John Williams

[Canada Labour Code, March 3rd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, as I look at the motions in Group No. 3, I must state that I cannot agree with my hon. colleague who tried to speak on behalf of the Reform Party, which seems to be one of those things the Liberals think they are good at. I would rather that they try to justify the legislation they bring forward, but I realize that can be hard. Surely we can speak for ourselves and we hope they would justify their position.

Motion No. 7 requires the Canada Industrial Relations Board to seek approval from the human resources development committee on the location of its head office and regional offices. This the type of blatant political interference we want to stay away from. I cannot think of any reason whatsoever that the HRD committee would be in command of better knowledge, better decision making ability or more information as to where these offices should be located than the institution itself.

That is why the Reform Party, legitimately and with common sense, is opposed to this type of motion. Politics has no real place in the management of allowing these boards to do their own jobs. Do we in the House of Commons think we are going to get into micromanagement right down to where the offices are going to be located, how much rent they are going to pay, how much square footage per employee they will have, how many telephone lines they are going to put in? Surely we would be able to delegate some authority. It seems absolutely preposterous that we would reserve this for ourselves, that we alone could make this type of decision. It is commons sense that we would oppose this motion. I hope everyone else would do the same.

Motion No. 9 of the bill would allow the CIRB to revoke the appointment of an employer representative if it believed the representative no longer qualified to act, et cetera. I am a little concerned about the one sidedness of this motion. It would allow the CIRB to revoke the appointment of an employer person on the board but it says absolutely nothing about a union representative on the board. This type of imbalance in legislation is what we do not want.

Again, with common sense and with a normal type of representation in this House, the Reform Party says surely this type of motion does not belong in the legislation on the books of Canada. Therefore we legitimately oppose this motion.

I have a concern about Motion No. 45, which deletes the section allowing certification of a union without the majority support. I am concerned about the House getting involved in legislation giving power to the CIRB to basically be its own judge, jury and execution. This is the type of information that we see coming forward in Motion No. 45.

When I look at Motion No. 49, it is not a bad motion, giving an off site worker the option of having names and locations provided to the union representative and organizers. I am opposed to the Liberal position that the CIRB, again in its wisdom of being judge, jury and executioner, will be given the right to determine on what basis private information is going to be given to a third party.

I understand that there has been a study done by the government. It has spent a significant number of dollars, I understand about

$600,000, to study this type of information. It is still waiting for that report to come back. However, government has decided to proceed, to go ahead with the legislation anyway, rather than waiting for any kind of return on its investment.

Speaking to this issue, I find it very disconcerting that time and time again in this House we find that individual rights are being trampled on. The legislation would give the CIRB the right to pass on the names without the person's having any real input, saying "no, I do not want that to happen".

Is that not much different from when the government introduced its gun legislation and gave the peace officers the right to search and to seize without a search warrant? We see this type of legislation creep in in various other areas.

We are trampling all over individual rights with this type of legislation. We are doing it again in Bill C-66. If this government has its way, it will do that whenever it wants. Canadians will rise up and say "it is time that these guys got out of here and we put in somebody who does recognize that individual rights are there for a reason". That is why we are opposed to this motion.

The acrimony that can exist between management and unions in the event of a strike can be quite serious. It is our position to do everything we can to try to foster harmony and to bring that broken relationship together again so that management and labour can continue to produce goods and services to earn a living.

If we think the CIRB will be the font of all knowledge, be endowed with wisdom beyond the average man, be given powers that are vague, undetermined and yet very significant, and if we think these people will be able to do this type of job as a middleman, especially if it happens to be filled with patronage appointments by Liberals who are passed over or who did not win the election, we would find it rather difficult to put any credibility in the board whatsoever.

Therefore the Reform Party and common sense say surely this bill which says that this information can be passed to the unions under certain circumstances should be changed to allow it provided that the people agree.

Otherwise we will find that there will be a backlash down the road. It may be a backlash that the government does not come back after the election. Would that not be nice? It would be nice. Perhaps the government would have to reconsider.

Motion No. 50 would have the corporation returns act tabled in the House. I understand that our hon. colleagues from the separatist party want it referred to the HRD committee. I imagine that would be a matter of course. If we see a return tabled in the House we would, as a matter of course, refer it to the individual committee. I do not know exactly what my separatist friends are trying to achieve by this motion.

However, it may be like all the rest of the motions they have proposed which basically are to disrupt the entire management of the government and the affairs of Canada. I will just leave it at that.

[Canada Labour Code, March 3rd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am always pleased to speak on motions such as the ones at report stage of Bill C-66. The motions were hopefully introduced to improve the bill, but from our perspective we do not see much being improved by the motions in front of us at the moment.

One of the things I would like to talk about this morning is the concept of contracts with unions should the government divest itself of a department, for example air navigation which will be taken from the government and put into a not for profit organization called Nav Can.

I have a problem with the contract with employees in situations such as these flowing through to the new employer, not just Nav Can but all situations. We are trying to achieve flexibility in management-labour negotiations and responsibilities. If we take the contract that exists today between the government and its

employees we find it is fossilized, if I may use that term. It needs to be brought up to date with modern management techniques.

By entrenching in other sectors such as Nav Can and perhaps the new agricultural food inspection agency, the contract that exists today between the government and public servants guarantees the problems inherent in the contract will remain inherent in the relationship in the new organization. It will prevent the organization from evolving and improving its management efficiency.

We must move to the concept of merit being one of the major criteria by which we evaluate the compensation package we provide to employees. As we open negotiations with the federal public service and government I hope the government recognizes the need for merit, the need to compensate people according to their production and contribution and not according to age or number of years of experience regardless of whether or not they are productive.

The type of motion would continue to entrench the one salary pays everybody, one shoe fits all employees. That cannot be tolerated much longer in the new competitive world we are entering into.

I attended a conference last September in Victoria of people from around the world, for example the auditor general of the United Kingdom and people from the United States, Australia, New Zealand and other parts of the world. We were discussing accountability in government. It became quite apparent that Canada lags way behind the United Kingdom when it comes to being visionary in the way it will improve the efficiency of government in the years ahead.

The United Kingdom realizes that the role of government primarily is to develop public policy. The implementation of public policy can quite easily be handled by other institutions such as not for profit institutions, competitive institutions and private sector institutions, so the role of government is reduced to its real function of development of public policy.

As the delivery of public services have been spun off into competitive environments, it recognizes the need to protect the current employee and therefore says that the currently existing contract shall flow through to protect current employees in the new institution they are working for. In Canada it could be Nav Can.

The organization by which they are employed has the opportunity to set new terms, new employment conditions and new wage rates for newly hired employees. This is a wonderful way to reach a compromise. It ensures that current employees are protected and are slowly introduced to a competitive environment, giving the competitive institution providing the service the flexibility to deal with its employees in a much more enlightened environment, and giving them the opportunity to introduce the concept of merit that those who work hard get more and those who work less get less.

That is how the private sector is changing. That is why when so many businesses downsize the employees who lose their jobs create new little home based businesses or perhaps larger businesses. Through their flexible working conditions they are able to thrive and prosper in a flexible environment that allows them to make profit, compared with the monolithic dinosaur for which they were working before.

These motions are regressive. They prevent the worker-management relationship from evolving into a much more competitive and dynamic relationship. Opportunities to improve the working environment, to recognize the efficient and hard working employee and to compensate people who deserve the best compensation are being denied through these motions.

That is why the Reform Party is opposed to the motions we are dealing with in group No. 2. The rationale I have found in my experience is that we need to give flexibility, opportunity, motivation and desire to every worker so they do the best they can. When they are locked into one contract that fits all they lose motivation. They find they cannot break through and be the best they can be.

I hope the government, not only in Bill C-66 but in its relationship with its employees, will recognize the need for new enlightened management-labour relationships is long overdue.

[Canada Pension Plan, February 21st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the President of the Treasury Board may be one of those rich people he talks about but we know the member for Oxford cannot afford to put money into $100 billion programs.

We do know that high taxes kill jobs, high taxes kill businesses, high taxes send people to the bankruptcy court in record numbers and high taxes extinguish the dreams of our children. Will the minister please tell us what advice he is giving to his colleague the Liberal from Oxford, to help the poor fellow pay his taxes and vote for a CPP tax increase at the same time?

[Canada Pension Plan, February 21st, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, listen to this. Yesterday in this House the Liberal member for Oxford said: "I pay so much income tax on what I earn that I cannot survive without my teacher's pension". The member is sitting over there, the Liberal member for Oxford. We do not have to go outside this House to find out what Canadians think, we can ask those people over there. They do not like high taxes. They cannot live on high taxes.

My question is for the President of the Treasury Board. If high taxes are killing that member's quality of life, what does the minister say to his colleague and every other Canadian who is going to have a 70 per cent increase in the CPP tax? It is going to reduce his income and theirs even more.

[The Budget, February 20th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, let me say to the hon. member that I would be more than glad to visit the seniors in his riding. However, if I went to explain the Liberal policy, I feel that I would not last too long in that senior citizens home.

This is the Liberal plan which was announced by the Minister of Finance a year ago. This is not a Reform plan. It is not my plan and it is not the plan of the parliamentary secretary. This plan was announced by the Minister of Finance. Let me go over it again.

Old age security is completely gone. The guaranteed income supplement is gone. The $3,500 tax free for seniors is gone. The first $1,000 of pension income for seniors is gone. These four things are gone completely. In their place will be a seniors benefit.

I explained it before but in case the parliamentary secretary did not get it quite clear, let me say it again. If the retired people in the seniors home in his riding only have the seniors benefit and Canada pension plan, the Minister of Finance will take half the Canada pension plan. That is the Liberal proposal. That is why I would get run out of that seniors citizens home if I started to explain Liberal policy.

The parliamentary secretary stands and says: "We secured the CPP". Let me also say that he secured the MPPP, the MPs pension plan that he participates in and which he has secured for himself. It will pay tens of thousands of dollars to him each and every year while the government will pay a mere pittance to other seniors which it will tax back if it ever thinks they are going to make any money. But there is no clawback and no tax back on the MP pension plan. Oh, no. We would not want that would we?

The member stands and says that he has secured the pension plan. He has secured a better one for himself, a lot better for himself, a great deal better for himself. We have heard of the tens of thousands of dollars that some MPs are going to collect. That is the hypocrisy.

[The Budget, February 20th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to present my views on the budget that was presented by the Minister of Finance the other day.

Perhaps I will widen the debate to include some remarks about the Canada pension plan. I know the Minister of Finance will say that is not in the budget figures, therefore it really does not matter. We all know that last week he announced an increase of 70 per cent on CPP premiums. That is going to take $10 billion a year out of business.

I remember in the last election how the Liberals ran around trying to drum up votes by saying "we will create jobs, jobs, jobs through a $6 billion infrastructure program". Well, good-bye infrastructure, good-bye a $6 billion incentive for business because now they are going to suck $10 billion out of the business world.

That is why I think we should be using Ross Perot's words, the great sucking sound of jobs disappearing, not down to Mexico as in the case of Mr. Perot, but sucking out of our economy because the Minister of Finance is sucking this money out of the pockets of business.

Let us take a look at the seniors benefit. Let us take a look at what Minister of Finance is actually talking about for seniors. Not only is he going to kill these jobs with the 70 per cent increase in premiums, but, as I said earlier today, the old age security is going to be gone. It is going to be killed, finished and gone forever.

Guaranteed income supplements that many people have relied upon in this country will be gone. In the year 2001 they will be finished and gone forever.

Seniors have been given a $3,500 tax free allowance on top of the basic exemption. That is gone courtesy of this finance minister; gone, killed, finished forever.

Seniors have been entitled to the first $1,000 of pension income tax free. Let me tell this House that tax free exemption is going to be gone, absolutely finished courtesy of the Minister of Finance.

He has the gall to stand up in this House to say he is going to replace it with a seniors benefit that is going to make everybody happy. Let me tell this House about the seniors benefit that he thinks is going to make everybody happy.

If a person has any income besides the seniors benefit, and let us talk about a senior who only has the seniors benefit and Canada pension, nothing else in the world, the Minister of Finance is going to take back half of the Canada pension plan.

It has to be a national disgrace that he can stand here and say this is good for seniors when he is going to take back half the Canada pension plan and all they have is a seniors benefit and Canada pension plan.

Then he has the gall to stand up and say Canada pension plan premiums are an investment, when no one will even be able to collect the Canada pension plan when they retire. That is the way this government is trying to balance the budget. It is through deception and through misleading senior citizens into thinking everything is going to be okay, but it is not.

Universality that was brought in by the finance minister's father is going to be destroyed by finance minister junior. That is the way it is. There is no universality any more. It is gone courtesy of this Minister of Finance. That is the legacy that he is giving to Canadians.

I look at the flowery words in the budget speech and I refer to the bottom of page 17 where it states: "Reforms to both the Canada pension plan and the seniors benefit fully protect all current seniors". If we read it fast it sounds pretty good but I draw attention to the word current, all current seniors. There is no word about seniors to be, no word about the working people who have to pay more to collect less. With a little sleight of hand a little word is slipped in. It is grammatically correct but when we look at the real meaning behind it we will find that seniors, the people who will retire in the future will get a lot less after having paid a lot more.

I talked also about the employment insurance and the scandal that is being perpetrated on the business world of this country. This morning the estimates were tabled. In part III under Human Resources Development Canada at the bottom of page 52 I see for 1996-97 a $6 billion surplus and the projected surplus for next year is $5.656 billion.

That is a travesty because the employment insurance fund is supposed to be self-sustaining to help people who lose their jobs when the business cycle is down. It is not an extra tax trough for the Minister of Finance. The minister said: "I am not raising taxes". Of course he is. He should not under any circumstances whatsoever maintain the EI premium where it is because of the huge surplus he is squeezing out of business.

The minister came out with a little sum for the young people, the university graduates saying: "I am going to spend a couple of hundred million dollars to try and get you a job". At the same time he is taking $6 billion out of the business world so that they cannot get a job. Note the numbers.

I look at pages 10 and 11 of the budget and how the numbers are glossed over. On page 11, payroll taxes, the minister said: "When we came to office, we acted immediately to stop EI premium rates from rising". Well maybe he did, but he certainly did not bring them down as he should have. While he says he is going to bring them down, it will not be for another year so that he can squeeze this money out of business and stand in the House again to say: "Boy, I am doing a great job". Business bankruptcies are at a record high; personal bankruptcies are at a record high; 1.5 million people are out of a job; and one in four working Canadians fear for their jobs because he is sucking $6 billion a year out of the business economy.

What about the health and social transfer? Government members stand in the House and say: "We will protect medicare". Protect medicare, my foot. Compare the figures for this year to those for last year and again the figures are taken right out of the estimates. The transfer for 1996-97 is $14.9 billion. That is a lot of money. Not as much as the government used to give, but it is still a lot of money. However, next year it will be $12.5 billion, a drop of $2.4 billion.

That affects a lot of hospitals. That is a lot for medicare. That is a lot of nurses and doctors who could be looking after the people in this country who need help. For the elective surgery that does not get done, $2.4 billion buys a lot. It is not being bought and it is not being provided. People are doing without because the government is keeping back $2.4 billion so the Minister of Finance can say: "Boy, am I doing a great job".

Perhaps the deficit is coming down, but he could bring it down even more. However the Liberal tendency is to spend every nickel they can find. The minister cannot keep his fingers off any money that might be available. I look at page 16 of his budget speech where he said that he intends to spend 25 per cent of any excess over projections so that he can blow it away on little Liberal programs that are going to buy votes in the next election.

Let us remember that the excess over the budget predictions, the deficit having come down faster than he predicted, was accomplished strictly on the backs of businesses and taxpayers. Now that he has squeezed more money out of them than he had originally anticipated, he is going to take 25 per cent of it to buy votes at the next election. It is despicable.

My friend for Calgary Centre gave the finance minister an F for failing to deliver a budget with integrity; for failing to deliver the kind of budget which Canadians deserve; for failing to deliver jobs; for failing to deliver health care; for failing to deliver education; and for failing to look after our seniors.

That is how I feel about this budget.

[The Budget, February 20th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is making disparaging remarks against the leader of the Reform Party and I would ask him to withdraw.

[The Budget, February 20th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We have a rule in this House that says that members cannot note the absence or presence of others. The parliamentary secretary made reference to my not being here. I am here.

[The Budget, February 20th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoy debating the budget with my colleagues from the other side. There seems to be a great deal of misconception by them about what they are actually saying and about what Canadians actually want to hear.

The member talked about how we would gut programs. But look at the estimates that were tabled this morning. This very morning we learned that the Liberal plan for the Canada health and social transfer to the provinces involves a decline from $14.9 billion to $12.5 billion, a reduction of $2.4 billion. That is about 18 per cent that they will gut out of health care. They will throw a few peanuts back and think they are doing everybody a service.

We listened to the parliamentary secretary tell us about his deficit targets: 2 per cent this year, 1 per cent next year, zero per cent the following year. When I take a look at "Getting Government Right: A Progress Report", page four, table one, they are talking about a balanced budget next year. Mr. Speaker, I know you are rather sensitive about these comparisons but there is a clear contradiction between what the parliamentary secretary is saying and what their publication from this morning is saying.

I can hear it now. At election time they are going to say: "Hallelujah brother, we've got a balanced budget coming down the pipe. Vote for us". The smoke and mirrors and the spin doctors are at it already.

Let us find out how they are gutting business. Their figures from the estimates tabled this morning show a surplus of $6 billion in the employment insurance fund last year. The projected surplus next year is $5.6 billion.

The infrastructure program, which was going to create all those jobs, jobs, jobs was a $6 billion municipal infrastructure program

that put new canopies on town halls and built boccie courts and so on. They have quietly sucked out of business-that great sucking noise of jobs disappearing down the drain-$5 billion next year and $6 billion last year. That is gutting business.

I have a final point on the hypocrisy of this government. I remember December 11, 1995 when the Prime Minister stood up in the House and said that we are going to pass a motion in this House that says that "we recognize that Quebec's distinct society includes its French-speaking majority, unique culture and civil law traditions, and we undertake to be guided by this reality. We encourage all components of the legislative branches to take note and be guided in their conduct accordingly".

My question for the parliamentary secretary is this. Can he tell us how the motion passed by an order of the House is reflected in the budget and in the estimates tabled this morning?

[Canada Pension Plan, February 20th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, let us look at the new seniors benefit that he is so proud of. If a senior only has a seniors benefit and the Canada pension plan, if that is all the senior has, the Minister of Finance would take back half the Canada pension plan. Let him tell us why that is fair.