Marlene Catterall

[Department Of Agriculture Act, October 19th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am certainly prepared to accede to unanimous consent, provided the member for Vegreville displays the same courtesy to our agreement that the member for Burin-St. George's did and keeps his remarks equally brief. Otherwise we would have the position where one member was denied his speaking time. I hope he will respect that.

[Department Of Agriculture Act, October 19th, 1994]

On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker.

[Department Of Agriculture Act, October 19th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe you had already called the question and that you had moved on to begin reading the question. In fact there was substantial agreement among the three major parties in the House that we would allow the debate to collapse at this point and have a vote on division on this question.

Perhaps the hon. member who just rose might want to consult with his whip before he insists on making a speech at this particular time. The fact is that the question has been called and we should then go on with the vote.

[Department Of Public Works And Government Services Act, October 17th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, it is appropriate following my colleague's speech on the importance of our fiscal resources and using them well that I speak about those other resources which are perhaps even more important in delivering services to Canadians and ensuring good government for Canada and those are the people who are also a valuable resource.

Bill C-52 will give legislative force to the amalgamation of the former departments of public works and supply and services as well as the translation bureau and the government telecommunications agency. This is clearly in line with our government's commitment to make federal government operations more efficient and less costly to the Canadian taxpayer.

Madam Speaker, I will inform you and the House that I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, in this debate.

This merger will significantly reduce the administrative and other costs involved in providing most of the central services required by federal agencies and departments.

The overall staff requirement will be reduced by more than 20 per cent from 18,000 at the time of amalgamation to about

14,000 by 1998. Clearly such a reduction will substantially reduce the salary budget of the department-by more than $1 billion over the next decade.

Our government also recognizes that there is a very important human dimension to this downsizing, necessary though it may be.

We realize that the savings which we intend to achieve will inevitably affect the lives and careers of many public servants. That is why we are now taking all necessary measures to make this transition the least disruptive possible for those directly concerned.

The need to streamline operations and reduce the cost of government is by no means unique to Canada. It is a problem being faced by the provinces, by our municipalities, in the United States, in Europe and throughout the industrialized world.

I believe that the program of support and assistance being introduced by our government is one of the most enlightened of its kind and is recognized as a leader in the field. Unlike the previous government which regrettably was inclined to downgrade the public service and treat it as a scapegoat for its own failures, our government recognizes that the quality of our people is our most important strength.

We will work closely with our public servants and the unions that represent them to minimize the impact of these difficult but necessary staff reductions. The broad strategy will be to retain to the greatest degree possible the skills, the experience and the loyalties of the affected employees within the public service and to give the greatest possible assistance to those who cannot be retained in finding suitable employment elsewhere.

Specifically, each affected employee will be assigned a workforce adjustment adviser to provide job search, marketing assistance and other services on a regular basis.

All surplus employees will be offered a one-week course developed with union participation dealing with such issues as stress management, financial counselling and job search techniques. Surplus employees will be provided with links to specialized services as required, such as the employee assistance program, because we recognize that not only are people going through a career change but they are going through a significant life change.

Extensive training, advice and support will be provided to managers in planning and implementing reductions with special emphasis on communication with all employees. We recognize that the manager has a key role to play in ensuring that downsizing is implemented fairly and with maximum consideration for our employees.

We will fully apply the directive on reassignment for employees declared surplus.

Among other things, this means a guaranteed position in the federal Public Service to the extent that the employee can be retrained or is ready to consider relocation. It also means that employees will receive six months' notice if they are declared surplus and will be entitled to retraining courses for up to two years.

Under the work force adjustment directive, surplus employees will be entitled to salary protection if they are appointed to a lower position. If they wish to resign, they will be entitled to a lump-sum payment equal to six months of salary. Also, employees who are over 50 years old and have more than five years of service will receive up to 15 weeks of salary as severance pay as well.

Our government intends to work as closely as possible with the various public service unions in implementing these changes.

The unions and employees are understandably not entirely happy with the reductions in government staffing levels that are taking place throughout the country but they recognize the reality of the times and they know that we want to work with them to co-operate in ensuring that these lay-offs are conducted fairly and in accordance with government policy and directives.

In this regard, workforce adjustment committees are already in place at the national and regional levels of the former departments. The government is continuing to discuss and examine with the unions the most effective way to consult and co-operate on the reshaping of the new department.

In this exercise departmental managers are being encouraged to consider innovative strategies and the voluntary use of flexible work arrangements such as part time work and job sharing as a means of minimizing the impact of these changes.

The process of downsizing has already begun and there are currently some 250 surplus employees in the inventory of the department. It is encouraging to note that to date the majority of surplus employees have been dealt with through retraining and redeployment with very few involuntary lay-offs.

The components of this department in particular have an excellent record in treating their employees fairly.

I think hon. members will agree that our government has gone to extraordinary lengths to try to minimize the negative effects of departmental restructuring on the workforce. This is a clear demonstration of our commitment to build a new and stronger

relationship with the public service and to demonstrate that we both respect it and value its work.

The morale in the federal public service took a rather severe battering during the Tory years in power. We are determined to re-establish a new and better relationship based on mutual trust and mutual respect.

[Department Of Natural Resources Act, October 17th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The deferral motion you just read stated 5.30 p.m. tomorrow. It should be after the conclusion of government business which may or may not be as early as 5.30.

[Income Tax Act, October 5th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I want to speak briefly to the bill and express my views on the importance of the initiative of my colleague.

Those in the House who know me will know how very strongly I feel that the work I do in Parliament and on behalf of my constituents is extremely important. The work all of us do as members of Parliament is important and valuable to the country. We should never downgrade that work.

I have had a previous career in my life to which I give even more importance. That has been raising three children fortunately with, so far it seems, very good success. I will never stop saying that has been the most important thing I have done in my life. I was fortunate enough to be raising my children at a time when economically we had the choice, or I certainly had the choice without feeling I was depriving my family by staying home and raising them.

That is a choice many women do not have these days. As the member for Québec has said, the majority of women with young children are now in the workforce. Whether women raise their children on a full time basis at home or before and after completing a full day's work, it does not change the significant economic value of the work they do in raising their children and keeping their home, which receives absolutely no recognition in society.

That is the fundamental issue my colleague's bill is attempting to address. I suspect my colleague has motivations for the bill that I would not necessarily share, including encouraging more women to stay home and look after their children.

What I do want to encourage, however, is choice for women. I want to ensure that whatever choice they make is valued by society and its economic worth recognized.

What happens now is that through family law across this country we have recognized family income and family assets accumulated during a marriage as joint and divisible assets. Unfortunately we only recognize that in reality when the marriage breaks up.

We have all followed the Thibaudeau case very carefully, the taxability of child support payments. We all know very well that there are large numbers of parents raising children after a divorce who do not receive the support payments to which they are entitled.

The fact is we do virtually nothing while a marriage is intact, when a couple are raising children together to acknowledge that the stay at home parent is contributing as fully to the economic well-being of the family as the parent in the workforce earning an income.

This is one way of trying to recognize that. I think it is important that we have this discussion because in the last few years I have increasingly heard resentment from women who are fully occupied and working full time raising three or more children. They resent that they are forgoing income to make that important contribution to the lives of their children and I believe to society. Yet because they made that choice, from their reduced income they are required to contribute to support children of other parents who choose otherwise.

That kind of resentment between women in society is not helpful to the equality of women, but it is a fact. It is a fact that will only be changed when we really address how to recognize the economic value of the contribution women make as mothers and homemakers.

This bill before us may not be a perfect solution to that but it is at least the start of discussions. The result of not recognizing the economic value of that work is far reaching and lasts a lifetime. It is a major contributor to the poverty of women that they interrupt a career, interrupt the opportunity to build a career either for a short or long period of time and they never recoup. Even if they go back into their career they never recoup economically.

As a society we want the next generation to be born, yet we penalize women who are the only half of our race capable of producing that next generation.

As I said, some of these are not the arguments of my colleagues presenting this bill. However, they are certainly mine. The result is that poverty is a women's issue and this is a cause of it. That very important work they do in child bearing and child rearing has no economic value in our society and that has repercussions throughout the workplace. It means that when women do go into paid work they tend to be slotted into the kind of work that most closely resembles mothering, looking after the needs of somebody else. Therefore, we underpay that kind

of work in the paid workforce that most resembles whatever comes closest to the mothering and supportive role. Therefore, we create pink collar ghettos in the workforce as well.

I honestly think that is only going to change when we do start addressing and valuing economically the work of women in raising children and creating a home.

I said it lasts throughout a lifetime. One of the things I find extremely attractive about this bill is that it gives women the opportunity to provide for their own financial security in retirement. It gives them the opportunity to contribute to their own pension plan. One of the major causes of poverty among women and particularly of elderly women is that they have never had or have had limited opportunities to contribute to pension plans.

For a number of reasons the motivation behind this bill is a positive one. We also have to address in our economic accounting how we value the work of women. There is a move afoot to have the census include valuing as employment the work that women do as volunteers or at home. I support that and I hope we will do that.

There will be all kinds of economic arguments as to why we cannot do what this bill proposes. We have to start fundamentally questioning how we can perpetuate a tax system that requires depriving some women of economic recognition for the important work they do. I do not suspect we will resolve that today or in the next few months but I hope this bill has made a lot of members of the House start to think about it. I see the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance sitting close by. I hope he is listening because he is in a position to start having a positive influence in that direction.

[Villa Marconi, September 26th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the fund raising committee of the Villa Marconi on its very successful golf tournament held to raise funds for a seniors residence for Canadians of Italian extraction.

I want to especially congratulate the winning foursome headed by the one and only unbeatable Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. While the minister may have temporarily harmed my political popularity by walking away with all the best prizes, I want to thank him for his important contribution to this great event.

It is good to know that a member of Parliament can come to this community, become part of it and participate in this kind of event to the benefit of the Italian Canadian community in the national capital.

[The Environment, September 23rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, this government places a high priority on sustainable development, the joint goals of achieving a clean environment and a strong, internationally competitive economy.

That is why yesterday the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Industry announced a new $57.5 million national strategy for the Canadian environmental industry.

The environmental industry strategy was developed after extensive consultations with the industry, with all levels of government and with industry associations.

This strategy will improve the access of the environmental industry to government programs and services, support cost effective technology development and commercialization, secure dominance in the growing Canadian market and increase exports of environmental technology.

Canada's industry has an important role to play in helping Canada achieve sustainable development, and the government is firmly committed to strengthening this sector of our economy.

[Government Expenditures, June 20th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure of tabling on behalf of the President of the Treasury Board a document requested in this House, a review of service provision options for the administrative flight service.

The report is an exhaustive review of options for the administrative flight service, in both official languages.

[Supply, June 8th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry but this is ridiculous. I am saying to Canadians that we have done exactly what the Reform Party is telling us we should do and those members are sitting there saying "ah, gosh, gee". Members cannot have it both ways.

Do they want these cuts made or do they not want these cuts made? When these cuts are made, they should be giving credit. We started at the very top with our Prime Minister, then with reducing the number of cabinet ministers, with reducing the budgets that those cabinet ministers have to operate on, and with reducing our own expenditures here in this House of Commons because we know that Canadians are counting on us to set the example. We are doing that.

To suggest that we are tabling estimates that do not include several billion dollars in cuts is simply not accurate or quite honest.