Ovid Jackson

[Aboriginal Awareness Week, May 27th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform the House that last week was aboriginal awareness week.

Aboriginal awareness week was developed by the human resources employment equity section of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada in November of 1991. It was first celebrated in May 1992 with the participation of 12 other federal departments in the National Capital Region, in part to highlight the contribution aboriginal peoples played within the Canadian federal public service.

This year the Treasury Board secretariat and the Public Service Commission collaborated on two events in recognition of this week. The first was a panel discussion on May 21 where two aboriginal speakers presented their perspectives on how aboriginal peoples view themselves as members of and contributors to Canadian and western society in retaining their traditional heritage.

The second was a presentation by the White Eye Singers from Walpole Island on Friday, May 24 where the audience in the lobby of L'Esplanade Laurier in Ottawa were treated to both traditional and more contemporary aboriginal dances.

Aboriginal awareness week provides us with an excellent opportunity to increase our-

[Federal Public Service, May 10th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, as I have said before, the government is using all the tools at its disposal to get government right.

In every plan that we have looked at we are trying to get the civil service to take over. We are trying to transfer these services. We will continue to work on that file. It is not an easy file. We have 16 different unions and we are working with each one to try to accommodate them.

[Federal Public Service, May 10th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, we agree with the

auditor general that this classification system is something to which we should pay attention. Since 1993 we have been working very hard in this direction.

The auditor general agrees that it is not a simple system to try to condense some 70 different categories into one. We are working hard on this. We have said that we would get government right and the auditor general has already reported four times to this House. By the next report I can assure the House that we will have made some substantive movement on this file.

[Petitions, May 9th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, petitions are one of the oldest forms for our constituents to tell us about matters which concern them. I am pleased to present this petition on behalf of the people of my riding.

In the petition citizens of Canada draw to the attention of the House the following:

Whereas a majority of Canadians believe that the privileges which society accords to heterosexual couples should not be extended to same sex relationships;

And whereas societal approval, including the extension of societal privileges, would be given-

I would like to table the petition, Mr. Speaker.

[Questions On The Order Paper, May 6th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[Government Response To Petitions, May 6th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to table on behalf of the government some responses to petitions.

[Merit, May 2nd, 1996]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak tonight on Motion No. 154, put forward by the hon. member for Wetaskiwin.

The motion states that the government should support the rights of all job applicants to be evaluated solely on the basis of merit. This motion is redundant. It is too narrow in scope. We as a government do not support it.

Our current practices already embody the fundamental principle of merit. It is a merit based principle which has contributed to the world class level of the public service we have in Canada. Merit is the basis of the competitive process across the federal government, a process which has produced the most capable and professional public servants who well serve the government and the people of Canada.

When individuals join the public service and when they compete for opportunities within the public service they do so on the basis of merit. To suggest otherwise undermines the integrity of the selection process and its outcome.

Clearly merit is the fundamental concept which, when applied to individuals who are appointed to the public service, is the best option. This principle is enshrined in the Public Service Employment Act. The act provides for an appointment in accordance with merit, subject to some very small exceptions mandated by Parliament.

For example, in certain special situations the act requires that we give priority to placement of employees whose jobs are declared surplus or who face layoffs. The government believes these exceptions are essential to the efficient and meritorious hiring within the public service.

The government is a responsible employer. It must be able to attract people of high quality in the future so that Canadians continue to benefit from one of the best public services in the world. The motion does not recognize this need. The motion is a straight-jacket and we cannot support it.

Hiring in the Public Service of Canada is governed by the Employment Equity Act. This motion does not recognize that the important principles of employment equity and merit are compatible and essential to ensure that Canadians have access to a qualified public service that is representative of all Canadians.

Our framework legislation is designed and enshrined to ensure that our staffing procedures and systems are free from systemic and attitudinal barriers. In Canada this means that only qualified persons, no matter what their race, origin, colour, sex, age or disability, can be recruited into the Public Service of Canada.

To ensure these important principles are respected, Parliament in its wisdom has given authority to the Public Service Commission to correct historic imbalances in the representation of designated group members within the public service. This is designed to ensure that Canadians have access to the public service and that it represents all Canadians. A smart organization will hire the brightest and the best whether they are aboriginals, women, visible minorities or persons with disabilities.

As the President of the Treasury Board said recently when he tabled the main estimates, we have a dedicated and efficient public service. We want to treat them fairly and we want them to be motivated and feel valued for the work that they do. The Public Service of Canada has always been known for its competency, integrity and hard work. We are confident that the men and women of the public service will continue to display these qualities of professionalism. The principle of merit is the cornerstone of our ability to recruit the brightest and the best.

Our existing legislative framework is a far better guarantee of the quality of the public service than the restrictive motion currently under consideration by this House. In short, Motion No. 154 is too confining and restrictive to be supported by this government. It does not recognize the importance of the merit principle and other access and representation principles that Canadians expect this government to apply in order to maintain a qualified and representative public service. All smart organizations hire people of all colours, religions and races. I cannot imagine that the Government of Canada would want to do otherwise.

In my riding of Bruce-Grey we try to represent a cross-section of the population. The very name of Bruce-Grey reflects this. Bruce is the Scottish part and Grey is the English part. I am a real anomaly. There are not many minorities. The minority we have in our police force would be women. We tried to address this imbalance and I am proud to say I was the mayor who hired our first woman officer. Now we have three or four and the imbalance is being addressed.

Systemic imbalances have to be addressed because people within society need to know that they have opportunities. As I said to the police chief, maybe if we froze time and started over with various proportions of all the different people then people would not be competing.

I understand we are in stressful times and in a period of profound change with respect to the job situation. However I am confident as one of the best nations in the world we have the ability to make sure our young people are looked after and to make sure that every person in our society is represented. Equal opportunity for all is what makes Canada the best country in the world.

[Hockey, April 30th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, last Sunday night the remaining Canadian hockey teams in the hunt for the Stanley Cup were eliminated from contention. Canadian hockey fans should not despair. Though the remaining teams tout jerseys with cities like New York and Detroit on them, the majority of players wearing them were born and raised in Canada and played hockey on the ponds and the rinks of Canada.

Hockey is still our game. We set the standard for excellence. Hockey is part of our heritage. It brings families and communities together in places like Sudbury, Flin Flon, Trois Rivieres and Owen Sound.

Though the Stanley Cup will reside south of the border this year, we should not forget that most of the players who will thrill the fans are as Canadian as the maple leaf.

Long live hockey in Canada.

[Supply, April 29th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, one of the greatest things that occurs in our country are these debates. It is always good to have points of view from all sides and not simply a narrow point of view.

How does the member explain the demographics? I understand that a lot of the reduction in crime in New York state is because many of the young people who were committing crime are now much older and when there are population shifts crime decreases. I do not know if we can attribute that to putting a lot of people in jail.

Who does he think are the people who put graffiti on walls? As I understand it, they often come from upper and middle class families. It is a highly sophisticated operation. They get away from their parents and they play games with the police. The kinds of people my friend is talking about are not necessarily the kinds the general population thinks.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1996, April 25th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, the jury is still out on the UI issue. We are reforming it. I do not believe the measure undertaken by the government with regard to what he called gifts has anything to do with UI.

When the UI fund is underfunded the money has to be found by the government. It is strange that we are trying to restructure it and other members think we should spend the money in some other way.

With regard to the member's other question, the government looked at 20 alternatives to the replacement tax. The accommodation it came up with was the best one. There is some dislocation with regard to these provinces. They have a small population base. We are still a country and we still have equalization payments. Provinces that do better under these circumstances have an obligation to transfer some of their funds to get the other provinces going.

The government is trying to get government right. We believe through the moves we have made that we will have more jobs and be more competitive. We will wean those provinces off that money over a period of time.