Public Service Staff Relations Act.

If members look at the report issued by the board they will see that it is quite enlightening. It clearly states that regional rates of pay are discriminatory. It orders the government to eliminate regional rates of pay in that classification.

We face another such situation. Logic and precedence state that the government will be forced to act. We will be forced to do the right thing. What would it say about this institution if we waited for another conciliation board report to tell us to act when we already know we have to act.

The member has put the issue before the House in very succinct terms. Either we do it as a collective in the House of Commons

because it is the right thing to do, or we will have an outside body do it for us because it is discriminatory.

As I mentioned before, in the private sector everybody in large unions gets the same rate of pay. In the House of Commons it could be argued that there is a bit of difference depending on where people live and their costs of living. The argument in northern Ontario is that the cost of food is higher and the cost of gas is higher. The cost of housing is much lower in Kenora-Rainy River than it is in Halifax, than it is in Toronto, than it is in Vancouver. It balances itself out in most cases.

The motion put by the member is a very good one and should be supported by the government and all members opposite to give people work and pay based on their abilities, their seniority and their classifications, not on where they live.

[Translation]

[The Deputy Speaker]

Colleagues, the time set for this debate expires at 12.10 p.m. Shall we call it 12.10 at this time?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The time allocated for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 96(1), the order is dropped from the Order Paper.