Ovid Jackson

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Cumberland-Colchester.

It is my pleasure to speak to Bill C-31, the budget implementation bill. We recognize the impact worldwide developments have had on every Canadian over the last decade.

Globalization, financial pressures, new technologies and other factors have put real stress on Canadians. Canadians have already stated in many ways that they want a strong, dynamic government which will meet the challenge of these sweeping changes. In other words, it is time government gets it right, providing the necessary services and programs in the most effective and efficient manner possible at the most affordable cost.

The government has committed itself to four key priorities: to redefine the government's roles and responsibilities, to redirect resources to the highest national priorities, to provide Canadians with more modern and accessible quality delivery, and to achieve affordable government.

The government undertook a review of all its major federal programs and services and reassessed what the government does and how it can do it better within the available resources.

The results of this exercise are integral to the major shifts the government has undertaken in conducting its business, not just in direct service delivery to Canadians but in the internal processes and systems that support the delivery of these services.

The expenditure management system is one major initiative that all departments have implemented in the last year. This means that each department is operating in a businesslike manner and is assessing competing priorities and reallocating resources to where they are most required. Outputs are transparent, measurable and precise.

Departments are also ensuring they have stronger, more flexible administrative structures to deliver the government's programs and services to Canadians in a fiscally responsible manner.

The changes the president of the treasury board has proposed in the budget implementation bill are intended to put in place the foundation that will support the government's priorities. Allow me to go through some of the directions the government is undertaking in the bill to get government right and to respond to the needs of all Canadians.

The government has mapped out three key priorities in serving national needs: alternative service delivery, compensation and collective bargaining, and pension reform.

To provide alternative ways of delivering services to Canadians, we will introduce service entities, special operating agencies and other organizational mechanisms to support the delivery of client focused quality services. Nav Canada, for example, has been created to make it easier to deliver air traffic control services.

Similar steps will be taken for food inspection services, national parks, revenue collection and in other areas as the need arises to meet the best interests of Canadians in the most affordable manner. The government will undertake other such alternatives on a case by case basis.

The legislative amendments introduced in the budget implementation bill will now permit the government to put into place the administrative mechanisms necessary to ensure a smooth transition to alternative service delivery.

For instance, changes are proposed to the Canada Labour Code as well as the Public Service Staff Relations Act to permit the introduction of successor rights. This means unions will continue to represent their employees and collective agreements will continue to be enforced until the term of the agreement expires as affected employees move from public service employment to other employers within the federal jurisdiction.

We are also implementing amendments to ensure transitional organizations have the tools they need to operate efficiently, effectively and affordably. For example, we will amend the Financial Administration Act to allow multi-year appropriations where organizations require the flexibility to plan their operations for service delivery over more than a one year period.

However, this is an enabling clause only and Parliament retains the right to approve when and if multi-year appropriations are the best business approaches to meet the specific organizational needs.

These are the directions the government is taking to support the evolution in how it does business for the next century.

Alternative service delivery will affect public service employees currently working in these areas. As a fair and equitable employer, the government believes it must treat these employees in a fair and equitable manner. To this end, the government has embarked on a series of negotiations with bargaining agents to ensure the transitional period is as smooth as possible for employees.

Agreement was reached with most public service unions on the transfer agreements that will apply to employees affected by the creation of alternative service delivery organizations.

The amendments will also allow us to put in place fair arrangements for all employees affected by such transfers. They will permit us to implement enhanced arrangements that some unions successfully negotiated on behalf of their members. The government is committed to working with the public service unions and believes that a negotiated agreement is always the preferred option.

The second key priority area concerns compensation and collective bargaining in the public service. All collective bargaining in the public service came to a halt when the government implemented the Public Sector Compensation Act in 1991. I am certain the nation supported this radical but necessary change.

However, six years have passed since this legislation came into effect. For five of these six years, the public service employees have received no increase in their salaries, a most significant contribution by them to Canadians in achieving the government's objective of fiscal restraint.

However, a more fiscally responsible government does not mean an unfair government to its employees. We all recognize that while the government can be a catalyst for change, it is our employees who are the agents of such change. To this end I am pleased to announce that the Public Sector Compensation Act will expire as originally scheduled in February, 1997. We will be able to return to collective bargaining at that time.

The government is amending the Public Sector Compensation Act to reinstate performance pay and annual increments to those employees for whom they were suspended when the government introduced the wage freeze.

In negotiating the terms and conditions of employment for employees with unions over the next three years we will suspend binding arbitration as a dispute resolution mechanism. We cannot risk awards being made by independent arbitrators who are not accountable to Parliament for the government's fiscal responsibility to Canadians.

Binding arbitration will continue for employees of the House of Commons, the Senate, the Library of Parliament and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. Their respective legislation prohibits strikes and requires the use of binding arbitration. However, in these cases the arbitrators will be required to take into account the wage settlements that have been reached for comparable occupational groups within the public service for which the Treasury Board is the employer.

The bill would also provide authority for a 2.2 per cent wage increase for non-commissioned members of the Canadian Armed Forces. This measure will correct the disparity in wages that existed before the wage freeze between members of the armed forces and public service employees.

The final priority of legislative amendments centres around pension reforms which provide individual and group employees with greater portability and meet the standards of the Pension Benefits Standards Act. In this area the government will revise the Public Service Superannuation Act to allow for employee pensions to be protected and to be portable to other organizations. This will be the case whether the individual or group is transferred to a separate organization. Portability will be enhanced by a two-year vesting and lock-in provisions.

I will tell the House about a number of other government priorities. The government will take measures to re-engineer its many organizations to deliver more quality service while being fiscally responsible to the people of Canada.

We will modify the Financial Administration Act to make changes with respect to group insurance plans in the public service, for example, the health care plan. This will permit the government to fund and manage the group insurance plan for employees. It will also be more consistent with general insurance practices in the private sector.

I will mention a few of the many public service undertakings. The changes we are proposing, particularly in the areas of alternative service delivery, compensation and collective bargaining and pension reform will set the foundation for providing more value and quality in service delivery to Canadians. As the President of the Treasury Board said on April 24 in his introduction to this bill: "These measures will help us secure a financial future, get government right-

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for St. Albert is the Treasury Board critic and I thank him for his presentation.

Since I have entered this House I have been disappointed with members on all sides when they say things just for the sake of saying them without any substance. I have had many discussions with the member for St. Albert. He is a fiscal manager. I wonder how he would do some of the things that are being done at Treasury Board.

I will refer to a couple of things that the member spoke about. He spoke about appropriations. We have this form as members of Parliament. The Treasury Board brought that in awhile ago because members had a way of rushing out and spending a whole lot of money at the end of the year.

Whenever projects are started they do not begin and end at a fiscal time. We are trying to be innovative. We are trying to get government right. There is no way we are not going to have value for dollar. That is the reason that there are appropriations.

The member talked about NavCan. He said these people still have their jobs after we said we would get rid of jobs. I ask him what he would rather do. This department is so important that it is an essential service. It has to do with people coming into the country in aircraft. Even when they are problems with labour, they cannot strike because it becomes very dangerous. During strikes they have to be there in case there are emergencies. There are a lot of emergencies in the air with aircraft flying over a country with military operations and so on. So NavCan is extremely important.

It was a great negotiated policy of the government. It has been moved out of the government to an agency that is going to do a better job. The hon. member said that small business could do a good job.

He said that we brought in measures in the legislation on which we will not negotiate. I want to say to the member that we absolutely want to negotiate. However, we certainly do not want a final arbitrator which will take the monetary commitment away from this legislative body.

We are being fiscally responsible. If he were in our place he certainly would not want to bring someone in from left field to make a wage settlement which the Government of Canada would have no alternative but to accept.

[Questions On The Order Paper, April 23rd, 1996]

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

[Tornado, April 22nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, on Saturday, April 20 a tornado touched down in my riding of Bruce-Grey. It struck the areas around Williamsford, Holland Centre and Walters Falls. The tornado demolished homes and destroyed property. My deepest sympathies go to the people who suffered property loss or personal injury. Thankfully, no one was killed.

I want to take the opportunity to console those who suffered loss and to pay tribute to those who have volunteered their efforts. Disasters often test the mettle and spirit of a community. I am proud to say that the people of Bruce-Grey have responded generously to those who have suffered damage. I want to recognize members of the Mennonite community who once again have displayed through their actions the true meaning of community spirit.

The damage caused by the tornado though severe is temporary. The goodwill and the strength and character of the people of Bruce-Grey in helping out those in need is an enduring quality of people in my riding.

[Questions On The Order Paper, March 22nd, 1996]

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

[Government Response To Petitions, March 22nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to two petitions presented during the first session.

[Racial Discrimination, March 22nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, today is an important day. It is the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. When I look around at my colleagues in the government, I can see what we have achieved as a country.

People talk about a melting pot as the answer to our racial problems. If we are all alike, we will surely get along. However, we are not all alike. That is the beauty of Canada.

We talk about being one people but we also allow ourselves to be unique and different. That is what I respect. Instead of a melting pot, Canada is just a great stir-fry with many colours and textures cooked together in one pot but letting the individual flavours remain distinctive. That is Canada's secret.

I believe that if any country can eventually eliminate racism we can. We have the right recipe. The main ingredient is not tolerance which means merely putting up with something, but a respect that says that I admire you, you have something to offer. We can share and learn from each other and create a wonderful new reality.

[Financial Administration Act, March 21st, 1996]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure today to have the opportunity to address the House on the motion to amend the Financial Administration Act. I applaud the member for St. Albert for moving this motion.

My fellow members recognize as I do the importance of the role of the auditor general having a watchful eye on how the government spends the taxpayer's dollar. In a continued effort to get government right, we should consider what can be done to ensure that Canadians receive top value from their government.

As a result, I would like to thank the member for St. Albert for raising the issue of the follow up by departments and agencies on recommendations that the auditor general makes in his reports. I am sure we all agree that when problems are identified, everything should be done to ensure that actions are taken to remedy any shortcomings the auditor general identifies in his report.

The member's proposal has some merit as it would require all departments and agencies to table in this House a specific response to the auditor general's comments. This response would include time frames for corrective action and would also be referred to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.

On the other hand, during this era of fiscal restraint and with the focus on efficiency, we want to ensure that overlap and duplication of actions does not occur.

The report of the auditor general is never taken lightly. Members of this House, the media, the public and many of us look forward to the tabling of each auditor general's report. As a consequence, the government is highly motivated to respond to the concerns raised in each of the reports.

Each department or agency has the opportunity to respond to the comments made by the auditor general and a response is published with the report. This public statement allows the affected party to indicate what actions will be taken in response to the auditor general's concerns and findings.

The report of the auditor general provides ample fodder for questions and lively discussions during question period in this House. Canadians can see ministers being called on to account for activities within their departments. Canadians see and hear through their representatives important questions raised and responded to about activities of the government.

I do not need to remind my fellow members that the auditor general himself follows up every two years on the progress and recommendations. I am positive that all members would agree that the Office of the Auditor General must be diligent in reporting on

the efficiency of the Canadian government operations. Do we want to undermine the efforts of his office by attempting to duplicate this work?

As my fellow members will know and must agree, the Standing Committee on Public Accounts is already very involved with the follow up recommendations of the auditor general. The member for St. Albert, a long time member of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, could assure you that this involvement occurs.

Each year the Standing Committee on Public Accounts calls on a number of departments to demonstrate what actions they have taken to rectify shortcomings noted by the auditor general. The public accounts committee has asked for detailed workplans on the status of various activities. It has further asked that updates on projects and their status be provided every six months. Follow up that is as careful and precise as this ensures that the affected department or agency works hard to remedy problems noted by the auditor general.

I am sure we would not want the Canadian citizenry to perceive a duplication of activity in a time when we are trying to streamline and provide the best possible service for each tax dollar.

Not only does the Standing Committee on Public Accounts follow up in depth with selected departments or agencies, but it also contacts all departments and agencies that are mentioned in each report. In doing so, it requests an update on the actions taken in light of the auditor general's comments. This diligence, as the member for St. Albert a committee member himself must agree, should not be underestimated.

I fully support the will behind the member's motion. We all want to ensure that government improves and uses the advice of the auditor general to its fullest extent. We are all aware of our strained fiscal situation and the ongoing questions of where government should put its limited resources.

However, when one considers the current mechanisms which are in place, they certainly seem to provide more than adequate monitoring of activities in response to the recommendations of the auditor general. We must ensure that we continue to create a culture in which the measurement of success will not be the amount of paper we produce but the level of service we provide for Canadians.

In light of this we should seriously consider how much added value for our dollar the proposed motion will provide. In our eagerness to ensure that government does strive to improve on any shortcomings, we must be wary of the tendency to produce a bigger and more expensive bureaucracy.

While the spirit of my fellow member's motion truly is admirable and timely, I question whether the Canadian taxpayer would be able, much less willing, to foot the bill the motion entails. Additional reporting of each detail to the House will be costly. We should consider the Canadian citizen to whom we are all accountable as we debate this motion to amend the Financial Administration Act. We should consider that while the will is to ensure cost effective government, is the result cost effective?

By way of conclusion, allow me to summarize. There can be no debate as to the level of gravity with which the auditor general's reports are received. It is a document which is widely available in various mediums to the Canadian public.

The proposed motion to amend the Financial Administration Act does raise an important issue of formal reporting of activities in response to recommendations of the auditor general. We should consider the level of reporting and follow up on the auditor general's report that currently exists whilst debating this motion.

Departments and agencies are provided the opportunity to publicly state their response and intended actions within the report itself.

Question period is a venue where one may ask the minister what he or she intends to do about concerns raised by the auditor general.

The auditor general himself follows up on the actions of the affected departments and agencies every two years.

The Standing Committee on Public Accounts contacts each and every department and agency mentioned in each report. The committee asks them to report on their progress on the recommendations of the auditor general. The public accounts committee also issues frequent reports on government activity to which the government must respond.

In further asking departments and agencies to table detailed responses in this House, are we thereby undermining the important roles of both the auditor general and the Standing Committee on Public Accounts?

Currently, departments and agencies respond to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, the auditor general, the media and the public at large. In asking departments and agencies additionally to table formal reports in this House, are we asking the Canadian public to pay for a larger and more expensive bureaucracy?

During this time of fiscal restraint, while we are trying to achieve maximum efficiency with a modicum of resources, we should consider as we debate this motion whether it will be cost effective.

I believe that all of us here have the same goal. We all want to ensure that the government continues to improve. We all want to ensure that Canadians receive value for their tax dollars. The spirit of this motion is clearly there and I applaud it. However the spirit may not end up being reflected in the result.

It does not matter whether it is the government, a business, a municipal government or any organization that handles funds, it is the way in which one does business. It is the efficient way in which one does business and not the amount of paper and the reporting that makes the business function or makes it efficient.

We are here to clarify and to reduce government burden, not to extend the bureaucracy. We feel there are enough mechanisms in the reporting of this document that this House should be satisfied.

[Ceso International Services, March 15th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are known in the world community as a generous and caring people. Canadians have a long and proud tradition of dedicating their efforts and energies to the less developed areas of the world in the name of fellowship, international development and peace.

I rise in this place to pay tribute to one of my constituents, Mr. Michael Blender of Chesley, Ontario, a gentleman who embodies this spirit.

Mr. Blender travelled to Guyana to advise a furniture supplier on manufacturing methods. He made a number of recommendations designed to improve product flow and quality and suggested types of supplies and machines and other equipment.

He went under the auspices of the Canadian Executive Services Organization. These volunteers are skilled women and men, usually retired, who willingly share their lifetime of practical experience with those in the rest of the world who need it the most.

Once again I congratulate Mr. Michael Blender of Chesley for his altruism and spirit of service to people of the world.

[Ontario Federation Of Agriculture, December 8th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to congratulate Tony Morris on being acclaimed president of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture.

Tony has assumed a great responsibility. The OFA is the voice of Ontario farmers. Supported by over 41,000 individual members and 29 affiliated organizations, the OFA presents farm family concerns to governments and to the general public. The OFA has a long history of advocating the interest of the Ontario farm community. Though constituted in its present form since 1970, the OFA can trace its roots back to the Ontario Chamber of Agriculture established in the 1930s.

Agriculture is big business in Bruce-Grey and a major job creator and contributor to this great country of Canada. Given its importance, I look forward to working with Tony to secure the interests of Ontario farmers and rural communities in general.

Again I congratulate Tony Morris.