Art Eggleton

[Federal Public Service, October 17th, 1995]

Certainly not, Mr. Speaker. I hear French and English used frequently, constantly, every day in my work. I am sure others in this government do as well.

We will continue to encourage people to use the official language of their choice. That is a commitment this government has made. It is made to the people of Quebec, it is made to the people of every part of this country, all francophones in Canada.

[Federal Public Service, October 17th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it was a Liberal government that brought in the Official Languages Act. It is a Liberal government that has in fact advanced the cause of speaking in the official language of a person's choice in the federal public service right across the country.

There is more work to be done. We have recently put out a brochure, together with the Commissioner of Official Languages, to help encourage people to use the official language of their choice at their place of work in the federal public service. We will continue to try to improve the means of using the language of choice because that is part of this government's policy.

[Employment Equity Act, October 16th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the nomination process in York Centre has nothing to do with employment equity goals. However, I have fought and won a lot more elections than the hon. member has ever even thought about, some 11 of them. In this past election the people of York Centre gave me a plurality of somewhere over 20,000. I won every single poll. The voters of York Centre spoke quite well, as they have in most parts of the country, by electing a very solid Liberal majority government to represent every aspect of the country, not just some portion of it.

With respect to the downsizing, we are not being detracted in terms of the employment equity goals by that. It is obvious that a lot of people in those four target groups are going to be part of the downsizing. Given that we operate on the merit principle would indicate the reverse order of merit as being paramount in that case.

The situation is being monitored very carefully to try to maintain the numbers as best we can. After all, we do not have enough aboriginal people, the disabled, or people who are in the visible minority groups, as well as women in executive groups. Therefore, I do not want to make the situation any worse if we can help it by staying within the principles of merit which the Reform Party keeps telling us we should. We are monitoring the situation carefully.

I am pleased to say that as a result of the report issued last week by Treasury Board, of the over 8,000 positions that had been removed, there has been no change of that balance. In fact in some of the groups a little bit less has been reduced. The one exception to that would be people with disabilities. This would be largely because a number of them are going out under the early retirement incentive, people who are closer to retirement age perhaps, more than disabilities, but those are people who are taking a very conscious, positive decision about leaving.

I am very pleased to say that of the over 8,000 people who are gone and in particular those who were in the indeterminate or permanent positions, none of them went involuntarily. They all went voluntarily. That shows we are trying to treat people who are departing the public service in a fair and humane way, as well as those who continue to stay to operate the programs and services.

After all, we have to bring about that reduction. We do not particularly like it. The hon. member is critical of it but, at the same time, he and his party are critical of the deficit. This is all part of getting our fiscal house in order and reducing the deficit. We are treating people in a very fair and reasonable way. We are keeping a very close eye on our employment equity goals at the same time.

[Employment Equity Act, October 16th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, numerical targets have long been established as part of employment equity programs. They are not quotas. It is not the same as the American system where they are obligated to try to reach certain numbers. They become goals; they become objectives. However for various reasons they may not be able to be met. If an honest try or an honest effort is made and they cannot be met, there are no fines involved in that.

It is expected that an organization will take a look at its composition to see how it relates to the workforce in general and will take some measures to try to have a balanced workforce. That is what we are trying to do here. We do not have that at the moment.

In terms of aboriginal peoples, people with disabilities and visible minorities, they are under-represented in the federal workforce. They are under-represented in the federally regulated companies that are also part of the legislation. We have greater numbers in the workforce. They are having a hard time getting into the system.

The bill is all about giving them the opportunity to get to the door. On their own merit they still have to make it into the job. None of that has changed in terms of the principle that guides the employment service act of the federal public service.

Targets become a goal and objective. I am sorry the member does not understand that. It has long been established. I can remember when I was mayor of Toronto that we established those kinds of goals. Sometimes we made them and sometimes we did not but there were reasons why we did not. People put out the best effort they possibly could.

Over time we make progress. It will not happen overnight, particularly now that we are into downsizing. It takes more time to reach the goals. It helps us to focus without getting into quotas, without in any way abandoning the merit principle. It does not relate to the province of Ontario legislation which it has now decided for whatever reasons to repeal. This is not the same kind of legislation at all. This clearly upholds the principle of merit.

[Employment Equity Act, October 16th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise as a co-sponsor of this piece of legislation, in so far as it relates to the federal employees, the Public Service of Canada.

Let me first of all express my gratitude to my colleague, the Minister of Human Resources Development, for bringing forward this legislation, bringing the private and public sector together under one piece of legislation, and for members on the Standing Committee on Human Rights and the Status of Disabled Persons for their significant contribution to the debate.

The committee's main report reflects the collective wisdom of those who testified.

Together they described employment equity as a sensible and balanced measure that strengthens our social fabric.

Canadians have an excellent understanding of what equality is all about. They appreciate that for there to be a harmonious and well-balanced society, all of its members must have an opportunity to contribute to it as well as share in its benefits. That is what employment equity and this legislation are all about.

Employment equity has been criticized, we have heard it in just the last few minutes, on the grounds that it introduces discrimination into the workplace. In fact, the opposite is true. Employment equity helps individuals compete for employment on an equal basis. Nobody receives special advantages, nobody receives special privileges under this legislation. To claim that anyone does represents a serious misunderstanding of the principles involved in Bill C-64.

Employment equity simply seeks a diversity in the workplace similar to what can be found in society. Therefore, we must remove barriers to employment opportunities to better reflect the population as it is today. These barriers are frequently buried in systems and longstanding practices.

For example, if for no particular good reason except tradition all police officers must be six feet tall, then most women could not compete. This sort of systemic barrier was once commonplace in this country, yet there would be few today who would argue that it makes much sense now, if in fact it ever did.

Let me give another example, rather less obvious perhaps. If a recruitment or promotion board were composed of three people, all males, all graduates of the same university, and all about the same age, one could be forgiven for wondering if this board would be much open to the perspectives of persons with different values, different experiences, different traditions. Selection boards require greater diversity to ensure that no candidate's talents are overlooked.

We must take measures to encourage equitable access to opportunities for employment and opportunities for advancement in the public service. This may mean, for instance, establishing training positions, so that those who are disadvantaged can develop skills and acquire experience to compete on an equal footing. When we make full use of all available human capital, then our society will truly benefit.

The face of Canadian workers has changed.

It has changed dramatically. Women, aboriginal peoples, persons with disabilities, and people in a visible minority now represent the largest share of new entrants to the labour market. In just 10 years the representation of women in the labour force has risen from 40 per cent to 45 per cent. This 5 per cent shift represents some 750,000 women. Employment equity helps the labour market adapt to changes of this magnitude.

It might be helpful to speak in more concrete terms about creating an environment that takes advantage of diversity. The Public Service of Canada is a good example. Diversity within the workforce means more than just having people of different backgrounds working together. It is not enough to hire an employee with a disability without helping to build the employee's relationships with his or her colleagues. It is not acceptable to ignore the support and training that women need to advance within an organization. Diversity within an organization calls for the acknowledgement and accommodation of differences.

The Treasury Board has issued a publication called "Alternative Formats Access for All". It provides guidance on how to produce material in alternate formats for persons with disabilities. An alternate format might be large type on a page or a cassette recording of printed material. The alternate format not only helps public servants but at the same time better serves the public.

The Treasury Board has also published a series of best practices as well as guides to assist public service managers to implement employment equity. Two most recent best practices that have been published deal with women and persons with disabilities. Both draw on practices that have proven effective in a range of organizations across the country.

Also we have just printed guides concerning the management of employees with psychiatric and developmental difficulties. We have also produced guides with respect to retention of aboriginal employees.

To ensure that employment equity is implemented effectively, departments and agencies must prepare an employment equity plan with goals and timetables. These are not quotas but goals they will strive to achieve. However the merit principle still prevails.

The plans are public documents as are the reports on what has been achieved under them. The plans will not be effective unless they build on the advice that the diversity of employees can provide. Some of this advice is provided by consultation groups reporting to the Treasury Board but much of it comes from advisory committees set up within departments.

The views of the public service unions are also important. I want to acknowledge the spirit of co-operation that inspires public service unions on employment equity matters. We are mindful of the need for continued collaboration with them. We are confident the provisions of the legislation will bear fruit.

We have established the framework to help the advancement of employment equity in the public service of the nineties. The framework places employment equity firmly within the practice of good human resources management and business planning. The legislation in front of us will continue to provide a solid legal foundation. It is not a radical break from the past; it is indeed a bridge to the future.

It is important to remember that although we tend to speak of diversity in terms of groups the focus is actually on the individual. It is not the group that is recruited as a filing clerk or that is considered for promotion to executive ranks. It is one particular person. Can anyone object to the need to reach out to all members of society based on their individual qualifications and merits? Some people would argue that employment equity encourages candidate selection to be made on the basis of sex or ethnic origin or a disability rather than merit. I beg to differ.

As a matter of fact the essential point is that appointments to the public service are governed by the Public Service Employment Act which enshrines the merit principle. It is far different from the kind of legislation that was talked about earlier by the member for Beaver River with respect to the province of Ontario. Our act enshrines the merit principle. The administration of the act rests with the Public Service Commission, an independent agency that reports directly to Parliament.

Progress in the area of employment equity has been made in full respect of merit. It is the principle on which a non-partisan, highly professional public service has been built. This cornerstone of human resource management will not be eroded.

Employment equity is not about preferences. It is a method of creating a fairness that might not otherwise exist. Several years ago the Conference Board of Canada issued an interesting paper on employment equity. The introduction revealed that women, visible minorities and persons with disabilities make up close to 60 per cent of the new entrants into Canada's labour force. It then went on to say that the full participation of these entrants to Canada's labour force constitutes a vital resource and that their full participation in the workplace will be fundamental to the ability of organizations to understand and respond to the needs of the rapidly changing marketplace. That is what the conference board said.

To achieve this goal organizations need solid policies and fair practices. For example, the same board found that if we want to attract minorities it is a good idea to advertise job openings outside the mainstream media and put them into the ethnic media. The conference board finding related to culture was of significance because organizations which implement interviewer training considered it a particularly effective measure in raising employment levels for designated groups.

I have made it clear that employment equity is not about introducing discrimination. It is not about reverse discrimination in the workplace. Rather, employment equity is about providing opportunities by removing barriers and establishing policies and programs to address the needs of designated member groups.

Employment equity is about including everyone, not excluding certain individuals.

No one should be excluded from access to employment opportunities for reasons unrelated to competence, for reasons unrelated to ability. That is what Bill C-64 is all about and that is why I stand to support it today.

[Association Of Universities And Colleges Of Canada, October 3rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, all grants are examined in the framework of providing funds that help in the education system in this case, or in whatever other areas, to help Canadians and to do it in the most efficient and effective manner. Each department takes on that responsibility. I am sure that was done in this case and was fully examined when these grants were made.

[Public Service Of Canada, September 29th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to say that for the first time the quality awards that will be given out next week will not only recognize people who have done innovative and excellent things in the private sector but will also recognize those in the public sector.

The federal public service has a fine and well deserved reputation of providing quality services to the people of Canada. We need to applaud that kind of effort on the part of our employees. We need to share the success stories. We need to recognize the innovations that have been carried out by federal public servants.

In this quality month as the government focuses more and more on client focused quality services for the people of Canada, I believe we are in a situation where we can make a better work environment for our employees and provide better service to Canadians. That is what Quality Month will help us focus on.

[Infrastructure, September 27th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it has been almost two years since the program on infrastructure was launched with the municipalities and with the provincial governments. The program has been a great success in implementing a promise made by this party in the last election campaign.

To this point in time, of the $6 billion originally allocated by the different orders of government, 93 per cent of it has been allocated in some 11,000 projects right across the country. Those projects are helping to strengthen the infrastructure of our local communities, attracting additional investment dollars, and are putting over 100,000 Canadians to work, creating the kinds of jobs we need in this country. That is the kind of agenda Canadians want from this government.

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

Madam Speaker, the member talked about our ramming it through. I wonder how he can say that when the bill has been around since the end of April. Prior to that Reformers questioned us for some period of time, when would we bring in the bill. They were so anxious to have it that when we finally brought it in they asked why we are putting it through.

The issue has been around since the last election. It was around during the last election. It has certainly been around through this Parliament. I do not understand how they can say we are ramming it through. As well, at committee they did not even move any amendments. I do not understand that. Perhaps he could explain that a little further.

Also on the question of the Income Tax Act, I do not understand it because this complies with the act. There is additional compensation but it is paid for by the members. I do not understand the member's-

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

Madam Speaker, it goes without saying that the issue of members' pensions is of interest to every member of Parliament as well as to Canadians in general.

Many have strong opinions as can be seen by the debate in the House today with members speaking both in support of and in opposition to Bill C-85.

There is one thing all members of the House can agree on: the bill before the House is an improvement on the existing pension plan. It is a step in the right direction. I understand hon. members opposite think it should go further, but it is a step in the right direction.

The basics of it are that we are living up to our red book commitment. Our red book commitment in the election campaign said that we would end double dipping: the practice of members leaving the House or leaving the Senate and getting another job on the federal public payroll or an appointment and being able to collect their pension and a salary at the same time. That is now over. That is over with the bill and it is over with the practice the Prime Minister instituted in Parliament in an

informal fashion prior to the bill formally being adopted and coming into law. That is covered.

Canadians are concerned that there be a minimum age, that members of Parliament leaving in their forties not be collecting a pension at such a young age. The age was reviewed by a commission of Parliament, the Lapointe commission which recommended age 55. A consultant study that was commissioned by the previous federal government also recommended age 55, and that is what is being implemented in Bill C-85. Again we have lived up to the commitment that was made in the election campaign to deal with the matter of a minimum age.

We have gone beyond that because we have recognized in this time of fiscal restraint, this time of needing to reduce the cost of government, that we should take a leadership role and therefore we have by reducing the benefit rate for pensions collected by retired members of Parliament. In doing so I have been able to cut the cost to the taxpayer by some 33 per cent. A 33 per cent reduction in the cost of the pension plan for members of Parliament is again an improvement, a step in the right direction.

We also have to look at the pension plan in the context of overall compensation for members of Parliament. That has been raised not only by the Lapointe commission and by the consultant study which said that we should go up in the salary and down in the pensions, keeping the overall remuneration level the same. Not only has it been suggested by them and by various witnesses who have appeared before the Lapointe commission, but it has also been a point that the Reform Party through its whip has particularly highlighted. The whip of the Reform Party was suggesting that we should perhaps be going up in salaries far in excess of what they are today, which would amount to increases in the neighbourhood of 100 per cent to 130 per cent.

We just cannot afford to do that. For the Reform Party to suggest in this time of fiscal restraint that we should have those kinds of salary increases is a terribly unreasonable position and not one that I am sure would be supported by the taxpayers at all.

We have to look at the total context of the compensation package here. Members of Parliament have chosen to pay more for pensions, for having that kind of benefit when they leave the House, and to sacrifice a higher salary level than the Reform Party whip and others have recommended.

While they talk about the pension being greater than what other people may get in the private sector, they fail to point out that members of Parliament pay a lot more. With any pension plan, whether it be private sector or public sector, one gets according to the amount of money one invests in it. Members of Parliament invest a substantial amount more. That is something they conveniently overlook.

In putting this matter in the context of total compensation, there are some words that are particularly important to note because they were used by a member of the Lapointe commission, Professor C. E. S. Franks from Queen's University. He later appeared before the standing committee of the House reviewing Bill C-85. I think he put the matter in a good context and it is relevant to quote his words. He said:

The majority of ex-MPs have served too short a time, in fact less than six years, to receive any parliamentary pension whatsoever. In fact a great many ex-members not only do not have a pension but have a difficult time in finding employment and re-establishing themselves after serving as a member.

Professor Franks went on to say:

The issue of MP pensions should more appropriately be considered in the context of overall remuneration of elected representatives. Members of Parliament are significantly less well paid than other Canadian professionals. International comparisons prove Canadian MPs to be among the lowest paid. If other factors were to be taken into account, like the length of sessions, the opportunities for other income generating activities, the likelihood of serving long enough to make a career as a politician and to earn a pension sufficient for support in old age, then Canadian elected representatives are even worse off than those of other countries. This low remuneration has effect on representation in Canada.

Professor Franks went on further in his testimony to indicate:

A higher proportion of Canadian MPs choose voluntarily to retire from the House and not to run in an election than leave by any means, death, defeat or desire, than in Britain, than the United States or continental Europe.

There is something deeply dissatisfying in the work world of the Canadian member of Parliament to create such a rapid turnover and desire to leave. It might be argued that this turnover does not matter and that a steady influx of new members is a good thing in the House, but what happens in Canada goes beyond what is a good thing.

Comparative studies of legislatures and the legislative process have shown that a necessary requirement and precondition for a strong legislature, independent and effective representation, and strong legislative committees is a body of experience, experienced long term members who make a career in the legislature.

The Canadian Parliament does not have this sort of long serving membership. The Canadian Parliament is correspondingly weakened in its ability to hold government accountable, in its efforts to obtain redress of grievances for citizens, and in its debate and investigation of important issues.

The important point illustrated by his words is that the failure to appropriately compensate members of Parliament weakens the institution and in turn is detrimental to Canadians.

He also noted, as did other witnesses, that half of former MPs go without any pension. We are talking about a situation where half the people in the House will never collect a pension. There is not an enormous cost to the Canadian taxpayer when we consider that. Members put in a lot of time and effort and do not receive any pension or contribution from the government.

The Reform Party prefers to point out that there are some members who might do well with a pension because of their length of service. They have even used some figures they obtained from the National Citizens' Coalition. I have looked at those figures and they are wildly out of line with reality. They are just not true at all.

For example, they used one figure of $2.5 million relevant to one member of the House when the actual figure is almost half that in terms of the accumulation of a pension collection over a great number of years. The assumption is that the member would be leaving now and collecting a pension until age 70. There is also the assumption that the inflation rate is 5 per cent. The inflation rate is actually less than half of that. The figures were grossly exaggerated. Again I point out that only half the members who leave the House receive a pension.

Professor Franks' comments, the Sobeco, Ernst & Young report, the Lapointe commission and the hon. whip of the Reform Party have all raised the question of why we do not raise the salaries. We just cannot. Members of Parliament have had their salaries frozen for some six years now. Public servants' salaries have also been frozen. In this kind of climate it would be a bad message and bad point of leadership to suggest that we should increase our salaries. I am sorry, I say to the whip of the Reform Party and other members who support him. We just cannot in this context deal with a salary increase.

Meanwhile, we have indicated strong leadership in terms of moving in the right direction, living up to our commitments made during the election campaign as printed in the red book, and reducing the cost of the pension plan to the taxpayers by some 33 per cent.

It is anticipated that the amendments proposed in Bill C-85 will result in annual savings of some $3.3 million.

This bill is a move in the right direction. It reduces the overall cost of the MP pension plan to taxpayers.