Ronald J. Duhamel

[Cultural Exchanges, June 1st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak about a group of students who are here in Ottawa today.

Some 30 students from Como Lake Junior Secondary in British Columbia and from l'école Saint-François-Xavier in Quebec have been participating in a praiseworthy cultural exchange. The Quebec participants first went to British Columbia,

They were welcomed by a host family and encouraged to practise and improve their knowledge of English and of British Columbia. In turn, the students from British Columbia were welcomed into homes in Quebec, where they were immersed in the French culture and language.

These students are living proof of the desire held by Canadians to learn more about their neighbours.

I congratulate the students and their professors for promoting cultural exchanges and for their desire to learn the other official language.

I would encourage my colleagues in this House to follow their example and to show the whole world how Canadians appreciate each others' differences and similarities, and how this makes it the best country in the world.

[Petitions, May 31st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, this petition on the negative effects of tobacco was commenced during national non-smoking week 1995. Over 25,000 young people and 40 youth organizations from across the country have signed on.

Four representatives of this group are in the gallery today I am told. They have met with leaders and representatives of all federal parties, including the Deputy Prime Minister. These young people recognize that the tobacco industry is targeting young people. They are calling on all legislators to begin to target this industry as its product continues to addict and ultimately kill thousands of young Canadians.

This petition will have a profound effect on the welfare of our young people.

[Canadian Human Rights Act, May 30th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address this bill, which is a very laudable initiative. Indeed, even though the government may have some reservations about it, the proposed legislation includes many good points and we must take a very close look at it. I sincerely hope that we can pursue this debate.

One of the stated purposes of the bill is to provide for appropriate sanctions against retaliation or retaliatory discharges by public sector employers of employees who "blow the whistle" or report a serious misconduct of their employers.

Bill C-248 would, it is claimed, protect employees acting in good faith and would recognize there are times when it is in the public interest to encourage whistle blowing, especially if public health or safety were at issue.

It is important to remember that the idea is to improve public health and safety.

Let me say at the outset that I am most interested in any proposal that would lead to improvements in the way government programs are delivered that would lead to greater efficiencies and effectiveness and that would lead to the elimination of waste, mismanagement or misconduct.

This idea is a basic principle which we must support.

At the moment there are a number of legislative provisions with complementary policies and guidelines that have application in this area. I am interested in how they are working, how they can be improved and how the bill before us today could lead to improvements in these areas.

It is with this in mind that I have reviewed and now comment upon the bill before the House today.

Here are my comments, along with some specifics.

One of the clauses contained in the bill proposes amendments to section 23 of the Public Service Employment Act. This section requires every deputy head and employee, before becoming a member of the public service, to subscribe to the oath or affirmation of allegiance and the oath or affirmation of office and secrecy, the latter being set out in schedule III of the present act. Under Bill C-248, which restates the wording of section 23 as it now stands, two lengthy new clauses would be added qualifying the oath or affirmation of office and secrecy.

One of these clauses refers directly to the administration of section 40(1.1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act. No change would be contemplated with respect to the oath or affirmation of allegiance, though any misconduct that could constitute betraying it may well pose a serious problem as abuse of the oath or affirmation of office and secrecy.

The oath or affirmation of allegiance is covered by the Oath of Allegiance Act. It prescribes a form by which every person in Canada who, either of his or her own accord or in compliance with any lawful requirement made of him or her or in obedience to the directions of any act or law in force in Canada, except the British North America Act and the Canadian Citizenship Act, desires to take an oath of allegiance shall have it administered.

The prospective deputy head or employee of the public service must before assuming office affirm and swear to be faithful and bear true allegiance.

Confidentiality is required of all federal public servants by virtue of the Official Secrets Act and by the oath or affirmation of office and secrecy taken by all public servants on entering the service. The prospective employee swears or affirms that he or she will faithfully and honestly fulfil the duties that evolve upon that person by reason of public service employment and not without due authority disclose or make known any matter that comes to the individual's knowledge by reason of such employment.

Of course it must be recognized that major departures from existing practices in tried and true legislation could have important implications for the future well-being of the public service.

This is something which must be carefully examined. If were to go ahead with the proposals contained in this bill, would we experience problems with some of them?

It is necessary to determine the precise nature of the problems that are believed to exist or might exist, in view of those proposing Bill C-248, to ascertain precisely the dimensions and nature of the systems that would be required were abuses to occur and how they might best be handled. The means for resolving any problem that might arise in this area under present legislation and regulations should be examined carefully in order not to duplicate or complicate unduly existing measures that inhibit or permit various actions. These include those inherent in the judicial system, the current system of checks and balances in existing legislation, regulations, policies and guidelines, as well as in our open system of government and strong voice of the media.

In examining this proposal for major legislative change, it must be recognized that there is already some legislation covering the abuse of authority and responsibility by public servants at all levels. Paragraph 121(1)(c) of the Criminal Code, for instance, makes it an offence for any official or employee of the public service to demand, accept, offer or agree to accept from a person dealing with the government any reward, advantage or benefit either directly or indirectly through anyone else for his or her own benefit without appropriate authorization.

Members will know that it is the duty of public servants and there are disciplinary and legislative tools available to ensure that they comply to be honest, efficient, effective and loyal in carrying out their responsibilities and managing the resources of the public service.

Employees are expected to inform their superiors of any seeming impropriety and to suggest ways of improving public services. Indeed, the incentive awards program recognizes exceptional contributions to the public service.

There are sanctions as well in place now to prevent, avert or penalize proven dishonourable conduct, criminal actions, waste, extravagance, discrimination or abuse of trust. As you will appreciate, Mr. Speaker, there are already a number of sanctions and legislation in place covering the actions of concern to whistleblowers and to provide recourse for public servants against unfair treatment.

Canada is already known for having one of the finest public services in the world. It is critical that employees and managers recognize the importance of identifying problems and of working together to resolve them.

I am pleased to have the opportunity today to comment on the proposals for legislative changes presented by the hon. member in Bill C-248.

I support this bill in principle, and I sincerely hope that we can continue to discuss it. As I just mentioned, some mechanisms are already in place. It is up to us to decide whether to go any further. I thank you for this opportunity to comment on the proposed bill.

[Child Abduction, May 29th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, child abduction is a serious problem in Canada. Each year thousands of our precious young loved ones are reported missing. They are either lost, runaways, or have been abducted by parents or strangers.

Child Find Canada gives us hope in recovering our cherished children and preventing the disappearance of many others.

The month of May has been designated the Green Ribbon of Hope Campaign to stimulate awareness across Canada about the serious nature of child abduction.

On May 25 National Missing Children's Day acted as a reminder of the children who remain missing and the work that still needs to be done.

Our children are important for the future. We must protect them. The Missing Children's Network is vital in safeguarding our children. However, the responsibility for finding children and protecting them rests with the community as a whole. Let us take our children to heart.

[Members Of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act, May 9th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. My comments are being interpreted completely inaccurately. I did not say that those people were destitute. I pointed out that we were being misled into thinking that high pensions-

[Members Of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act, May 9th, 1995]

One of my colleagues in the Reform Party says I am wrong. He should take it up with the commission to review allowances of members of Parliament. My colleagues in the Reform Party always think we are wrong when we deal with the facts from a neutral third party. The commission is not a political party trying to take cheap political shots because it has no issues or trying to create an issue and going down the tubes. This is a neutral third party that is dealing with the facts.

It is rather interesting to look at the number of retirees during the last decade. Roughly half received retirement allowances. The other half did not receive any pension at all. In the Parliaments of 1984, 1988 and 1993, that is exactly what happened. Do the Reformers mention that? Do they mention that roughly half receive no pensions? Of course not.

My colleagues in the Reform Party also like to pretend everyone walks out with a huge pension. Do members know that over 60 per cent of the 445 people receiving pensions today receive a pension that is less than $29,999 a year? They will not deal with that. They would rather deal with catcalls and emotions. They do not want to deal with the facts.

Let me share some other interesting statistics and look at our current plan in comparison with other provincial and territorial plans. They have a minimum age requirement. For example, in Nova Scotia the minimum age is 50. In Ontario it is age and years of service which equals 55. In Saskatchewan the minimum age is 55. In New Brunswick it is age and years of service which equals 60. In Quebec the minimum age is 55. My colleagues all know this but Reformers do not want to deal with facts. In Newfoundland, the minimum service requirement is two elections in five years, Nova Scotia is two elections in five years, Ontario is five years, Saskatchewan is one year only and Quebec is six years. Is this not interesting?

Let us look at the maximum pensionable level. In Newfoundland it is 75 per cent, Nova Scotia is 75 per cent and Ontario is 75 per cent of as high as a 36-month average. There is more.

Let us look at the post-retirement adjustment. Does the House know that the post-retirement adjustment in New Brunswick is indexed to the rise of the CPI?

I could share more with members but my colleagues do not want to deal with facts. They would rather deal with rhetoric, emotion and passion and try to pretend that they would do what is right. However, when they were given the opportunity to do what is right with the salary cuts only a handful took them. When they tried to pretend they were never going to be travelling on executive class, of course that did not happen.

I have gone beyond the provincial and territorial. I am going to go to the international level. We have looked at Canada.

The contribution rate here is 11 per cent. As for the minimum age and service requirement, Canadian MPs must have at least six years of service; the maximum pensionable level is 75 per cent of salary with full indexation to the cost of living.

In Australia, the contribution rate is 11.5 per cent, while the maximum pensionable level is 75 per cent of salary-the same as in Canada.

In the United Kingdom, the two Houses have a contribution rate of 6 per cent; pensions amount to 67 per cent of final salary but are fully indexed to the cost of living.

In Belgium, the contribution rate is 7.5 per cent, and the minimum age and service requirement is 55 years, or 52 years plus 8 years of service. The maximum pension is 75 per cent of final salary.

In France, the contribution rate is 7.85 per cent, the minimum age and service requirement is 55 years, and the maximum pensionable level is 84.375 per cent of final salary, indexed to the national salary growth rate. And I could go on and on.

I have proven my point. I have shown clearly that the government has gone beyond its two promises to raise the age of eligibility, which it has done, and remove double dipping, which it has done. It has gone beyond 33.3 per cent less contributions from the taxpayers to the pension plan and 20 per cent less take home by MPs. Besides, for those who do not want that, they need not take it. The government has gone beyond what it has promised.

In the provincial and territorial scene, the benefits are as good or better in a lot of areas. It is the same thing in the international scene. The benefits are as good or better in a number of other countries.

The Reform rhetoric is not based on fact. It is absolute nonsense for them to suggest that. They are plummeting in the polls and have lost their credibility so they are trying to create an issue. That is what they are trying to do.

When the leader of the Reform Party went to the press conference he referred to the current pension plan as trough and to the changes as trough light. I wonder what we need to do with respect to the Reform Party's latest suggestion that MPs' salaries ought to be increased to $150,000 a year. At a 2 per cent accrual rate per year that would give us in excess of what we have on pensions as well. Are we supposed to call this trough premium plus?

[Members Of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act, May 9th, 1995]

I see. I am surprised as well that the Reform Party did not spend any time talking about what the government had promised and what the government had done. The government had promised in the red book during the election campaign, and it has honoured the promise, to raise the age of eligibility. It promised to remove double dipping and it did so. It went beyond that. What else did it do? It reduced government contributions by 33.3 per cent. That is what it did.

It did even more. The accrual rate has been reduced by 20 per cent. We have to work 20 per cent longer to get the same amount of money. It went beyond even that. It said that it would be possible for those who do not want the pension plan not to have it. I was really quite surprised that my colleagues from the Reform Party failed to mention this. I know why they did not mention it. They do not want to be fair. They do not want to deal with the facts. They want to exaggerate. They want to attempt to excite the passions of people and make them believe they have the answer. They do not have the answer. They do not even look at the facts.

Let me mention something else I have done in order to assist my Reform colleagues. There is a document entitled "Commission to Review Allowances of Members of Parliament". My colleagues from the Reform Party like to suggest that everyone is young, they will retire young and everyone will take home a large pension.

If everyone were to retire right now there would be fewer than 13 per cent of the people eligible for retirement. This means there are fewer than 13 per cent who are less than 54 years of age.

[Members Of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act, May 9th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to say a few words about this bill. I would like to start by making some comments.

I am really disappointed that colleagues from the Reform Party, knowing full well that my colleagues are having lunch, would stoop to silly procedural wrangling to embarrass us. On a percentage basis they are much less represented than we are.

[Petitions, May 9th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, these petitioners, while applauding the initiatives of government and the CRTC to reduce violence and abuse in all of its forms in the media, continue to emphasize the importance of accentuating the efforts because they believe it is not necessary in order to educate, to inform or to entertain. They also believe that very often these depictions of abuse and violence are contrary to their efforts to raise their children.

Once again they ask government and the CRTC to be extremely vigilant.

The petitioners are responsible people who believe in the need to reduce violence and abuse in the media.

[Petitions, May 8th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I have a petition which I wish to present.

The petitioners believe that since tobacco products are clearly linked to several diseases such as many forms of cancer, heart disease, stroke, emphysema and chronic bronchitis among others, and according to certain studies tobacco products can contain over 4,000 chemicals with as many as 43 causing cancer in humans causing some 38,000 deaths annually in Canada, the petitioners call on Parliament to remove the exemption for tobacco under the Hazardous Products Act.

The petitioners also believe in increasing the prices of tobacco rather than bringing in other enforcement provisions.