Tony Ianno

[Government Services Act, 1999, March 22nd, 1999]

Mr. Speaker, aside from saying that the NDP is not surprising anyone with its usual rhetorical lines, supporting regional rates of pay is not difficult to understand. The striking blue collar workers want one rate across Canada.

That would make it inequitable for many in the process. It would mean excessive income for some in certain areas while others would be underpaid in other areas. That is simply not fair.

The government has offered blue collar workers contracts in line with what it has provided other public servants in negotiated settlements while paying wages that reflect local market realities. In fact, 87% of PSAC has negotiated settlement. We believe in the negotiated settlement approach and collective bargaining.

The government has offered to reduce the number of regions where different rates apply from ten to seven. That is fair. If the government were to pay Vancouver rates to blue collar workers in Halifax, imagine the outcry. Small business would be competing for needed workers, not just the federal government but the corporations rich enough to match the higher rates. That would disrupt the local labour market.

Why do we pay higher wages in Vancouver? Quite simply, the cost of living on the west coast is much higher. Consider housing prices alone.

By paying regional rates, the federal government contributes to social and economic stability across Canada. That is why we should simply return to the central issue, passing a bill to end a strike that is hurting Canadians and threatening the trade so vital to our economy, exporters, grain producers, the many Canadians who desperately need their income tax refunds, et cetera. This government has responsibilities to ensure all Canadians work.

[Movement Of Grain, March 18th, 1999]

Madam Speaker, I thank all my fellow members for the opportunity to speak to them about the significant impact that rotational strikes being waged by the Public Service Alliance are having across the country.

More specifically, I will speak about how we arrived at the serious issue we have before us today. Since this government returned to the negotiating table with the public service union nearly two years ago, I am pleased to report we have reached new collective agreements with more than 87% of the unionized workforce in the public service of Canada.

This includes reaching agreements with some 100,000 employees represented by the Public Service Alliance of Canada without work stoppages. Our settlements have been fair and reasonable and now thousands of our employees are seeing salary increases as a result of reaching these new agreements as well as other non-monetary benefits.

Unfortunately during these same two years and with the same Public Service Alliance of Canada we have not been able to reach a negotiated settlement for the 14,000 blue collar workers or 9% of the government employees they represent. However, this has not been for lack of effort on the government's part.

It has not been for a lack of willingness to be flexible at the bargaining table. This has not been for our lack of capacity to move from our original bargaining position. We have done all the above and yet we are still without a settlement.

I am concerned that the union's inflexibility at the bargaining table is beginning to affect many innocent, unrelated parties. After nine weeks Canadians across the country and the government that serves them continue to be subjected to disruptions, inconveniences, significant losses of revenues and in some instances acts of civil disobedience and violence.

It is the issue of regional pay rates that has led us to the bargaining table to a position of not being able to deliver important grain shipments, not being able to board airplanes, not being able to file our income taxes, not being able to receive our income tax refunds and not being able to receive a variety of other government services.

Members should know that because of the union's position on regional rates federal departments and agencies have been subjected to rotating strikes week in and week out. These strikes have closed federal buildings for periods of a day or more in cities from Vancouver to Halifax. The results have been temporary disruptions in the operations of the affected departments and agencies, an inconvenience to Canadians who want to do business with those institutions.

The picket lines are evident to all. Less clear, at least to most people, is what this strike is all about. It is in fact about regional rates of pay. To understand this strike one must understand what regional rates of pay are, why the government wants to maintain them and what would be the implications of accepting the union's demand for uniform national rates of pay.

The short answer is that the government pays different rates in different parts of the country because living costs and wages vary across Canada.

As the largest employer in Canada we have a responsibility not to act in a way that would distort the labour market, especially the local market. Among other things, this means we should not create conditions of employment so favourable for our own employees that the private sector employees are unable to fill their jobs in their enterprises. By the same token, if we want people with the necessary skill and experience we know we must pay wages high enough to be competitive in the local market. This in a nutshell is why we have regional rates of pay.

It means we must pay a dock worker in Victoria more than one in Halifax because living costs are higher on the west coast than on the east coast and labour costs in the two regions reflect this. Similar differences exist for other occupational groups, mostly trades people such as carpenters and plumbers, but also for some professionals.

If we do not pay more in the high cost areas we will not be able to compete for the skills we need. If we pay too much in the low cost areas we put pressure on the local employers to pay more for the manpower they need, thus distorting the local labour market.

As a government we believe this approach is fair to our employees, to employers and to workers in different parts of the country, and to people in Canada who ultimately pay the government's wage bill or have to pay for the professional services they need from the private sector.

On the other side of the House we just heard someone say “Who cares?” But many small business people across this country cannot afford to pay the higher labour costs that the Government of Canada might be able to afford, which at that point would create undue hardships for many of those small business people.

I see a Reform member on the other side who I know is very responsive to small business. I hope he has the opportunity to communicate with the rest of his colleagues to express how important small business is to this country.

The idea of paying wages that are determined in part by local labour market conditions goes back many years in Canada. The 1962 Glassco royal commission, whose recommendations underpin much of our modern public service, stated the issue very clearly. The commission said: “We do not see why the most important employer in the country should take no account of the local labour market. If it refuses to take account, it will find itself paying more or less than it should. This”, the commission argued, “would serve neither economic growth nor competitiveness”.

As the other side of the House, the Reform Party especially, has been talking the last couple of days about competitiveness, I am sure they understand the difference of the regional rates of pay issue that we are dealing with today.

For more than 30 years the principle has been clear. The government should pay regional rates for employee groups where the labour market varies significantly across Canada. We should pay the national rates where there is a national labour market. That is what we do and we are not alone.

Consider the United States. Like Canada it is a country with major regional economic differences. The American government pays different rates to its blue collar workers that reflect regional market conditions. The variations can run as high as 39% above local wage levels in the best paid zones to 16% below them in the lowest paid zones.

I would like to point out this evening to all members who are here because of their concern over the impact that this strike is having on Canadians, on government operations and on farmers that the system is not perfect. In any effort to define a regional labour market specific local circumstances can vary to the benefit or disadvantage of workers and/or the employer. That is why in the recent rounds of collective bargaining, which this government believes in, we have worked with the unions to try to arrive at a system that is fair and effective for both sides so that we can look at things on a long term basis and continue supporting the collective bargaining rights of workers with the employer.

We have, for example, reduced the number of pay zones, to simplify comparisons and to make pay administration easier, from 10 to 7.

Is there an alternative to regional rates of pay? The union argues that there is. They are striking today because they are seeking a single national rate for the affected occupational groups, irrespective of regional circumstances. We do not think such an approach would be fair or in the public interest.

Paying the same rate across the board would mean paying some people too much and others too little. Neither is desirable.

Let me remind members of the House that as an elected government responsible and accountable to Canadians we must balance and abide by the rules of both the national and local markets. We must pay wages high enough to attract and retain the quality of labour that we require and are proud of, and not so high that we cannot afford to maintain our operations.

However, at the end of the day the government, as the employer, is not an employer like any other. Our obligation to act in the public interest colours our approach to every issue, including matters raised at the bargaining table.

This government does not like strikes any more than Canadians who are prevented by picket lines from making a payment, collecting a benefit or searching a job board.

I believe we have been more than tolerant for the past nine weeks. We are prepared to maintain a system of pay rates for public servants that is fair to all concerned.

Let me conclude by saying that as a government we are prepared to examine all of the options. We must look at every possibility to resolve this issue in an expedient manner. We must put an end to the impasse that these rotational strikes are having on Canadians who deserve to receive responsive service at a reasonable cost.

We respect the collective bargaining process, as is shown by the 87% of workforce agreements that we have negotiated with the unions. We have offered 9%, which is even more than the other unions have received.

However, it is our ultimate commitment to the people of Canada that a solution is needed at once so that the innocent parties that continue to do trade and commerce are not affected, such as the farmers of western Canada.

[Infrastructure, December 4th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, as the minister indicated earlier, with the infrastructure projects $6.8 billion of good works were extended with the ability of partnerships with governments at all levels to work together.

We hope that at some point in the future there will be another opportunity to continue developing the infrastructure so badly needed in the country and to ensure environmental clean-up is part of the process. The sewers he is talking about are part of that process. We hope he continues to support the government on its infrastructure works.

[Merit Principle, October 27th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I welcome the chance to add my voice to this discussion and to demonstrate to the House that the motion is unnecessary and unwarranted. After having heard the comments across the aisle I can see why this issue is as I stated.

Canada's employment equity legislation supports hiring based on merit. Employment equity aims to reinforce the merit principle by ensuring that members of groups that were underrepresented in the past and continue to be underrepresented now have an opportunity to compete on a level playing field. Its objectives are to open up the workplace and to ensure that employment policies and practices are free of any subtle biases.

However a myth has been created that employment equity contradicts the merit principle. Yet one only has to read sections 6 and 33(1) of the Employment Equity Act to see that this is not the case. These sections make it very clear that no employer can be required under any circumstance to hire or promote unqualified individuals.

Let me remind my hon. colleagues exactly what the Employment Equity Act actually does. The act requires the implementation of employment equity in the public service as well as in the wider public sector and federally regulated private sector. The act seeks to remove barriers that restrict the employment of qualified individuals in four employment equity designated groups: women, aboriginal people, members of visible minorities and persons with disabilities. Hon. members cannot deny that a fair and barrier free workplace means a better working environment for all employees.

The act gives substance to the guarantees of equality under section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms enshrined in the Constitution of Canada. It calls for broadening the recruitment pool so deserving Canadians from all groups receive due consideration for employment. Utilizing the full potential of our diverse workforce is essential to Canada's future success and prosperity.

In the case of the public service these sections also make it clear that there is no conflict with the Public Service Employment Act which governs selection according to merit. The law also clearly stipulates that employment equity will not cause undue hardship for an employer. It does not force firms to hire and promote unqualified people or to create new positions in the workforce to satisfy some arbitrary numerical goals.

I assure the member for Wetaskiwin that the government is fully committed to merit. We vigorously support and promote excellence in the workplace. We are also committed to improving conditions for members of the four designated groups who have faced disadvantage in the labour market. This is not a myth.

There is ample evidence to indicate that certain groups have been and continue to be disadvantaged in employment for reasons that have nothing to do with their ability to do the job. They have faced unfair barriers to employment because of personal characteristics totally unrelated to merit. One of the core values of Canadian society is a profound belief in the equality of our citizens.

Canadians are proud of Canada's linguistic and multicultural diversity. We actively promote tolerance and acceptance of differences. We have a global reputation as a caring and equitable society. The spirit of employment equity further enriches that reputation. A number of countries are using our Employment Equity Act as a template for their legislation. They include Australia, Holland and most recently South Africa.

Striving for fairness and equality for all citizens not only enriches our national character but generates significant economic advantages. A highly qualified, highly motivated workforce that reflects the richness of our diversity is essential if Canada is to remain competitive in the expanding global marketplace.

Employers and labour organizations recognize the benefits of employment equity. This was evident in their support of a more comprehensive Employment Equity Act when it was considered in 1995. They recognize that as unfair barriers to employment are eliminated the pool of qualified applicants is expanded. This leads to the full utilization of the skills, talents and abilities of all Canadians.

Clearly we already support hiring and promotion based on merit which is why I am convinced that we need not entertain this motion any longer. Instead, I encourage the member for Wetaskiwin to support the millions of Canadians who benefit from employment equity. By doing so, we can all contribute to a better future and a better Canada for all of us.

[Special Interest Groups Funding Accountability Act, September 21st, 1998]

Madam Speaker, over the years considerable study and discussion have taken place on the subject of accountability for parliament. It remains a timeless subject of interest not only for us as members of parliament but for the bureaucrats and academics who study parliament.

Much of the past debate has been focused on accountability to parliament when program delivery is through an intermediary or third party rather than directly by public servants or under contract.

The practice of third party delivery is most evident in the area of grants and contributions and other types of transfer payments. I am aware that concerns are sometimes raised that current trends in management reform and alternative program delivery run the risk of significantly weakening the accountability chain, leaving parliament with no one to hold responsible.

Bill C-310 is not necessary. There is already an accountability regime in place and information in this area has already been tabled in parliament.

Each year parliament approves through the estimates funds for the payments of grants, contributions and other transfer payments. Significant information on grants and contributions is disclosed annually in both the estimates and public accounts. Grants normally require the authority of parliament before they can be paid. Parliament is normally informed about planned contributions within a program through the identification of such contributions in the tables of transfer payments included in part II of the main estimates or in supplementary estimates.

Departments should further ensure that parliament is fully informed about the nature of the program, its objectives, target groups and expected results. This is normally done through supplementary descriptive material in individual departments and agency reports on plans and priorities. After the year is finished information is made available in departmental performance reports as well as in the public accounts. If this is not enough, detailed actual spending information on specific transfer payments of over $100,000 is also publicly available upon request from Public Works and Government Services Canada.

Contributions are conditional transfer payments. They are for a specified purpose subject to accountability and are audited pursuant to a contribution agreement. Listing of contributions in the transfer payments table found in the estimates while not a legislative requirement is considered necessary for proper disclosure to parliament. The payment of a contribution is conditional on the performance and achievement of a program, and contribution agreements are subject to audit to satisfy the donor department that all conditions both financial and non-financial have been met.

Grants are different. They are unconditional transfer payments. The main criterion that distinguishes a grant from a contribution in practical terms is that once again contributions are subject to accountability and are audited pursuant to a contribution agreement. Unfortunately the unconditional nature of grants gives the impression that the government does not require them to be spent in furtherance of specific program objectives.

The opposite is in fact true. While grants are not subject to being accounted for or audited, eligibility and entitlement may be verified. Eligibility or entitlement criteria must be specifically approved by Treasury Board for all class grant programs. Furthermore, departments have established verification procedures. Most class grant programs are subject to management review and/or in some cases formal program evaluations on a periodic basis.

Grants are usually paid out in instalments as required by Treasury Board policy. In many cases procedures are such that departments generally verify continued entitlement prior to making further payments. Many organizations maintain close relationships with the recipients. When problems arise it is possible for them to act quickly in order to stop the payment of the next instalment.

The government conducted a review of funding for special interest groups in 1994. We know the hon. member from Hamilton had a lot of influence in the process. The Minister of Finance announced in the February 1994 budget that the government would review its policy with respect to funding for special interest groups with a view to reducing the overall level of funding and encouraging further reliance on funding from other sources.

The government's review looked specifically at funding for interest groups, that is non-governmental, non-commercial groups pursuing an interest using federal government funding primarily through grants and contributions.

This definition included what is often referred to as the voluntary sector as well as groups such as sports administration bodies, research institutes, industry associations and professional associations.

The government recognizes the important role of the voluntary sector and other interest groups in Canadian society. These groups can play an important and cost effective role in program and service delivery.

Interest groups often perform other important functions such as bringing Canadians together, providing a voice for people who would not otherwise be heard and conducting research. Despite this the government's relationship with interest groups has evolved and has had to change over the years to accommodate new needs in a program review environment of fiscal restraint.

The government's review demonstrated that it had become increasingly more difficult to justify some special interest group funding when many government programs were being downsized or discontinued.

The government could not afford to continue funding all the interest group activities that it was funding at that time since the review principles were developed and provided to government departments to assist in priorizing funding for interest groups as part of the program review exercise. These principles remain valid today.

First and foremost, departments were and are now to consider the extent to which the interest groups members or the larger public benefit from its activities. The larger the benefit to the public from the group's activities, the more likely that group should receive funding from the federal government.

Second, the group's ability to obtain alternative sources of funding has to be considered. The higher the ability of the group to access alternate sources of funding, the lower the priority of that group for government funding.

The third consideration was the focus of the group's activities. Interest groups that confine their activities to support their own members should in most instances receive lower priority for government funding than groups that deliver important services to the public on behalf of the government.

Departments are to consider the consistency of the activities of groups with government priorities. The guidelines were designed to be flexible so that they could be applied by each minister to the interest groups funded by his or her department. Departments co-ordinate their funding activities with those of other ministers to ensure that a particular interest group does not obtain similar funding from more than one department of the federal government.

Loans and loan guarantees are handled differently. They are made for a variety of purposes and in accordance with a variety of different terms and conditions. The Treasury Board has policy statements for loans and loan guarantees.

Loans must be authorized through specific legislation or appropriation acts while loan guarantees require parliamentary authority and loan guarantee programs such as the Canada student loans program must be supported by separate program legislation.

I should also highlight that information on loans is available in the public accounts, volumes l and 2, part I, as well as policy statements for loans and loan guarantees.

I have a note on the administration of the reporting regime proposed by Bill C-310. It would be an onerous task when one considers the number of grants, contributions, loans and loan guarantees made by the government each year.

The task of such administration would also duplicate work since considerable information of this type is already tabled in parliament each year both in estimates and public accounts.

In conclusion, I am satisfied that departments and agencies—

[Criminal Code, March 11th, 1998]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-368, an act to amend the Criminal Code and the Department of Health Act (security of the child).

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure and is an honour to introduce this enactment which removes the justification in the Criminal Code available to school teachers, parents and persons standing in the place of parents, of using force as a means of correction toward a pupil or child under their care.

It also clarifies the mandate of the Department of Health by specifying that the power to promote and preserve the physical, mental and social well-being of the people of Canada, includes the power to educate Canadians about the health and social risks associated with the corporal punishment of children, the alternative to its use, and the health and social benefit of respecting the right to security of children.

It further clarifies the mandate of the Department of Health respecting the co-ordination of efforts with provincial authorities to establish guidelines relating to the protection of children and law enforcement services for children.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Small Business, October 22nd, 1997]

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

Taking into account that this is national small business week and there are 2.3 million small businesses creating many of Canada's new jobs, what will the government do to facilitate the commercialization of new technologies being developed by our many innovative small and medium size businesses?

[Petitions, April 16th, 1997]

In the second petition, Madam Speaker, the petitioners and the Don't Tax Reading Coalition of Toronto call on the Government of Canada to remove the GST from books, magazines and newspapers.

The petitioners believe that applying the 7 per cent GST to reading material is unfair and wrong. They believe that literacy and reading are critical to Canada's future and that removing the GST from reading material will help promote literacy in Canada.

On behalf of my constituents I humbly submit these petitions with my full support.

[Petitions, April 16th, 1997]

Madam Speaker, I wish to present two petitions on behalf of my constituents.

First, the petitioners call on the Government of Canada to support the immediate initiation and conclusion by the year 2000 of an international convention which will set out a binding timetable for the abolition of all nuclear weapons.

The petitioners believe that the continuing existence of nuclear weapons poses a threat to the health and survival of human civilization in the global environment. On behalf of my constituents I would like to present this one which I support.

[Points Of Order, March 12th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask the House for its unanimous consent to withdraw my private member's bill, Bill C-301, entitled an act to amend the Canada Elections Act.

In view of the passing by the government of Bill C-63 which improves the mechanisms for the administration of elections and to the extent that Bill C-63 encompasses many of my suggestions, such as the establishment of a permanent voter's list, and the fact that it has taken over a year to draw my bill, I ask that you,Mr. Speaker, support my request.

May I please have the consent of the House to withdraw my Bill C-301.