George Proud

[Province House, February 11th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to the second oldest legislative building in Canada. Province House in Charlottetown, the home of the P.E.I. legislature, turned 150 years old in January of this year.

Over that 150 years it has been the location of gala receptions for numerous visiting dignitaries and the site of countless heated debates. More important, it was the site of the Charlottetown conference of 1864 where the Fathers of Confederation first discussed the formation of our great country.

In recognition of its historical significance, Province House was declared a national historic site.

Province House stands as a symbol of Canadian and Prince Edward Island strength and unity. Tonight the Charlottetown Historical Society and Parks Canada will officially celebrate its birthday, with more festivities planned throughout the year.

On behalf of all my hon. colleagues, I would like to wish Province House of Prince Edward Island a happy 150th birthday.

[Canadian Volunteer Service Medal For United Nations Peacekeeping Act, February 3rd, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I begin by welcoming everyone back to the House. I am sure we have all enjoyed a tremendous break and

look forward, as the hon. member who just spoke, to very eagerly returning to the House and working together in an enthusiastic and co-operative manner.

Before I address the matter at hand I would like to congratulate the hon. member for Saanich-Gulf Islands for reaching this far with his private members' bill. I know full well the hurdles one has to jump in order to get this far. Mr. Speaker, let me tell you it is not easy.

Moreover I would like to pay tribute to the hon. member for Saanich-Gulf Islands. As I understand it he will not be seeking re-election and I am sorry to hear that. He certainly is an honourable member and a good friend. I enjoyed working with him while serving on the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs, particularly on the Special Joint Committee on Canada's Defence Policy. He has been a competent adversary and a diligent politician. The House will miss him.

We know the member for Saanich-Gulf Islands put forward the same bill in the previous session of Parliament. Unfortunately, like so many other worthwhile private members' bills, it never reached the end of the legislative process. As many members also know, I spoke in favour of that bill then and I am happy to say that I support this bill now.

However, I must qualify that by saying that the bill before us now is not perfect. The concept behind the bill is commendable and I agree with it. Our troops need to be treated with respect and as such should be decorated for their service.

As we all know, Canada is world renowned for its international efforts. That reputation has been over a century in the making. Moreover since the second world war our participation in international peacekeeping missions has enhanced our reputation, as was said earlier here. I am not ignoring the recent revelations about several incidents but I do think our entire Canadian forces should not be marred by it.

The high quality of Canada's troops is envied around the world. In fact it mirrors the quality of life in Canada in general. When travelling abroad Canadians are welcomed more than people of any other nation. The reason for that is our outlook on life. By nature Canadians are fair, patient people. This applies equally well to our troops.

We should not forget the accomplishments of the Canadian forces. We should embrace them. A nation proud of its military is a strong and united nation. I am not suggesting that we become more like the Americans. I do not want us to look at our forces as flexing our muscles. We leave that to the thinking of others. But we should look at our forces as an example of what we can accomplish if we agree to work together.

We should look at our forces as one common attribute. Our military is a joint effort by Canadians from coast to coast to coast. Without the participation from all regions, from all provinces and yes, even from all communities, we have no national military.

Our reserves play a major role in providing a link between our communities and our Canadian forces. This particularly was an important aspect which received a lot of attention in 1995 when the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs reviewed the report by the commission on the restructuring of the reserves. Numerous members of this House spoke out on how the reserves expose the community to the military. Without it Canadians would think less of the military than they do now.

Our military can be the foundation to rebuilding our national unity. We should not look down upon them; in fact, we should look up to them. They are willing to risk everything for the sake of not only their country but someone else's.

Millions of Canadians during our history have given their lives to protecting their country, but there have also been countless Canadians who have given their lives going further than that. They have given their lives to protecting not Canada but a foreign country. It would be hard enough to put one's life on the line for one's own country, but to put it on the line for a foreign country, a foreign land, is an entirely different thing. For that reason we should ensure that we properly decorate that service.

Some may say that there are a multitude of medals to award the services of our forces. However there still exist some missions that have yet to receive the proper decoration. Certainly our troops serving abroad in UN led missions do receive United Nations medals and ribbons, but I ask and the hon. member across asks, is that enough? Should we ourselves not recognize that service in the name of this country? Is it not appropriate for Canada to do like other United Nations member countries and present its forces with a distinctive Canadian medal for service in the United Nations peacekeeping missions?

What is proposed here today can alleviate that problem. But as legislators it is our privilege and duty to ensure that we do not create one problem while trying to resolve another. Rarely is anything as simple as it first seems, and this is no different. It is for that reason that I am suggesting that we refer this bill to the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs or better yet, to a subcommittee thereof.

It has been said before in the House and elsewhere that this bill has the support of various associations representing current and retired members of the Canadian forces. I need not list them all for

I believe their names have already been mentioned. But suffice it to say that if these organizations and all the members within support this bill, then perhaps it does deserve a thorough study.

This is further evidence for why the bill should be referred to the committee because it deserves that. It deserves a close examination of its objective, the process of achieving that objective, and whether it will have the intended result.

With the indulgence of the House I would like to spend a few moments providing some positive criticism of the bill. The member's bill as it now stands dictates a very specific medal as was mentioned earlier. However it does not include missions that are not UN led. This may exclude people who I am sure the hon. member intended to include.

What about our troops who have participated in NATO led missions such as IFOR, the peace implementation force in Bosnia? That, as we all know was a very difficult mission. It has been said the mission was to uphold a very fragile peace. In fact, it has been said that there was no peace at all at the time. However, I will leave that debate to another time.

Nevertheless I think we have to be very careful not to exclude some members of our forces who have participated in peacekeeping missions led by either the United Nations or the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. I firmly believe that if this bill were to be adopted and such a medal awarded, it would be a grave mistake to exclude some soldiers because their mission was led by NATO and not by the UN and I do not think we should bias ourselves on this issue.

Another aspect of the bill that we can improve is the detailed specifications of the design of the medal. I mean the hon. member for Saanich-Gulf Islands no disrespect when I say he has put too much into this bill. The design of the medal as contained in the bill is too specific. I hope the hon. member is open to some alternative design specifications. This could be further examined during committee hearings and a mutually agreed to compromise can be achieved. There the committee members and the hon. member for Saanich-Gulf Islands himself could hear testimony from various witnesses and the list could include many people.

I also appreciate that several members have given consideration to the cost of such an initiative, but I do not think we should lose sight of why we want to do this. We should not let money considerations prevent us from doing this properly. Yes, we should look at ways of keeping the cost down but not to the extent of negating the whole exercise.

[Program Cost Declaration Act, December 13th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you for the opportunity to express my views to the House during the debate on Bill C-214.

The bill proposes that the government make a declaration to Parliament of the estimated annual cost of every new program which it intends to implement. I welcome the opportunity the member for Durham has given me to remind the House of the progress the government has made in recent years and is continuing to pursue in this very important area.

As an example, I would cite the improved reporting to Parliament project. This initiative responds to the need for better accountability. It entails working with Parliament to provide good, meaningful information not only on the costs of government programs but on the results we achieve in relation to the goals and objectives we set for ourselves.

We would all agree on the importance of the initiative, given that these programs and the results are funded by the dollars which the taxpayers have entrusted to us to manage well and to deliver the services they expect and need from federal departments and agencies.

In the improved reporting to Parliament project, the government is endeavouring to draw on the expertise of all stakeholders, parliamentarians, public servants, interested professionals and the clients and constituents whom we serve.

Improved information to Parliament is also a key component of two other recent government initiatives, program review and getting government right.

Program review is now in its second phase. We have been scrutinizing all federal activities to ask the questions that are important to us all, questions such as: What activity should the federal government continue to be engaged in? How should these activities be delivered? By what level of government? If federal, by which department or agency and at what cost and for which level of service?

The results of the program review have been significant in a number of ways. We have clarified the roles, responsibilities and the priorities of federal departments and agencies. We have begun a thought process with respect to options for alternative organizational forums and mechanisms for program delivery.

The bottom line is that program review means that by 1998-99, annual spending on federal government programs are projected to fall by about $9 billion and will be delivered by a smaller, more effective and less costly public service.

Getting government right is a complementary initiative which involves the modernization of federal programs and services to meet our obligations as a government and the expectations of our clients today and in the years to come.

I would encourage any member who has not already done so to read the progress report on getting government right which was tabled in this House on March 7, 1996. It describes what we have accomplished in clarifying federal roles and responsibilities in making the federal government work better and in rethinking program delivery so as to adjust to today's reality and the challenges ahead.

More specifically, getting government right means ensuring that resources are devoted to the highest priorities, responding to the public demand for better and more accessible government and achieving more affordable government.

In moving forward on this agenda, the government is mindful of the need to ensure that the role of the national government is preserved to meet core responsibilities. These include: strengthening our economy and economic union to ensure a prosperous country for ourselves and our children; enhancing social solidarity in Canada; pooling our national resources to achieve common goals efficiently and effectively; defending Canada's sovereignty; and speaking for Canadians collectively on the world stage.

While I support the objective of Bill C-214, its enactment would only add to the cost of government without making any substantive improvement in the quantity and quality of information which the government is providing and plans to provide to Parliament.

Consider the changes we have already benefited from in the 1996-97 estimates documentation. In addition to part I of the estimates which provides an overview of federal spending, part II, the traditional blue book which supports the Appropriation Act, and the individual part IIIs, two important innovations were introduced.

First, the government tabled a new document entitled "Program Expenditure Detail: A Profile of Departmental Spending". This document, while not formally constituting part of the estimates, represented an important step forward in that it combines federal program spending detail which was previously presented in both part I of the estimates and the budget. This provides a bridge between the budget document and other estimate documents.

"Program Expenditure Detail: A Profile of Departmental Spending" gives Parliament both an overview of program spending within the context of part I and program review and more detailed information on program spending by sector and by federal department. Program review's principal achievement will be structural changes in the business of government, many of which are already visible to all parliamentarians and the Canadian public.

For example, in the transportation sector shifting from owner, operator or subsidizer to regulator and policy maker; and in the agricultural sector, in partnership with the provinces, moving from commodity based agricultural subsidies to a whole farm safety net, focusing on income stabilization rather than income support.

Other important restructuring initiatives include withdrawing from programs which provide direct financial support to industry and addressing overlap and duplication to consolidate activities wherever possible, thereby making program delivery more efficient and more effective.

The second phase of the program review builds on the first. Specific measures resulting from program review II which affect primarily the 1998-99 fiscal year include the rationalization of subsidies, privatization and commercialization where feasible, and further reductions in spending.

While in some cases specific measures to implement program review II decisions will be developed over the next two years, it is clear to the government that innovation in service delivery is a key factor to our success.

We want to move away from traditional hierarchical delivery structures to forms which are more cost effective and more responsive to Canadians. The creation of the three agencies announced in the speech from the throne and the budget is well under way.

Another change which we saw in the 1996-97 main estimates in addition to the document profiling departmental spending was the tabling of six pilot part III of the estimates departmental expenditure plans. These documents are pilots or tests in the government's effort to address the concern of parliamentarians who have better information on the multi-year costs of government programs and constitute a key initiative in the improved reporting to Parliament project.

I would like to take this opportunity to point out to my colleagues that the progress which we have seen today is only the beginning. The estimated costs of a program represent only one side of equation. The government is equally concerned with reporting to Parliament on the results.

The government is currently considering mechanisms for reporting to Parliament on the performance of government programs in a more timely and complete manner; for example, the introduction of performance reports which would be tabled in the fall of each year rather than as a component of the planned expenditure information which we currently receive as parts of the estimates documentation.

This government has made a concerted and ongoing effort to involve parliamentarians in shaping the form and content of the information which is presented to us not only on the cost of government programs but on their results. I believe our participation in this process is the key to improving the information for Parliament. The member for Durham shares our objective. However, I believe that the legislation being proposed presents potentially costly and ineffective alternatives to the initiatives I have just outlined.

I believe that more focused, streamlined information to Parliament will make it easier to assess government programs. Information which is better organized and more user friendly will strengthen the accountability of government to all Canadians.

I am grateful to have this opportunity to address the House on this proposal. I too wish you all a Merry Christmas and prosperous new year.

[Communications, December 5th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, if you ask Canadians what they associate with Prince Edward Island, many will say Anne of Green Gables. Some might say amazing golf courses and others will say that it is a small, wonderful place to visit.

If I were to be asked the same question I might say call centres. Yes, that is right, I said call centres. We have a highly advanced telephone network.

Listing a few companies that have already set up shop on the island are Cows, Island Tel, the GST Centre, HookUp Communications and Watts Communications.

In fact we foresee such a growth in the industry that Holland College has set up a call centre and customer service excellence program to train call centre workers. The program will be the benchmark for high level training standards in the industry.

The call centre industry will provide year round full time jobs for Islanders. It is an excellent niche that has great potential for employment opportunities. Islanders are taking full advantage of their strength in carving out specialty niches, and eventually they will break the seasonality of the island economy.

[Petitions, November 25th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I wish to present a petition duly certified on behalf of my constituents of the riding of Hillsborough.

The petitioners ask that the Prime Minister declare that Canada is indivisible and that the boundaries of Canada, its provinces, territories and territorial waters may be modified only by: (a) a free vote of all Canadian citizens and; (b) through the amending formula stipulated in our Constitution.

[Canada Labour Code, November 5th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-66 which amends the Canada Labour Code is in my view a fair and balanced piece of legislation. There are several reasons for this.

The first has to do with the process to produce the legislation. Labour and management participated fully in the review process. The second has to do with the contents of the bill. Unquestionably, the most contentious issue to address was the replacement worker issue and here we came up with a reasonable compromise.

The bill does not abolish the right of employers to use replacement workers, however employers will not be able to use replacement workers to undermine the union. It is the board that will determine if an employer action constitutes an unfair labour practice, not the union.

Collective bargaining is widely accepted in Canada by both labour and management. This bill will improve the efficiency with which the law is administered and enhance the effectiveness of the collective bargaining process. It does nothing to alter the balance of the labour-management relationship. In fact, it ensures a balance will continue in a world of rapid change.

[Canada Labour Code, October 30th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to you and to the Minister of Labour for giving me the opportunity to speak in support of Bill C-35.

This is an act to amend the Canada Labour Code to automatically align the federal minimum wage to the levels applied in the provinces and territories.

When I first realized that the federal minimum wage had not been raised in 10 years, I was totally amazed. A lot of things have changed in our country since 1986, both economically and socially.

All these years, the four dollar an hour federal minimum wage has not increased, and in principle is still at the same level as it was in 1986.

In the meantime, every single province and territory has upgraded its minimum wage and in some cases more than once. This means that all workers under federal jurisdiction who have been paid at the $4 an hour rate will immediately receive an increase.

We know that wage increases are much more important for those who are at the bottom of the economic ladder. For them, as for most people, every penny counts. We each have to stretch them to the maximum to make ends meet.

As former minister of labour for Prince Edward Island, I can assure members that the government has made the right choice by aligning the federal minimum wage to the rate applied in each province and territory.

The provinces clearly have the lead on this issue, as they govern 98 per cent of all minimum wage earners in Canada. It is a fact that industries under federal jurisdiction such as transportation, telecommunications, banks and some crown corporations have very few workers at minimum wage.

Indeed, recent estimates show that less than one-tenth of one per cent of the Canadian labour force falls into this category. The federal government could have followed the traditional approach and introduced a flat increase to set the minimum wage in the middle of the range of provincial and territorial rates and the government could have taken the path as it has done in the past.

Indeed, the government could have just done what past governments have done. But then, by the time the new rate would have been in effect, a number of provinces could have increased their own rates. A number of the provinces, including my own province of Prince Edward Island, have raised their minimum wage rates since this bill was introduced in the House last May.

The status quo was not a viable option either because the federal minimum wage was falling far out of line with overall social and economic conditions. This is very important because our government is committed to helping those who are most in need. We mean this.

This is why the Minister of Labour has seriously analysed the situation and has chosen a method setting the federal minimum wage that fulfils three important objectives: to ensure its continuing relevancy; to promote fairness by ensuring that workers, whether subject to federal or provincial labour laws, are entitled to the same minimum wage within the same labour market; to provide more incentive for people to seek work while balancing and limiting the negative impact of job creation.

We recognize that the economic realities and the labour market conditions are very often different from one region to the other. We also know that these factors are clearly reflected in the way different provinces set their minimum wage.

Adopting provincial territorial minimum wage rates maintains this balance across regions without punishing or rewarding anyone. Let us look at the figures.

Today the provincial and territorial minimum wage rates vary from $5 an hour in Newfoundland and Alberta to $7 an hour in British Columbia. This is a huge difference. But then, who would argue that the cost of living is not different in these regions of the country? This is a perfect example of why aligning the federal rate to the provincial rate is the best way to go.

I would like to address the issue of the efficiency of this bill.

I believe all members of this House want to make legislative and parliamentary procedures still more flexible and efficient. Each week we meet people in our riding offices with complaints about the current system. They feel it is too slow and a source of confusion, with too much duplication and overlap. I know this, because far too many such cases are brought to my attention.

Here is an opportunity for all of us to do something concrete and positive to streamline government activities. From now on there will be no need to amend the federal minimum wage regulations in order to adjust the federal minimum wage to the reality. It will be automatically updated on a regular basis in line with territorial and provincial increases.

I was also happy to hear the minister note that the new rates will apply equally to adults and to young workers. I must admit that I have great difficulty in accepting that a person should be paid less just because of his or her age. I also believe that such a practice may likely be discriminatory under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I therefore strongly support section 178(2) of the bill which states that where provinces have set rates according to occupation, age or work experience the general rate will apply. If there are different rates based on age, the highest minimum wage rate will apply to those in federally regulated industries.

I would also like to say a few words about the process the government followed with this bill. We had serious consultations will all of the stakeholders before choosing this formula. Every-

body has had the chance to express their view before the final decision was made, and the general reaction is very positive.

Sometimes employers become very apprehensive when they hear talk about raising the minimum wage. They are often afraid that these costs will hurt their competitiveness. Not in this case. The federally regulated employers, transportation, communication as well as the Canadian Bankers' Association have indicated they do not oppose the government's initiative. Indeed, business leaders recognize that it makes a lot of practical sense to harmonize federal and provincial rates since federal employers have done so in practice for some time.

Labour organizations welcome the move as a small increase long overdue. They would like to see a bigger raise in the minimum wage and of course so would everyone. But in this field we all have to move according to a pay set by the economic strengths and weaknesses of a specific labour market. In this specific case we have not met any significant opposition for the simple reason that Bill C-35 brings into force what has by and large already been practised across the country.

As the Minister of Labour was saying earlier, we are bringing the legislation in line with reality. There is also good support for this initiative because everyone recognizes that by harmonizing the federal rate with the provincial and territorial ones we will end the stagnation we have seen over the last 10 years.

Of course, some will say that the federal government ought not to transfer such responsibilities to the provinces and territories, because it would run the risk of ending up weaker as a result. We are not, however, giving up our authority, for we are retaining the legislative power to establish a different rate, if this decision were taken.

Should a province or a territory decide to bring down its minimum wage or set it to a level we estimate would be too low, the federal rate will stay at the higher level. We are not passing our responsibilities to the next jurisdiction.

What we are doing is working hand in hand with the provinces and territories to find the best and most efficient way to keep the federal minimum wage in line with reality in each and every province and territory of our country.

This initiative has been taken with the full knowledge and co-operation of all provincial and territorial governments which know that this bill will improve the system and better reflect the realities of our current marketplace. The bill has gone through the scrutiny of the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and is coming back to us without a single amendment.

This shows clearly that the formula is the right one and that the consultation process was absolutely appropriate to develop a large and a strong consensus.

Given the Government's creative strategy with respect to the federal minimum wage, I feel that the future looks most encouraging.

In his speech at second reading of this bill the Minister of Labour told us about his plan to overhaul the Canada Labour Code in order to make it a more useful tool to move and adjust to the new realities of the workplace.

I am very confident that the minister will be successful. He will succeed because he is dedicated to dialogue and consultation. He will succeed because he is facing the problems head on in search of a practical, efficient and permanent solution. Bill C-35 is an excellent example.

Amending the Canada Labour Code is an important task because it sets the basic rules for the workplace for thousands of Canadians.

Today we are taking a small step to improve the working conditions for some Canadian workers who are under the jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada. They are the ones at the bottom of the economic ladder. They work hard for their pay. They are proud workers. They participate in society and they contribute to society.

That is why I support Bill C-35. I am confident that every member of the House of Commons will also show their support.

[Motions For Papers, October 30th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers be allowed to stand.

[Questions On The Order Paper, October 30th, 1996]

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

[Canada Labour Code, October 29th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, to conclude this discussion, I want to say that we disagree with the amendment. It would delete 178(3).

The governor in council has the authority to issue an order replacing a provincial minimum wage rate. What we are saying here is that the federal government in a situation which would occur not very often, I would hope, has the power and will retain the power to set a minimum wage for employees under the jurisdiction of the federal government. That is all we want to do. It would not affect provincial employees, it would affect only federal employees. Therefore I cannot support this motion.