Ronald J. Duhamel

[Employment Equity Act, October 16th, 1995]

The Reform Party does not get its facts straight because when we attempt to put the facts on the table, Reformers will not listen. I am going to continue to give them the facts and perhaps some day they will sink in.

Jobs in the public service in contrast to the federally regulated sector are not as concentrated in large Canadian metropolitan areas. These are the urban centres where the vast majority of Canadians of a visible minority are residing. However, visible minorities make up 8.3 per cent of the relatively well paid scientific and professional category of the public service.

It should also be noted that right now, one out of five executives in the public service is a woman. What is it in the private sector? One in ten. I suppose the Reform Party is going to tell me that is better. I suppose Reform members are going to tell me that is because women have been favoured. No, it is not because they have been favoured. It is because there have been open policies which have recognized the systemic discrimination and in part it has been corrected.

Professor Andrew Hede of the University of Southern Queensland in Australia published a comparative analysis of women executives in public services. Drawing from the experience in Britain, the United States and Australia he wrote: "Canada is the clear front runner in the equity stakes". Why will my colleagues from the Reform Party not admit that we are leaders? I know why. It is because they cannot possibly admit whenever the government does something right.

Make no mistake about it. There is still a lot that needs to be done, but we are making progress. These are sound policies. It is unfortunate that some people would want to peg them as discriminatory for political gain.

Now for my comments on Bill C-64. Some people have a poor perception of employment equity and of Bill C-64 in particular. They believe, and in my opinion they are wrong, that these are radical social experiments. One wonders whether there is no awareness or appreciation of the past and present policies of this government which are aimed at helping the most vulnerable members of our society and thus increasing employment equity.

Let me present the facts so that these people will understand the historic background of this bill. I hope this will improve their perspective and give them a better appreciation of employment equity.

I will provide a history of the development of employment equity at the federal level, with some specific examples of the situation, past and present, in the public service.

What I am about to say will make it abundantly clear, and it may even be understood by those who do not want to see it, that employment equity is not a revolution that would target and punish groups which may have benefited from the employment system in the past. Rather, I want to paint employment equity in Canada as an evolutionary social policy initiative consistent with the tradition of fairness and dignity for all that is so prevalent in the mainstream of Canadian society. That is what it is all about.

Let me give some examples of a few very significant historical milestones.

The Royal Commission on the Status of Women was a stimulus for early efforts by the federal government in the 1970s to deal systematically with issues of representation in the public service.

In the early 1980s the federal government introduced a program to bring about the equitable representation and distribution of

women, aboriginal peoples, and persons with disabilities in the public service. In 1985 visible minorities were included in the program.

The government also launched the special measures programs to encourage the recruitment of designated group members. A service-wide self-identification survey was carried out to provide the numerical information for the program.

And in 1986, following the 1984 report of the Royal Commission on Employment Equity, sometimes referred to as the Abella Report, the federal government passed the Employment Equity Act. The government also introduced Treasury Board's policy on employment equity.

In 1988, the government appointed the Task Force on Barriers to Women in the Public Service whose report Beneath the Veneer was published in 1990. The report recommended a broad range of measures to attract, train and maintain women in positions at all levels. It provided the inspiration for a number of important proposals made in the White Paper on Public Service Renewal, Public Service 2000, and in the Public Service Reform Act tabled in the House of Commons.

In 1989, Treasury Board introduced an annual program of employment equity merit awards to celebrate outstanding achievements by departments with respect to various designated groups. That same year the Canadian Centre for Management Development opened its doors. Among other things, the centre encourages the implementation of key employment equity objectives, including diversity management.

Also in 1989, Treasury Board adopted a policy on services available to persons with disabilities.

In 1990 the secretary of the Treasury Board, with advice from a deputy ministerial committee, set goals for the achievement of equity for the four designated groups, reviewed accountability mechanisms, monitored developments with respect to national strategies and initiatives, and gave advice to departments on communications strategies and efforts.

In May 1992 the government announced its intention to legislate employment equity in the public service through amendments to the Financial Administration Act, thereby confirming by statute obligations on the public service that were comparable to those placed on federally regulated employers under the Employment Equity Act.

On June 18, 1992 royal assent was given to a bill modifying six federal laws pertaining to persons with disabilities, two of which were a Treasury Board responsibility. These were the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act. The acts were modified to facilitate access to government records and to have personal information in an alternative format for persons with a sensory disability.

In December 1992 Parliament passed the Public Service Reform Act which amended various federal acts, including the Financial Administration Act. As a result of these revisions, the President of the Treasury Board is now required to table in Parliament an annual report on the state of employment equity in the public service during the immediately preceding fiscal year.

In 1993, the framework for better employment equity in the public service in the 1990s was published. This framework was the product of reflection by the secretary of Treasury Board with the support of a group of deputy ministers. It described a new approach to employment equity at a time when resources were few and managers and employees were increasingly being asked to be accountable by focussing service on the client and coming up with their own ways to promote a positive corporate culture.

In April 1994, Treasury Board approved the implementation of a new program of special measures replacing previous special measures programs. This new program advocated more innovation and flexibility in increasing representation by members of the designated groups and changing corporate culture within the public service.

Finally, in December 1994 the government introduced Bill C-64, an act respecting employment equity. It brings private and public sector employers, including the public service, under a single legislated regime. Employers would be subject to identical obligations to implement employment equity and a uniform process. The Canadian Human Rights Commission would be authorized to conduct compliance audits.

This is the reality. I have just described it. I hope my colleagues opposite will stop using this expression and this program in an attempt to claim they hold the key to the truth. I hope that, finally, they will stop and look, open their eyes and their heart, and admit that, without such programs, women, aboriginal peoples, members of visible minorities and other inadequately represented groups would not be given favourable treatment.

I could go on at length, but I feel I have nevertheless set out the facts. If they keep an open mind, something all members should have, these hon. members will approve and support a government bill in the end.

[Employment Equity Act, October 16th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, on October 3 in this very House at the start of the debate on the amendment motions to Bill C-64, the hon. member for Edmonton Southwest said: "The private sector by and large is light years ahead of the government in its relationship with minority groups".

That comes from one of the more enlightened members of the Reform Party. Imagine what the rest of them must be thinking when such a glaring error has been made. That is incorrect and false information. It was not intended to be. It just happened to be because that member did not know as his colleagues do not know the truth of the matter. I want to set the record straight.

Our latest annual report was tabled in the House by the Minister of Human Resources Development and the President of the Treasury Board. It shows that for three of the designated groups, that is, women, aboriginal peoples and persons with disabilities, in representation levels the ratios of designated group members to the entire workforce are higher in the federal public service than in the whole federally regulated private sector. Those are the facts.

The lower representation of visible minorities in the public service as a whole is due in part to the fact that the public service does not have an equivalent to the banking sector where representation is 13 per cent.

[Underground Economy, October 5th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, all of Canada's regions, without exception, benefit from the spinoffs of the official development assistance budget. The Government of Canada is not shy about drawing on the know-how of Canadians, who have both the necessary skills and the desire to contribute to the growth of a developing country.

Quebec has a wealth of such skills. It has always been committed to helping the most disadvantaged peoples. The Government of Canada is fully aware of this and regularly draws on this knowledge and goodwill in carrying out its assistance program.

This is how a number of Quebec companies have obtained contracts from the Canadian government enabling them to export their know-how. Permit me to name a few whose contribution is well known. They include the Société Vitronov of Montreal, which this year won the award of excellence from the Canadian Exporters' Association for an innovative project in biotechnology in Morocco. Other companies include SR Télécom, ADS Associés, Tecsult, to mention but a few.

The fact is that Quebec receives much of the spinoffs of Canadian ODA. Nearly 30 per cent of ODA procurement is done in Quebec. More than a third, 36.3 per cent, of contracts are concluded in Quebec.

Of the 45,000 jobs created in Canada by official development assistance, over 12,000 are in "la belle province".

Like other Canadians, Quebecers are opening up more and more to the world. They understand, as the century draws to a close, that the planetary stakes are so high we must pool our resources and strengthen existing partnerships.

The ODA program tries to resolve problems that present a real threat to security, both in Canada and in the rest of the world. The Government of Canada intends to continue to draw on Quebec know-how in helping to make the world a richer and a fairer place.

[Underground Economy, October 5th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to point out that the Minister of Human Resources Development was rather surprised at the support shown by the hon. member for Lévis for a Youth Service Canada project in his riding.

This was the same member who had previously said Youth Service Canada was an invasion of provincial jurisdiction. It is therefore difficult to account for the enthusiastic support shown by the hon. member, considering his opinion of federal initiatives.

Nevertheless, as the Secretary of State for Training and Youth pointed out to the hon. member in a letter dated September 5, 1995, the proposal is still quite interesting, but we need a few details.

The promoter, Alliance-Jeunesse, was asked to revise its proposal, and the Youth Service Canada secretariat offered to send one of its representatives to provide assistance. As soon as we receive the proposal, I can assure the hon. member it will be processed immediately.

Meanwhile, I think the hon. member will be pleased to hear that the minister has already provided a great deal in the way of employment assistance in his riding. In fact, according to the latest figures, those available for 1994-95, assistance for residents in the riding of Lévis totalled $7.7 million. That is a very substantial amount.

This would seem to argue against the assumption of the hon. member that the minister allocates funding on the basis of the way the member for the riding voted or intends to vote.

Clearly the hon. member's allegation has no basis in fact.

[Petitions, October 4th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the petitioners believe that violence and abuse in society need to be reduced, in fact if possible to be eliminated. They also believe that they affect young children in a very negative kind of way and do not see any need for violence and abuse to inform, educate or entertain.

I had the honour just over a week ago to address the CRTC hearings on this very topic and again today in the House. I am pleased to support the petition.

[Violence On Television, October 4th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, in Winnipeg last week I had the privilege of taking part in the CRTC's regional consultations on violence in television, violence which, I believe, has a negative impact on our children.

Parents need better information and better tools to ensure they can make wise decisions with respect to the kinds of programs they want their children to watch.

The industry must continue to self regulate. A standardized classification system is needed. New technology, for example the V-chip, could also be extremely helpful to parents. Media literacy for parents and children is required.

I would urge hon. members to work together to ensure that television becomes a positive tool for us and especially for our children.

[Employment Equity Act, October 3rd, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I rise in the House today to debate Motions 15, 16 and 17 put forth by the hon. member for Edmonton Southwest with respect to Bill C-64.

When we consider the number of amendments the members of the Reform Party have presented to the House on this bill, it is clear that their attempt is to weaken the effectiveness of the Employment Equity Act.

Canadians often wonder whether there are differences between political ideologies. I would encourage them to listen to this debate because they will see that there are enormous differences. My colleague has just made the claim that this program is divisive. It can be divisive, yes, particularly when it is claimed that this was its intended purpose, when the reasons such a program was created are ignored.

It is regrettable that the employment equity legislation is not looked upon by my colleagues from the Reform Party as it is intended to be. They do not see that it will make this nation a fairer one in the way in which we treat Canadians. The unfairness and the divisiveness occurs when people suggest that is what it does. This legislation is something we should be proud of, not something we should be running away from.

With regard to Motions Nos. 15, 16 and 17, the hon. member is calling upon the government to eliminate provisions that are integral to administering the act's monetary penalty system. To do so would automatically eliminate the benefits inherent in such a system. It would be like telling the referees at a hockey game that they can call penalties but they cannot put anyone in the penalty box. Without these provisions it would be impossible to ensure that those private sector employees subject to the act fulfill their obligations with regard to reporting requirements. It should be noted that the monetary penalty system only applies in cases of non-compliance with the reporting requirements in the act.

Motion No. 15 calls for the deletion of clause 38. Clause 38 gives employers the option of either paying the assessed penalty or asking for an independent third party review, namely by an employment equity tribunal. Clause 38 provides employers with access to an open and fair appeal.

Motion No. 16 calls for the deletion of clause 39. This clause combines the appeal and review mechanisms. An employer can apply for the tribunal to review the assessed penalty or the commission can take further action if an employer has neither paid the assessment on time nor asked for a review.

Motion No. 17 calls for the deletion of clause 40. This clause is necessary to enable the commission to take a negligent employer to federal court to collect an unpaid assessment. If we remove the ability to take this action, it will mean removing the possibility of applying a just penalty to employers who are in contravention.

I would like to stress once again that the system of monetary penalties applies only in cases of non-compliance with the reporting requirements. Only then. To date the only mechanism available to us for ensuring compliance with the reporting requirement has been recourse to criminal proceedings, an unwieldy process.

This system costs less and is less unwieldy and easier on everyone concerned. For the reporting requirement to make any sense the statute must include an enforcement mechanism. It is totally illogical to set out monetary penalties without any means of implementing those penalties.

If the government were to adopt the proposed amendments under those circumstances, the reporting requirement would be unenforceable. This is why I cannot support the hon. member's motions.

I would ask my colleagues in the Reform Party to look at the government's intentions and motivation not just with open minds but with open eyes as well. The intent is not to divide but to ensure representation for the under-represented, to ensure that they are taken into account. We are all aware that in the present system those who are not as strong as others are not always treated in a fair and equitable manner.

[National Infrastructure Program, October 2nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the national infrastructure program put in place by our government will soon be two years old. All regions of this country have enjoyed the significant benefits of this program, which not only made it possible to modernize municipal facilities but also created an impressive number of jobs.

In Quebec, this program created over 25,000 new jobs in connection with 1,882 projects. To date, in excess of $436 million was injected into the various projects by federal, provincial and municipal governments.

The national infrastructure program also showed that the various levels of government can co-operate when they really want to. It is a good example of a successful and effective program, and we are quite proud of it.

[Petitions, September 28th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, this petition from almost 1,000 Canadians asks the CRTC to regulate all forms of violence and abuse on television.

The citizens believe that one needs not to be shocked to be educated, to be informed, to be entertained. These petitioners applaud the CRTC hearings on this subject, violence on television, which are being held right now and to which I might add I had the honour of presenting a brief last Monday in Winnipeg, Manitoba.

[Members Of Parliament Retiringallowances Act, June 22nd, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to address the House at third reading of Bill C-85, an act to amend the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act.

The issue of MPs' pensions is, of course, of interest to all members of this House and to Canadians in general.

This is an issue that demands leadership. However, in showing leadership, the government and members must carefully consider all aspects of MPs' and senators' remuneration.

The issue itself is complex and contentious, a fact that makes it hard to address in a partial or even a general manner. That said, during its election campaign our government made certain promises it intended to keep once it came to power. The red book emphasized two aspects in particular of the MPs' pension scheme that were to be the subject of reform.

I shall take the liberty of quoting directly an excerpt from page 92 of the red book: "The pension regime of members of Parliament has been the focus of considerable controversy. -We believe that reform is necessary".

Our government has now taken action. The changes we planned to the MPs' pension scheme will be made when Bill C-85 is passed. The red book stated, and I quote: "A Liberal government will reform the pension plan of members of Parliament to end "double-dipping". MPs should not be able to leave office and receive a pension from the federal government if they accept a new full-paying job from the federal government. In addition, we will review the question of the minimum age at which pensions will begin to be paid". The Liberal government had made a commitment to keeping those promises.

However, the government has gone further. It will put into place a number of additional changes that will enhance the needed reform of MP pensions, changes that will provide for former members who have become disabled, equitable support for common law spouses, the option for members of this Parliament to determine their continued participation in this plan, which is a direct result of the request put to the Prime Minister on January 21, 1994 by the Reform House leader on behalf of his party.

Furthermore, a direct savings of millions of dollars due to a 20 per cent reduction in benefits to all MPs will be realized.

Let me be clear. This government consulted; this government listened; this government acted. Here are the facts: double-dipping eliminated; minimum age set at 55 years; optional participation offered to MPs in this Parliament; and $3.3 million saved for the government-in other words, 33 per cent lower costs to Canadian taxpayers.

On February 22, 1995, immediately before the Minister of Finance tabled the Budget that would strike a mighty blow to the deficit, the President of the Treasury Board announced that our government intended to reform the MP's pension scheme. He also tabled Bill C-85 on April 28, 1995, and spoke when that bill was tabled for second reading on May 4, 1995. The President of the Treasury Board also testified before the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs on May 30, 1995. As well, I was given the opportunity of speaking to you when this bill was tabled for third reading.

This debate, which has continued for eight months, has also included a full day of consideration by the House of a motion made on this matter on Opposition Day and, of course, the appearance of expert witnesses before the Standing Committee. Over 20 hours of debate-and I must say it was often tough debate-have been devoted to this bill thus far.

The official opposition has presented some interesting and quite often constructive ideas on this issue, which is a thorny and difficult one.

The third party is engaged in often rancorous debate and highlighted a number of issues that are of importance, particularly the issue of salaries. Because we are in an area of fiscal restraint it is vital to note that Bill C-85 only deals with pensions. We will not and cannot act to raise the salaries and other benefits of members of Parliament at this time.

We will respect the legislated salary freeze on employees and continue to demonstrate leadership in putting Canada's fiscal house in order.

Members of the standing committee heard testimony from expert witnesses, including a taxpayers' group, that had the same theme. The issue surrounding the greater issue of compensation must be addressed, pensions must be reduced and salaries increased.

This was also the viewpoint expressed by the pension experts from the private pension consulting firm, Sobeco, Ernst & Young. It was the same as that of Professor C.E.S. Franks of Queen's University, a member of the Lapointe commission. It was the testimony of a former member of Parliament and actuary, Paul McCrossan. It was supported by Robert Fleming, a former administrator of the Ontario legislature. It was even put forward by the very group that puts hundreds of little plastic animals on the lawn of the House.

This total compensation approach is supported by the government in principle. However, as I mentioned at the outset, in practice we must carefully consider all elements of compensation. Salaries cannot and will not be increased.

At the risk of repeating myself, I will again state that the government has demonstrated leadership by reducing pensions for MPs, by going beyond what it had promised. This will have the net effect of reducing total compensation. Unfortunately this is the reality Parliament must face in today's economic climate.

I would now like to focus on the major elements of Bill C-85, and perhaps to correct some of the errors of interpretation that have crept in. I certainly would not want the honourable members on the other side of the chamber to voice their views about the bill without having accurate information.

Bill C-85 restricts double dipping. It will apply to any future appointment, to any renewal of an appointment, and to any contract signed after the date on which the bill obtains royal assent.

Former senators will be subject to this restriction in the same way as former members of this House. The clause on double dipping in Bill C-85 provides that any former member who is receiving a pension will be required to notify the appropriate minister when he starts to hold federal employment or enters into a federal service contract.

The notification will have to be made within 60 days after the date of the appointment or the signing of the contract, and the member will have to report how much he is earning or expecting to earn. Every year he will have to report all sums of money received from the federal government as long as he holds the employment or continues to execute the contract.

Any member whose earnings exceed or are expected to exceed $5,000 annually would have their pensions abated dollar for dollar by the amount of their remuneration. For example, if a member receives $30,000 in pension and earns $45,000 in a federal position, his or her pension will be totally suspended. If the member earns $25,000 he or she would receive $5,000 of their pension. That is because they earned a $30,000 salary.

I am taking the time to illustrate these examples because it is important to note that only federal parliamentary pensions and federal salaries comprise the double dipping provision.

The second component of Bill C-85 I would like to address is the red book commitment of the minimum age. Age 55 will be the minimum age at which former MPs and senators can collect a pension. This government agrees with the age 55 recommendation put forward by the Lapointe commission in the report entitled: "Democratic Ideals and Financial Realities".

Madam Speaker, the third point I would like to raise is that of optional participation.

As I mentioned earlier, within days of entering Parliament, the Reform Party House leader stood before this House and asked the Prime Minister if the government intended to continue to force MPs to participate in the MP pension plan. The Prime Minister's response was to the point: If members do not want to contribute to the pension plan, then administrative arrangements would be made to ensure they would not be part of the plan. Bill C-85 explicitly responds to the Prime Minister's promise to the Reform Party. Members will be provided with the option to choose whether or not they wish to continue to participate in this pension plan.

Madam Speaker, there are people shouting over there because they do not like to hear the truth. They prefer exaggeration so that they can make a little political hay. That is what they do when they have problems with the electorate.

I am confident members of the Reform Party will recognize this change adequately reflects what their party has sought. However, I would urge all members including those of the government and the official opposition to carefully consider their personal and family retirement needs prior to making this decision. Political motivation and party discipline should not play a part in this important choice.

This government has a clear view that retirement savings should be supported as they are through the income tax system in providing benefits through RRSPs or registered pension plans by employers providing for the legitimate retirement needs of their employees. The Government of Canada provides pensions for its public servants, the military, the RCMP and we should certainly provide pensions for our parliamentarians.

I would like to put forward some figures which were first presented to the standing committee. I understand they were useful to the committee members for the analysis of this proposed legislation. According to the Statistics Canada 1992 publication "Pension Plans in Canada" only 9 per cent of people who are in employment related pension plans are in plans that match contributions or are similar to RRSP type plans. The remaining 91 per cent are in defined benefit plans which provide a set formula to determine benefits. This type of plan provides better certainty and security for employees and planning for retirement because their ultimate benefits can be anticipated without being subject to the prevailing interest rates at the time the annuity becomes payable.

My colleagues in the opposition are taking great risks. If they continue to make noise, my voice can be much louder than theirs.

Madam Speaker, the Statistics Canada publication I just mentioned reveals that in general, in the context of these defined benefit plans, private sector employers contribute about 60 per cent of the costs while in the public sector the employer's proportion is 60 per cent.

Naturally enough, in the case of special plans, the share of the costs assumed by the employer is considerably higher. For instance, in the case of the Canadian Forces the employer's contribution is $2.70 for every dollar contributed by an employee.

I have taken the time to state these facts because I think it is important that we have enough knowledge about private or employer-sponsored pension plans in Canada generally, if we want to evaluate this particular pension plan logically and rationally.

The final element I want to discuss is the question of pension accrual or pension benefit rate. Bill C-85 reduces the benefit rate for members' pensions from 5 per cent to 4 per cent of their annual salary per year of service. This is equivalent to a 20 per cent reduction.

Combined with the introduction of a minimum age, this reduction will make it possible to reduce by 33 per cent the amount the taxpayer contributes to the members' pension plan. This is a significant saving, in line with our government's deficit reduction strategy.

Clearly the government has gone even further than it promised it would in reforming members' retiring allowances. We have markedly reduced the costs that the Canadian taxpayer has to pay.

In addition to outlining the important elements of Bill C-85 I would like to address one concern that I have in effectively communicating the impact of pensions. Private interest groups and members of this House have put forward what I would call, and I want to underline it, misleading information of potential payments to MPs. It is not just government MPs that have been mentioned. The exorbitant amounts reportedly to be paid to young cabinet ministers and long serving MPs are based on misleading and incorrect assumptions.

For example, the 5 per cent inflation assumption is certainly out of whack with what the Department of Finance calculates, which is a standard of 1.5 per cent. Even Reform will understand that there is a difference between 1.5 per cent and 5 per cent.

Additionally to state that a pension figure is based on an MP retiring today and collecting a pension immediately until age 75 fails to recognize the effects of Bill C-85. They fail to recognize it because it is convenient to them. Particular attention should be paid to clause 11 of the bill which will introduce the minimum age of 55. The assumptions also ignore the ministers and MPs are not retiring today. In fact they are making active contributions to the Canadian political landscape and will continue to do so for many years.

It might be useful by way of example to demonstrate the nefarious effects of such outrageous and incorrect assumptions. The price of a $2 loaf of bread considered in future dollars would cost according to these assumptions which include compounding and high inflation $3.20 in 10 years and after 20 years about $5.30. That is the kind of gimmickry we are engaged in. Simply put, these comparisons do not accurately reflect what a former member may receive in pension. They are extremely inaccurate and misleading.

In conclusion, Bill C-85 is an accurate response to the concerns expressed by Canadian taxpayers. They have asked for reduced contribution on the part of government. Bill C-85 delivers a 33 per cent cut in that contribution. Electors have asked that we fulfil our stated commitments in the red book. Bill C-85 does that and goes further.

Our public servants, the members of the Canadian forces and other employees affected by the wage freeze are expecting us to respect the same rules as they do.