CONTENTS
Friday, November 10, 1995
Bill C-96. Consideration resumed of motion forsecond reading and
of amendment 16469
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 16476
Mr. Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury) 16478
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 16480
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 16483
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 16483
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 16483
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 16484
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 16484
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 16485
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 16486
Motion for concurrence in 98th report 16492
(Motion agreed to.) 16492
Motion for concurrence in 100th report 16492
(Motion agreed to.) 16492
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 16493
Bill C-96. Consideration resumed of motion forsecond reading and
the amendment 16493
(Motion agreed to.) 16504
Bill C-317. Consideration resumed of motion forsecond reading 16504
16469
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Friday, November 10, 1995
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
Translation]
The House resumed from November 9, 1995, consideration of
the motion that Bill C-96, an act to establish the Department of
Human Resources Development and to amend and repeal certain
related acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee;
and the amendment.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak this morning to this
bill to establish the Department of Human Resources
Development. However, I am also somewhat frustrated and
astonished that the government could introduce this bill for second
reading after the clear message sent in the referendum that
significant changes were necessary in Canada.
Although Quebecers decided to vote No and give federalism a
last chance, they certainly did not have in mind the kind of action
proposed in Bill C-96.
This bill illustrates the fundamental difference in perception
between the federal government and Quebec. Mr. Axworthy said
yesterday in his speech, and I quote-
Mr. Boudria: Order.
Mr. Crête: I apologize. I should have said the Minister of
Human Resources Development instead of referring to a member
by name.
The minister said yesterday in his speech: ``It is decentralization
of a very different kind. There has been a lot of talk about
decentralization, but so far it has been a somewhat restricted debate
as it talks only about decentralization in terms of transferring from
the federal government to the provincial governments. Should we
not also be talking about how to empower communities and
individuals to make more choices? Is that not what we should be
looking at in terms of decentralization? Partnership: government
with the private sector, government with school boards,
government with the provinces. That is the kind of philosophy we
have to continually talk about because that is what works''.
That is what Mr. Axworthy claims, or should I say the Minister
of Human Resources Development.
(1005)
In fact, this statement by the minister runs completely counter to
the existing consensus in Quebec on manpower management. For
example, I would like to quote from a 1991 letter written to the
Minister of Employment and Immigration of the time by the
Quebec Minister of Income Security which states: ``Quebec does
indeed recognize the crying need to define its own manpower
policies, to establish its priorities with respect to manpower
development in close conjunction with its partners in the labour
market, and then to design and administer programs tailored to the
needs it has set as priorities''.
Further on in the letter he goes on to say ``Even if the greatest
constitutional harmony reigned in the country, which is not exactly
the case, Quebec would make the same demands with respect to
manpower, since it is so urgently necessary for Quebec's economic
development that manpower programs be made efficient and
tailored to Quebec's specific labour market priorities''. The person
saying this in 1991 was a federalist Liberal Quebec minister.
Today the federal government is tabling Bill C-96, and what is
Quebec's reception to it? The Quebec Minister of Employment
describes it as the final rejection of the unanimous consensus in
Quebec that the federal government must withdraw completely
from active manpower measures and hand back to Quebec the
relevant budgets.
So far, one could qualify this as a squabble between politicians,
with each one wanting to hang on to his powers; the people will be
the final judges of this. But there is something peculiar to this issue
of manpower: the Quebec government position is also the position
of all those in Quebec involved in this field.
For instance, to quote someone who has never been identified as
a sovereignist or as a backer of the present Quebec government,
Ghislain Dufour, the spokesperson for the Conseil du Patronat du
Québec, was still saying as recently as yesterday ``It is essential
16470
that the manpower issue be handed over to Quebec, so that there
may at last be a proper policy''.
He went on to say: ``This is one of the cards the federal
government ought to lay on the table to indicate that it has indeed
heard Quebec's message calling for change''.
Despite Mr. Dufour's position in support of federalism, his
heartfelt cry in his apparently unflagging hope that federalism
might change went completely unheeded by the federal
government, which, as if it were a matter of daily routine, is
presenting Bill C-96 for second reading. The aim of the bill is
simply to give the federal government the equivalent of a federal
minister of education.
I quote clause 6 of the bill as proof. It provides as follows.
The powers, duties and functions of the Minister extend to and include all
matters over which Parliament has jurisdiction relating to the development of
the human resources of Canada not by law assigned to any other Minister,
department, board or agency of the Government of Canada, and are to be
exercised with the objective of enhancing employment, encouraging equality
and promoting social security.
The clause contains no reference to provincial jurisdictions or to
the fact that Quebec already has a network set up to take action in
the manpower sector or to the whole problem that has existed in
this sector for the past five years. The government's position
should be an obvious sign to Quebecers of the sort of change hinted
at during the week before the referendum, without any basis or
forethought, which today has been lost in the federal government's
return to its old habits.
What is Quebec's claim based on? It is based on the fact that an
integrated policy on economic, social and political action, means
that the government assuming responsibility, for instance for
education, for the Quebec labour code which covers 90 per cent of
workers in Quebec, for occupational health and safety, for labour
standards, for regulating professional qualifications, professional
conduct and mass layoffs-all having a direct impact on
jobs-should control the other aspects, as well, such as training,
the way we prepare our workforce for the challenges of the
globalization of the marketplace and of new technology.
It is rather like taking away half its tool box and thus preventing
it from doing its job in a area that is critical for the future.
(1010)
I would like to give you more examples. I mentioned Mr.
Dufour, from the Conseil du patronat, but a similar plea was
voiced, last week, by Gérald Ponton, the president of the Quebec
manufacturers' association, who cannot be accused either of being
a sovereignist or a proponent of Quebec's independence. Mr.
Ponton made the same kind of remark as Mr. Dufour. He even said
that, during the referendum campaign, people everywhere in the
field were saying: ``If they give us control over manpower or such
and such an area, that might make it worth our while to listen to
what is being said''. This man speaks on behalf of manufacturers,
people who must adapt to changes on a daily basis. They never said
that the federal government was the best level of government to
deal with this. They are saying the same thing as the people from
the job forum and the Société québécoise de développement de la
main-d'oeuvre. They are telling us that it is imperative for Quebec
to have control over manpower management in the province.
I suggest that bringing Bill C-96 forward at second reading
stage, as the federal government did, is somewhat of an affront not
only to the Government of Quebec, but also to the people of
Quebec as a whole, because, while they want changes, they want
the assurance that Quebec will be able to control these major
aspects of its development. We notice the same kind of attitude at
the Canadian Institute of Adult Education, another group seriously
involved with training, which asked the federal government to
withdraw Bill C-96.
How did this kind of approach come about in Quebec? Because
Canada-and this fact was recognized by the OECD-is
considered as some sort of testing ground, given its dismal track
record in manpower training. It is characterized by the fact that we
have hundreds of thousands of jobs available in Canada but at the
same time more than one million people are out of work. The
system is responsible for this mismatch between the number of
jobs available and unemployed workers, because it should be
possible to have only structural unemployment, caused for example
by individuals quitting one job for another or by temporary
situations arising from layoffs or other changes in the industry.
But that is not the situation at present. We have a large workforce
that has never been trained properly. And this cannot be blamed on
Quebec achieving sovereignty, since it has not taken place yet. The
present situation is the result, the doing of the current system. It
was produced by this system. One of the most striking realities is
how differently UI recipients are treated compared with welfare
recipients or, even worse, with those who fall between the cracks.
Canada has no integrated policy on how people looking for jobs
should be treated. Our very sectoral approaches have led to results
such as the last UI reform. The federal government has found two
ways of dealing with its budget responsibilities and very tight fiscal
constraints. To reduce its UI costs, it increased the number of
weeks required to qualify for UI benefits and reduced the number
of weeks of benefits.
It then ended up with a UI fund surplus of $5 billion this year. At
a time when our unemployment rate exceeds 11 per cent, is a UI
fund surplus the best option? Is generating a surplus to be used by a
16471
bureaucracy that has already proven its ineffectiveness the best
way to create jobs?
At the same time, the provincial governments, which are also
struggling with budget constraints, are responsible for welfare and
systematically trying to keep social assistance costs as low as
possible. Employment programs are therefore created so that
people can go on unemployment insurance. But these jobs are not
permanent. They are just a temporary measure.
We are caught in a vicious circle. If we had a single level of
government responsible for the whole manpower issue, including
welfare recipients in the labour force who are able to work, UI
recipients and those falling between the cracks, its sole objective
would be to make the best possible use of human resources and not
to reduce welfare and UI costs by offloading its deficits and
responsibilities onto the other level of government. Only one
government would then be judged in terms of the effectiveness of
its manpower policy.
(1015)
Why is it necessary that Quebec be responsible for that sector?
Realities vary widely in the Canadian economic space. For policies
in the social, regional development, manpower, health, housing and
employment training sectors to be adequate, they must be geared to
the environment in which they are apply. They must also be
effective.
It is not true that a single policy for the whole country can be
effective, given the differences between regional economies. For
example, the Maritimes and Quebec's eastern region have an
economy which is largely dependent on natural resources and
which, therefore, has fostered the development of a large number
of seasonal industries. If you apply a national policy to these
regions, you only generate disillusion, as is now the case.
Moreover, many investments have been made year after year in
these regions, but they simply did not produce any result. This can
be explained by a number of reasons, including the fact that
responsibility for the manpower sector was not delegated to the
appropriate level of government.
When you think of it, the accumulated surplus in the UI fund,
which will be the primary funding source for the new human
resources investment fund, is a new hidden tax. Once it realized
that it could no longer borrow on foreign markets to keep trying to
control everything-because international lenders were no longer
willing to provide funding for that-the federal government found
a new trick. It makes Canadians themselves lend money, through
UI contributions.
The government is trying to use a new artificial instrument
which ultimately is based on a mismanagement of money. If,
instead of generating this $5 billion surplus, the government had
left that money in the economy, do you not think that it would have
helped create a lot more jobs, that it would have given much more
concrete results? So today the least trained categories of workers
would have the possibility of getting jobs more easily and we
would not be trying to give them training for which they are not
necessarily prepared.
The other element I would like to draw to the government's
attention is that Bill C-96 will lead to open warfare between the
Quebec educational system and others who might want to get
involved in training. In fact, this may be the hidden agenda of the
federal government, to demolish all of the educational tools
Quebec has developed, but I believe that such educational bodies as
la Fédération des commissions scolaires du Québec and la
Fédération des cegeps du Québec have, nevertheless, developed
original approaches that make Quebec very competitive in the
world market.
The deliberate choice by the federal government to sign
agreements with organizations outside these systems, with criteria
that differ from those of these systems will lead, within a few years,
to an incredible mess with equivalencies. Who will have trained
whom? How? To what standard? And this outcome will be just one
more example of federal government waste and inefficiency, at a
time when we no longer have any money to waste.
This may have been done in the seventies in an attempt to put a
Canadian model in place, some artificial concept of what Canada
could be, but nowadays this is no longer possible, because of
financial constraints and pressure from international lenders, as
well as the future demands of each taxpayer in Quebec and in
Canada.
There is still time for the federal government to decide either to
withdraw Bill C-96 or, at the very least, to heed the clear call from
all those involved in this field in Quebec for the responsibility for
manpower training to be handed over to the Government of
Quebec.
(1020)
This consensus has existed in Quebec for five years, during
which all players have asked for manpower to be transferred to the
Government of Quebec, while the federal
government-Conservative or Liberal-turns a deaf ear. We must
try to find the reason for this lack of openness, this failure to listen.
What is happening at the federal level that they will not respond to
the demands of all those people who earnestly want to reshape
federalism?
In any case, there is an aspect to decentralization that is very
obvious and which the federal government refuses to recognize.
Why? Because any decision to give Quebec responsibility for
manpower or to give any other province the same kind of
responsibility in this or other sectors would have the effect of
taking power away from the federal mandarins.
16472
The people who were appointed during the Trudeau era and who
since then have generated a lot of activities and believe that
solutions in Canada will come from the top down instead of from
the grass roots, all these people cannot bear the thought of a policy
that would turn the decision making pyramid upside down, so that
not their views but only the views of the citizens of Quebec and
Canada would prevail.
This government will be judged by the way it manages to shake
up its senior public servants. After four years in power, the
government will no longer have an excuse. It can no longer say:
``The Conservatives were like that, and this is our first year and that
is why nothing is happening, we have not had time to adjust''. They
are now starting their third year, and if the federal government does
not make any changes, the record will be there for Canadian to
judge.
There is another reason why C-96 is unacceptable: it perpetuates
two levels of intervention in education. Today, no business in any
industrial sector can afford this kind of duplication. There is a lot of
unnecessary spending here.
The minister of income security in the Liberal government
preceding the Parti Quebecois government calculated the cost of
this overlap between Quebec and Canada at between $250 and $275
million a year. Can we afford such overlap in the future? Two
hundred fifty million dollars, when, with the prebudget
consultations underway, we are being told everywhere that the
government has to make choices. It has to decide to be efficient
where it can. It has to decide to withdraw from areas where it is not.
Here we have concrete examples with obvious results that the
government's involvement in labour matters over the past 10, 15 or
20 years has been totally ineffective and has not permitted any sort
of matching of available jobs and manpower. It is also an example
of decentralization being a solution when you have faith in the
government that is on the receiving end, that will have to take it on
and that will be judged by the voters.
Bill C-96 is being criticized by the Société québécoise de la
main-d'oeuvre, the Quebec department of employment, the Institut
canadien des adultes, the Forum sur l'emploi, the Association des
manufacturiers du Québec and the Conseil du patronat du Québec.
Here are enough reasons for the federal government to withdraw it
or amend it so that Quebec could have control over the
management of its manpower.
[English]
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the
words of the member for Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup. He was
very clear in his presentation.
(1025 )
The member began by stating that the referendum gave a clear
message to the federal government. Yes, it did send a very clear
message. The clear message is that the majority of Canadians in
Quebec do not want to separate from Canada. That is the clear
message and that is what we should be working toward.
However, the Bloc Quebecois keeps pushing its hidden agenda,
which it tried to hide during the referendum. The agenda was
complete separation. The sooner the Bloc Quebecois accepts this,
the sooner all three parties and the independent members in this
House can start working together and continue building the strong,
beautiful country we have.
Yesterday we heard about the hospital closings in Quebec. That
is going to hurt my family in Quebec. Why did that come out only
after and not during the referendum? It would have hurt the hidden
agenda of separation.
We are bringing in a bill which deals with administration rather
than any substantive reform. It does not entail new organizational
changes as the Bloc Quebecois tries to make us believe. It does not
introduce new statutory powers or affect federal-provincial
jurisdiction. I do not know why that would concern the Bloc. The
bill draws together portions of the former departments of
employment and immigration, health and welfare, secretary of
state and all the former department of labour. Think of the savings
this will bring to Canadian taxpayers. Why not pass those savings
on to the people who are looking for jobs and the people who have
to be re-educated?
I was an educator for 27 years. I have learned and am learning
more so that education does not stop at the end of grade 8, at the
end of grade 12 or at the end of university. Education is becoming a
lifetime process. We are also learning that people with good
professional jobs are not going to keep them for a lifetime. They
are going to go through two, three, four jobs in a lifetime.
Therefore they have to be retrained.
Because of the kind of environment we are in, we have to give
workers the freedom to move from province to province. If they are
forced to move from one province to another or they do it of their
own free will, why should they be hampered because one province
has a program different from another province? Why should they
not be able to move from one program to another from province to
province? I cannot understand why speaker after speaker from the
Bloc are against this federal-provincial operation of working
together to save taxpayers money, to keep building this beautiful
country.
I have talked to many diplomats. I will not mention any names or
countries but they are shocked at what has happened to our country.
Canada is always used as a model and an example when countries
move to more democratic forms of government. Now they are so
let down. We are letting them down because the model they
16473
worshipped, the country to which immigrants from all over the
world want to come, is quarrelling within instead of working
together.
I do not want a response, although I probably will get one. I want
to leave a very clear message. The referendum did affect everyone
in this House. We were elected by the people and the kind of
comments I am hearing do not represent the majority of the people
living in the province of Quebec. They showed that in the
referendum.
Bill C-96 is not changing any statutory powers. It is not taking
any powers away from Quebec or from any other province. This
bill is an attempt to work together, to give programs and services
more efficiently at less cost to the taxpayers.
I hope I have made my message clear. The Bloc is trying to
resurface its hidden agenda and we are not going to accept it.
(1030)
[Translation]
Mr. Crête: Mr. Speaker, it is easy to see the lack of
understanding in this country. I would like to remind the hon.
member who just spoke of a little historical fact. The sovereignist
movement captured 40 per cent of the vote in 1980 and 49.4 per
cent in 1995. This represents a 20 per cent increase for the
sovereignists, while the federalist vote fell from 60 to 50 per cent.
If you do not see this as a very significant warning to Canada, if
you do not understand the message, you will bear the consequences
of this political choice for the rest of Canada, which is accusing the
federal government of misleading them for two years by pretending
that there was no problem to be resolved with Quebec. But there is
a problem. Canadian citizens felt compelled to travel to Montreal,
to make long-distance calls, because the Canadian government
misled them for two years by claiming that everything was fine. If
you ever go back to your old haunts, you will pay the political
price.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order, please. I simply want
to remind the House that all comments must be made through the
Chair, so that our debates can take place according to the best
parliamentary tradition.
Mr. Crête: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I would like to say that, in my
speech, I presented the arguments put forward by Quebec
federalists. I talked about the chief executive of the Quebec
manufacturers' association, Gérald Ponton, former chief of staff to
a Quebec Liberal minister. I also mentioned the spokesperson for
the Conseil du patronat du Québec, Ghislain Dufour, who is not
known for his sovereignist views. They both agree that it is
important that the federal government withdraw from manpower
management. This is not mean separatists speaking, but Quebec
federalists telling the federal government: ``Unless you get out of
there, the next time will be right one for Quebec sovereignty''. That
is the bottom line, and I think that the people of Quebec and Canada
will be the judges of that.
The hon. member said that the bill contained no major changes,
that it was a technical bill. Let me read you clause 6 of this bill.
The powers, duties and functions of the Minister extend to and include all
matters over which Parliament has jurisdiction relating to development of the
human resources of Canada-
Is that not a substantive change. Never before had the federal
government dared lay down in an act that it had the power to
interfere to such an extent with education, in spite of the fact that
the Constitution clearly states that education falls under provincial
jurisdiction. I will leave it up to the people to decide whehther this
bill is a technical or a substantive bill.
The hon. member also indicated in his remarks that manpower
adjustment has become important, given that people now have to
change jobs often. We could not agree more on that. This is the
basis for the whole argument put forward by the Quebec
government, which maintains that education does not include only
primary and secondary school, as it did at the end of the 19th
century, but encompasses all training. That is what Quebec's
position is premised on.
To conclude, I would like to say that the fact that Canada is
considered as some sort of democratic model does not mean that,
because there is, within this democracy, a major movement for the
sovereignty of one part of the country and because this movement
has a voice, we are any less democratic. People are supposed to be
able to express themselves in a democracy. And that is what the
people of Quebec have done and will do again, especially if the
present government in Ottawa keeps ignoring the demands made
not by sovereignists alone, but by sovereignists and federalists who
are looking for profound changes. That is what the federal
government will soon be judged on.
[English]
Mr. Robert D. Nault (Parliamentary Secretary to the
Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today
to speak on Bill C-96. I am sure members know the bill establishes
the Department of Human Resources Development and amends or
repeals certain related legislation.
In the time I have I will focus on the labour side of the bill and
the duties the Prime Minister has entrusted with the Minister of
Labour. Included in the bill are clear definitions of the direction
and structures of the minister and the minister's duties. Clause 107
of the bill repeals the Department of Labour Act. Clause 4, though,
authorizes the appointment of the Minister of Labour.
16474
(1035)
According to subclause 4(2), the powers, duties and functions of
the Minister of Labour extend to and include all matters over which
Parliament has jurisdiction relating to labour not by law assigned to
any other department, board or agency of the Government of
Canada.
In other words, the Minister of Labour has all the powers, duties
and functions related to labour matters under federal jurisdiction,
except for staff relations and the federal public service.
So that my hon. colleagues in the House understand the extent of
this jurisdiction, I will sketch a broad outline for them. The areas
covered by the Canada Labour Code fall within the labour
minister's jurisdiction. The code governs industrial relations,
occupational safety and health, and labour standards in the federal
sphere. The code applies to Canadians working in major industrial
sectors such as interprovincial and international rail, road and
pipeline transportation, shipping, longshoring, air transportation,
grain handling, international and interprovincial
telecommunications, broadcasting, banks and certain crown
corporations. These are critical sectors of the economy.
Parts I and III of the code dealing with industrial relations and
labour standards apply to over 700,000 Canadian workers. Part II
also applies to the federal public sector so it affects over 1 million
Canadians.
Through the Canada Labour Code and other initiatives of the
labour branch of HRD Canada, stable industrial relations are
facilitated and safe, healthy, fair and productive workplaces are
promoted. In the industrial relations sphere the Canada Labour
Code has long been recognized as a model that successfully
balances the rights and responsibilities of both labour and
management.
Application of the Canada Labour Code is the minister's major
responsibility, but several other acts and policies fall under her
jurisdiction. Among these is the Canada Centre for Occupational
Health and Safety. The centre disseminates occupational health and
safety information across the country and plays a key role in
protecting the lives and health of workers in Canada.
Other statutes that fall in whole or in part under the labour
minister's jurisdiction are the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act,
the Government Employees Compensation Act, the act respecting
the Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting Company, the Hazardous
Materials Information Review Act, the Merchant Seamen
Compensation Act, part II of the Status of the Artist Act, the Wages
Liability Act, the Non-Smokers' Health Act and the Corporations
and Labour Unions Liabilities Act. All these deal with matters of
security, justice and equity, basic entitlements of all Canadian
workers.
The only function not carried over from the old Department of
Labour is the program for older worker adjustment. This is the only
responsibility that will be carried out elsewhere. On the other hand,
the Minister of Labour could have added responsibilities under the
Employment Equity Act once Bill C-64 has received royal assent.
Given the broad scope of the labour branch, members may
wonder why we want to merge into Human Resources
Development. It is a logical way for the federal government to
meet the challenges facing us as we enter the next century. By
merging the two departments into one we want to give concrete
form within a single structure to an integrated vision of all various
issues relating to the work world and social security.
If the development of our human potential is to be successful it
has to be seen as a continuous whole. Society has undergone great
changes and we have to adapt. An integrated and unified structure
will obviously allow us to do that.
We can no longer succeed in helping Canadians achieve their full
potential by creating artificial bureaucratic categories for each of
their needs. Nor can we respond to people's needs by losing them in
the red tape of poorly co-ordinated government programs.
Intelligent and careful integration is necessary but it does not
preclude flexibility in procedures, enforcement or service to the
Canadian public.
(1040)
We need an administrative structure that allows us to deliver
services in an efficient manner and at a reasonable cost, taking into
account both the financial restrictions facing us and our moral
obligations toward the Canadian public. By rationalizing resources
under the Human Resources Development banner we can and will
achieve this goal.
As well, we need a structure that fosters partnerships with the
provinces, the industrial sector, the labour movement, the academic
community and community groups. We have made great progress
toward this and we will go even further under the new act.
The model proposed here is similar to that in several provinces.
Integration has already taken place in Quebec, New Brunswick and
Newfoundland. Since we are integrating departments some
members might wonder why we need a labour minister at all. I will
explain that rationale.
We have had labour ministers throughout most of our history. It
was the previous Tory government, which did not care much for the
views of working Canadians, that eliminated the post. I am
concerned the Reform will get the opportunity. The government
believes that labour matters deserve special attention, and
rightfully so.
16475
The labour movement, labour-management relations, workplace
conditions and equity for all workers are probably more important
today than they have ever been in the past. For these reasons Bill
C-96 provides for the appointment of a Minister of Labour. There
is no separate bureaucracy or infrastructure, just a minister who
can devote her time to the concerns of working Canadians.
The minister uses the services and facilities of the human
resources department. This keeps costs and duplication down
without depriving the ministers of the tools needed to deal with
their responsibilities.
Last February the Prime Minister appointed the current Minister
of Labour. Without waiting for the bill before us to pass he wanted
to assure working Canadians that we were ready to deal with urgent
and pressing matters affecting Canada's labour situation.
I will outline some initiatives already undertaken by the minister
since last February. In the area of industrial relations the minister
continues to firmly believe in a free and open collective bargaining
system which places the onus on labour and management to be
responsible for resolving their own disputes.
Where they are unable to do so, assistance is provided by the
federal mediation and conciliation services of the labour branch at
Labour Canada. The FMCS has had an astonishing track record,
one that most people probably do not realize. Over 90 per cent of
disputes referred to it are resolved without work stoppage.
Throughout the world our federal system is seen as a model of
balance and effective labour legislation. To have competitive and
productive workplaces we need effective labour-management
relations. To assist employers and unions to build effective
communication channels the FMCS has developed a preventive
mediation program which has been well received by its clients.
The minister has undertaken two significant initiatives to ensure
that our industrial relations system continues to set standards for
the rest of the world. In recent years a number of labour disputes on
the west coast have required the intervention of Parliament. In May
the minister appointed an industrial inquiry commission to study
industrial relations in longshoring, grain handling and other
federally regulated industries at west coast ports. We expect to
receive the commission's report later this month.
In June the minister established the Sims task force to conduct an
independent review and recommend improvements to part I of the
Canada Labour Code. The task force will identify options and make
recommendations for legislative change with the view to
improving collective bargaining, reducing conflict and facilitating
labour-management co-operation, ensuring effective and efficient
administration of the code and addressing the changing workplace
and employment relationships.
(1045 )
The task force is consulting at this moment with labour and
management groups that are subject to the code and is scheduled to
report to the minister by December 15 of this year.
In the area of occupational health and safety, we are working to
better harmonize our legislation and regulations with the provinces
and the territories. In co-operation with them, we are trying to
achieve greater uniformity throughout the country with regard to
this issue. This is a win-win scenario for workers and employers.
We all stand to gain through increased efficiency and savings
resulting from a reduction in overlap.
To further this initiative we are conducting two pilot projects.
One is aimed at harmonizing the provisions of the Canada
occupational safety and health regulations dealing with diving and
confined spaces, while the other involves the field of ergonomics.
I have already mentioned the review of part I of the Canada
Labour Code, but we also are planning to revise parts II and III. In
co-operation with our various partners we are seeking to modernize
the code to better reflect the requirements of today's labour
environment. Consultations are under way and labour and
management have approached the revision process with energy and
enthusiasm.
Like all government organizations, the labour branch is
reviewing all of its activities and methods. This review will help us
to pinpoint more ways to increase both the quality and cost
effectiveness of the programs and services we deliver to Canadians.
The labour program also has international obligations. The
adoption of the North American agreement on labour co-operation
led to the establishment of a relatively new component within the
program. The agreement is aimed at promoting co-operation and
guaranteeing effective enforcement of labour legislation by
Canada, the United States and Mexico. The labour branch opened a
national office to implement the agreement in Canada not too long
ago. This is welcome news.
I am providing members with a sampling of the many activities
currently carried out by the labour branch. These examples show
that restructuring has in no way impeded the work of the branch. In
fact, it has energized it. Since integration, the labour branch is vital,
invigorated, and better able than ever before to make a strong
contribution to the lives of working Canadians. Its integration
within the Department of Human Resources Development ensures
a healthy continuity and an integrated use of the resources available
to promote the economic and social well-being of Canadians. In my
mind, integration makes a lot of sense. It is not just some arbitrary
16476
measure, but a decision made necessary by the times in which we
live.
The work of the labour branch cannot be done in isolation from
considerations involving Canadians who are on unemployment
insurance and employment programs. The challenge is to
harmonize and co-ordinate all of our federal programs dealing with
human resources. To meet that challenge we are guided by a logical
and coherent vision.
The bill before us offers the best of both worlds. It entrenches the
powers and responsibilities of a full fledged Minister of Labour
while at the same time placing the labour branch within a broader
context, producing definite benefits for the government and for all
Canadians.
Without hesitation I ask my hon. colleagues to support this
important piece of legislation, which confirms what already exists:
a very good and solid labour department in this country, which has
done an exceptionally good job up to now as far as the rest of the
world and Canada are concerned.
[Translation]
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to put a question to the hon. member, who is
an expert in labour relations and who knows a great deal about the
human resources issue. We all acknowledge the great expertise of
the member in these sectors.
(1050)
Earlier today, we heard a Bloc member claim that this bill would
give new powers to the federal government, that it was a
centralizing instrument used by the government, or some nonsense
to that effect.
Could the hon. member tell us if it is true that the bill gives new
powers to the federal government? Is it not a consolidation of
existing laws on the sharing of powers between the two ministers
responsible for human resources, namely the Minister of Human
Resources Development and the Minister of Labour? Is it not true
that the bill does not give any new power, does not centralize
anything, and that, once again, the Bloc Quebecois' claims have
little to do with reality?
[English]
Mr. Nault: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question.
In the last couple of days I have had the opportunity to listen to
the Bloc on this bill. I have to admit I am saddened that members
opposite have continued to make suggestions to their constituents
that are factually incorrect.
If we look at what the Department of Labour is doing, it is just
the opposite of what is being said by the members of the Bloc
Quebecois. Let me give an example. As I mentioned in my speech,
under health and safety we are going to be devolving powers and
co-operating with the provinces. We have already entered into an
agreement with Quebec to harmonize the way we deal with health
and safety as it relates to federal and provincial jurisdictions. In
essence, we have done what the Bloc is arguing we have not done,
which is to decentralize to a certain extent the powers of the federal
government under labour to the provinces to deal with certain areas
like health and safety.
I do not know why the members opposite continue to do this.
Sooner or later someone in Quebec will start paying closer
attention to what is going on in the House and start picking up the
bills and reading them, only to find out that they are being
misrepresented by these individual members across the way.
Anyone who has been around as long as you and I have been, Mr.
Speaker, will know that most people pay very close attention to
what takes place in their country as it relates to the laws. These
laws we are passing, which the opposition continues to suggest go
in a totally opposite direction-that they are new powers and we
are going to be stepping all over the provinces-sooner or later will
show that we are working very hard to co-operate and do just the
opposite.
I want to give the Bloc a challenge in my final comments. I
would like the members to change their approach of trying to get
Quebecers not to like Canada. If Quebecers are to leave they should
leave for other reasons than the fact that the federal government is
not trying to do a good job. Quite frankly, that is the furthest from
the truth I have ever seen.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): It certainly would not be for
me to debate with the hon. parliamentary secretary as to how long
we have been here, but in light of the fact that a few days ago we
marked the 30th anniversary of the members for
Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke and Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, I
submit that we have not been here all that long.
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
have listened to this debate now for a couple of days. I have heard
how much things are going to change for the better in our social
programs and so on. After almost three decades of overspending by
Liberal and Conservative governments, we have amassed $565
billion in debt; that is 565 thousand million dollars. In the last two
years this government has overspent its income by approximately
$80 billion, adding to that debt.
The Canada pension plan has in it about two years' worth of
payouts, about $40 billion, all invested in low yield provincial
bonds. The fund, if pensioners were to be fully paid out, would
have to have about $550 billion in it, which it does not. It is another
liability over and above the $565 billion we owe in operating costs.
16477
(1055 )
If the government is to look at social programming and improve
the Canada pension plan, for instance, how will it do that with the
burden of a $565 billion debt, a liability in the Canada pension plan
and a deliberate plan of overspending? How will it happen without
the government coming to the conclusion that something must
change, perhaps even looking at premium increases and benefit
reductions? Is that what the government will do? How will it get
around being held accountable, like the last group that was over
there?
Mr. Nault: Mr. Speaker, since I know Reform Party members a
little better than I know Bloc members, because I have to deal with
them on a regular basis in my neighbourhood, I will tell the House
what impresses and intrigues me the most about them. They came
to the House with a particular focus and a promise they made to
their constituents. I was in one of those ridings where they made
that promise. They were going to be different. I frankly found that
they were quite different. They were the most partisan group I have
ever met in my life.
One of the questions posed to us during the last election
campaign was why not become more like those Reformers, who are
non-politicians, who will ask questions of substance. I will see if I
can answer the question.
The member and his party have been spinning this scenario that
the world is coming to an end in Canada and it is all going to fall
apart unless we go as far to the right as we can, that everybody in
Canada has to start paying massive user fees, including the seniors
and the poor, because we cannot afford to tax anybody any more
and our debt is so bad that we are going to sink under this big huge
debt and some other country will have to bail us out.
We all know that is not true. I will try to explain this to the
members across the way. I had the opportunity to sit on the
committee that reviewed the pension plan with actuaries. Under the
legislation we have to review this every five years. I spent some
time looking at how we were to restructure it. During that time,
with all the experts in front of us, never did one of them say this
program would collapse under a particular problem of liability and
having no money.
The problem with the individual across the way is he does not
want to hear the truth about how the program works. These
individuals across the way have no program or suggestions on how
to run Canada. Their doom and gloom scenario, as with Klein and
others, is to cut the government adrift, get rid of the government
and let some right-wing business corporate elite look after it so
they will not have to.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): It is okay, be happy, you have
your pension.
Mr. Nault: Yes, I have my pension. Quite frankly, I am proud
that I have earned it. I will be here for a long time before I get to
collect it. At least I pay tax. A lot of the boys across the way do not
pay any tax. There is an individual there from Ontario, our
multi-millionaire friend, who does not pay any tax.
If this regional fringe party can articulate its vision of Canada
and get higher than 10 per cent in the polls, then maybe we will
start to look at some of its ideas. To date it is so far down that no
one in the country is taking it seriously, including the people in my
riding.
The Speaker: It being 11 a.m., we will now proceed to
Statements by Members.
_____________________________________________
16477
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, recently I
attended a special event in my riding, the second annual memorial
service held outdoors at the Woodstock Memorial Forest. Over 300
people attended.
This memorial forest was established by the city of Woodstock,
the Upper Thames River Conservation Authority and a local
funeral home. Twenty-three acres of conservation authority land
has been set aside for the forest. The trees planted are chosen from
original Carolinian species indigenous to our region. Each tree
commemorates the life of a citizen who has died.
The Woodstock Memorial Forest was started in recognition of
the depletion of the earth's forests. Trees provide shelter for
wildlife, control soil erosion, provide shade, remove carbon
dioxide and provide oxygen. The beauty and grace of these trees
enhance our environment and stand as living memorials to the
memory of our loved ones.
I suggest my colleagues encourage such forests in their ridings.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Paul Mercier (Blainville-Deux-Montagnes, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, tomorrow we will celebrate Remembrance Day. Over
100,000 young Canadians and Quebecers gave their lives during
the two world conflicts, and hundreds more died in Korea and in
various peacekeeping missions.
Such is the price that we have had to pay for of our strong belief
in the values of democracy and peace. And it is because they also
shared these values that our young soldiers fought all over the
world.
We remember the sacrifices and the self-abnegation of those to
whom we owe this legacy of freedom and democracy. Again, we
want to pay tribute and express our gratitude to those who gave
16478
their lives, as well as to those who were prepared to do so for such a
noble cause.
Let us honour their memory.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
tomorrow Canadians will stop to remember those who served and
those who died in the world wars and the Korean war as well as the
peacekeepers who have served on United Nations missions since
1947 and the many Canadian forces' members who over the years
have given their lives in service to our country.
The spirit and sacrifice of these men and women have been
dedicated to preserve the freedom and peace we cherish today.
None gave their lives willingly yet all voluntarily put themselves in
danger.
In remembering, let us be mindful of the political turmoil and
circumstances which led to conflict and be attentive to our
responsibility to learn and profit from that history. The wreathes
laid at the National War Memorial and others across our nation
must cause us to remember so that those lives were not given in
vain.
As we pay tribute to the men and women of the Royal Canadian
Navy, the Canadian Army, the Royal Canadian Air Force and the
Merchant Marine, let us remember that without freedom there can
be no enduring peace and without peace no enduring freedom.
* * *
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale-High Park, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is
with great pride that I rise today in the House of Commons to pay
tribute to an outstanding member of my constituency of
Parkdale-High Park.
Mrs. Hilda Simanavicius has recently returned from Lithuania
where she was involved in a program to improve the management
and administration facilities of a consulting service within this
eastern European country. Mrs. Simanavicius' initiatives were in
conjunction with the Canadian Executive Services Organization
known as CESO and the Canadian Volunteer Advisers to Business.
This organization provides advisers to businesses in emerging
economies in central and eastern Europe, often with the help of
volunteer Canadian men and women who are enthusiastic about
sharing their knowledge with others who are in need.
I would like to thank Mrs. Simanavicius and other Canadian
volunteers from CESO who are working to improve economic
markets and the quality of life of others around the world. Hers is a
shining example of the goodwill and benevolence for which
Canadians have come to be recognized.
* * *
Mr. Andy Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to congratulate Mr. Philip McKenzie, a
constituent from my riding of Fredericton-York-Sunbury who
was one of three young Canadians selected to attend the World
Energy Congress in Tokyo a few weeks ago.
His paper entitled ``Nuclear Energy: A Green Option'' was
selected to be presented at the Youth Energy Symposium. Philip is
a student of the department of chemical engineering at the
University of New Brunswick. It is heartening to see his hard work
and commitment being internationally recognized.
The work of talented young individuals such as Philip McKenzie
is leading Canada into the 21st century.
(1105 )
Once again I want to congratulate him on an outstanding
accomplishment.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to bring to the attention of the House that
Alcan Cable's Lapointe plant in Jonquière, Quebec earned this
year's Canada award for business excellence in the category
manufacturing-quality, small business. The Lapointe plant,
constructed in the 1970s, is one of seven Alcan Cable plants in
North America.
In 1990, Alcan Cable made a commitment to quality by defining
a new business mission, with the objective of becoming a world
class manufacturer within four years. In their determination to
meet that objective, the management and employees of the
Lapointe plant spared no effort to indeed become an international
class company. Alcan Cable's Lapointe plant in Jonquière is a
shining example of the success any business can have if it sets its
path resolutely toward quality.
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Sharon Hayes (Port Moody-Coquitlam, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, Canada's blood supply system is in a state of crisis.
Day after day, testimony before the Krever commission reveals a
tale of bureaucratic bungling and government inaction that has
compromised Canadians' health by exposing them to such dis-
16479
eases as HIV, AIDS and hepatitis-C. Credibility and trust in our
health care system has been severely compromised.
What has the government done to restore credibility to our blood
system? The minister recently declared that our blood system is as
safe as any other in the world, yet Canadians know it is not good
enough.
Handing over another $3.3 million to the commission is not the
answer. Doubling the budget of the Bureau of Biologics is not the
answer. It was this bureau that originally was part of the tragic
bungling.
The answer Canadians want is not more study, but decisive
action and leadership now.
* * *
Mr. Jack Iyerak Anawak (Nunatsiaq, Lib.):
[Editor's Note: Member spoke in Inuktitut.]
[English]
Mr. Speaker, in late October the original voices of Canada spoke
resoundingly: the Cree, the Inuit and the Montagnais. We are proud
of who we are, what we have accomplished and what we can
become.
At the unity rally in Montreal, northerners were there in support
of the no forces. Aboriginal and non-aboriginal, we live in many
different languages and cultures in the north, but we share many
values and strengths. Our experience tells us this land is big and
great enough for us all.
I urge the nation to acknowledge that the aboriginal people
delivered when called on to support the country. We can and must
be included in the changes that need to be made.
Together with open hearts, let us build an even greater nation
from sea to sea to sea.
[Editor's Note: Member spoke in Inuktitut.]
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Roger Pomerleau (Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, today marks the start in Quebec of intercultural week,
this year organized around the theme of ``Living together''. This
will afford us a new opportunity to forge solid links between
Quebecers of all origins, and to encourage understanding, dialogue
and rapprochement. This year, the emphasis of intercultural week
will be on Quebecers' belonging to a common culture, and on
making Quebec, its history and its culture better known, as well as
the important contribution the cultural communities have made to
its development.
Numerous community groups, schools, businesses, private and
public organizations and agencies are involved in organizing
hundreds of big and small events throughout Quebec. On behalf of
the Bloc Quebecois, I would like to wish all of them an enriching
intercultural week of exchanges and discoveries.
* * *
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, who said he had not concluded that so many hospitals
would inevitably be closed and that the decision to close them had
to be based on the assurance of better health care? Who said that
proof of this had to be provided and that he had his own ideas,
which he would express at some point? It was the leader of the Bloc
Quebecois, offering advice to his provincial counterpart.
However, the Quebec health minister did not wait to find out the
Bloc leader's personal opinion on the matter. He closed five
hospitals in Montreal alone. The fine social democrat promises of
the PQ and the BQ did not survive the referendum. People have just
discovered that the PQ government and the separatists do not want
to invest in hospitals. They prefer investing in referendums. Yes,
separatists can indeed close hospitals.
* * *
(1110 )
[English]
Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa-Vanier, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday Ottawa-Carleton suffered a terrible loss with the death of
Mr. Hans Daigeler who died at the age of 50.
I had the opportunity of meeting Hans on several occasions and
found him to be a caring, compassionate man. During his seven
years as MPP for Nepean he brought integrity and dedication to his
role. Hans was well known in Queen's Park and within the Liberal
caucus. He brought a refreshing honesty to politics, was never
afraid to speak the truth and was an unabashed supporter of the city
of Nepean and its people.
On behalf of my colleague, the federal member for Nepean, who
is stricken with grief this morning, and on behalf of the national
capital region, may I offer my condolences to Hans' family,
friends, relatives and neighbours. He will be missed.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Philippe Paré (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
Quebecers and Canadians continue to believe profoundly in
promoting democratic values and in protecting fundamental rights.
We all deplore the violation of these rights by the Nigerian military
junta,
16480
and were shocked by last week's announcement of the impending
execution of nine dissidents.
The official opposition calls on the Government of Canada to put
pressure on the Nigerian authorities to stop all violation of
fundamental rights. Canada must take the lead and use the occasion
of the meeting of the Commonwealth countries to raise this matter
and promote respect for human rights, as it did in the 1980s in the
case of South Africa.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, yesterday
Ontario's highest court ordered the release of Robert Owen Ross
Currie. Mr. Currie had been jailed indefinitely as a dangerous
offender. Mr. Currie has a long history of sexual assault. He was
convicted of rape, possession of a dangerous weapon and two
counts of indecent assault. The court declared Mr. Currie's
indefinite sentence a form of unjust punishment.
Canadians have lost faith. They have lost faith in the justice
system because it is releasing dangerous offenders into society.
Canadians are frightened. They are frightened because the bleeding
heart mentality that prevails within our courts and our parole
systems are turning dangerous sexual offenders free to prey on
more innocent people.
For the first time in Canadian history, a dangerous offender
status was revoked. The courts have just fallen over the edge of a
slippery slope. Who will be next, Clifford Olson or Paul Bernardo?
And what is the Minister of Justice doing about it?
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Denis Paradis (Brome-Missisquoi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
tomorrow, all across Canada, we will be celebrating Remembrance
Day. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to sergeant Arthur
Boucher, who lived in the village of Magog until his death.
Heroism, courage, dedication, honour, such are the words which
come to mind when thinking of sergeant Arthur Boucher. His
sacrifice must not have been in vain.
Similarly, the referendum which took place in Quebec 10 days
ago will not be in vain. We can draw three main lessons from it, as
stated by the MLA for Brome-Missisquoi who said: ``that, first,
we can never take our country for granted; second, patriotism must
be practised and taught daily; third, Quebecers want the federal
system to change, and fast''.
Together, we can do it.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (York North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
this year marks the 10th anniversary of International Year of the
Youth.
We are in the midst of dramatic change. Statistics show us that
45 per cent of all new jobs created between 1990 and the year 2000
will require more than 16 years of training and education. Never
before have education and training played such a vital role in the
future of our youth.
In order to face this challenge head on, the government
introduced the youth employment and learning strategy. This
strategy is the cumulative result of many years of consultation,
policy development and town hall meetings with Canadians from
coast to coast to cast.
Key elements of this strategy include youth service Canada and
youth internship program. Youth service Canada gives young
people an opportunity to develop skills and confidence while
serving their community. The youth internship program provides a
combination of on the job and in class training.
(1115 )
To date these programs have given over 30,000 young Canadians
a head start on their career path. This Liberal government
recognizes that our youth is a very important resource and as such
should be treated as a top priority. That is why this year during a
time of fiscal restraint, the overall budget for youth employment
services was increased by-
The Speaker: The hon. member for Fraser Valley West.
* * *
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
has been two years since Canada elected a majority government.
Let us take a reality check and see how well it has done.
The government has borrowed over $80 billion by overspending
and has increased the debt to $560 billion. Crime has expanded, is
unchecked and even encouraged by useless federal legislation.
Liberal friends and party hacks have been given federal jobs and
Senate positions for life. Liberals gorge themselves on the MP
16481
pension plan gravy train. Immigration and Refugee Boards
dominate the ministry. Ministers are not held accountable.
Sick yet? Most of us are. Add on an ethics counsellor whose job
is a joke, inept ministers and prisoners who run the prisons. That is
enough to make me sick.
I ask you: Are we well served by this government? No. No. No.
The Speaker: We are going to put that member down as a
doubtful admirer.
_____________________________________________
16481
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, since it was unable to deliver the changes it promised
Quebecers during the referendum campaign, the government has
resorted to an old federal standby: creating committees.
Ottawa has made a big thing of the phoney committee chaired by
the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, but kept quiet about
another committee which will be chaired by the minister of
agriculture. Discreet though it may be, this shadow committee is
supposed to prompt the federal government on basic directions for
change in Canada.
My question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. By
establishing two committees, one supposedly to respond to
Quebecers' desire for change and one to discuss the division of
powers, does the government intend to keep sending two messages
on the constitution, one to Quebec and one to the rest of Canada, as
it has done for more than two years?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and
Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is high time the official opposition realized we are in the
business of governing Canada and that when problems arise with
respect to unity and economic issues, we will appoint groups of
ministers to make a thorough analysis of the options for dealing
with these problems.
This should come as no surprise. It is what any good government
would do, and that being the case, I am not surprised the official
opposition fails to understand what we are doing.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, at least there is more of an inclination to be frank this
morning. We are told there are problems with unity. There was no
problem for the past two years. The constitution was not an issue.
We had some flamboyant speeches in this House, which was not
the case before. The economy used to be fine, but this morning it is
a real problem. They are aware of that.
When we realize that the shadow committee of the minister of
agriculture will consider the division of powers and that, unlike the
other committee, the most influential ministers from Quebec will
sit on this committee, will the Prime Minister finally admit that the
phoney committee of the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs,
which is supposed to respond to Quebecers' desire for change, is
just a lot of window dressing?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and
Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, once again, your typical example of a phoney committee
is the regional commissions that were set up in Quebec by the Parti
Quebecois, with the co-operation of the Bloc Quebecois. They
were phoney committees that never accomplished a thing.
In this case, it is entirely normal and appropriate that we should
examine and try to solve the problems that exist in Canada today.
At least we are trying to provide good government. In fact, all the
players in Quebec, including Mario Dumont and the Conseil du
patronat du Québec, have told the Quebec government it is time to
deal with the real problems: jobs, unemployment and investment.
That is what we are doing through the committee chaired by the
minister of agriculture.
(1120)
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, actually, I want to thank the minister because the more he
talks, the more he strengthens the sovereignist cause in Quebec.
Yesterday, the Prime Minister, although he was halfway around
the world, managed to set the record straight. We know the phoney
committee chaired by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
will accomplish very little since, as the Prime Minister said, they
do not intend to tinker with the constitution to satisfy Quebec.
That being said, and since we cannot expect to deal with
Canada's problems without dealing with Quebec, does the Acting
Prime Minister not realize that the shadow committee of the
minister of agriculture is also doomed to fail?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and
Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, that is a good example of a phoney question, one that has
no substance and does not make sense.
First of all, in the Outaouais, in the five Outaouais ridings, the
No side received 72.6 per cent of the votes, more than in any region
in Quebec. This was more than in 1980.
16482
So obviously, the hon. member for Laurier-Sainte-Marie does
not know what he is talking about when he indicates the influence
we can have on what Quebecers have decided, which is to stay
in Canada.
Furthermore, if the hon. member for Laurier-Sainte-Marie
thinks economic issues are not important enough to warrant
consideration, he is abdicating the basic responsibility of the
official opposition, which is to protect the interests of Canadians
and Quebecers at a time when the majority of Canadians and
Quebecers want to see a solution to these economic problems.
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Acting Prime Minister.
While travelling in New Zealand yesterday, the Prime Minister
claimed that his government's main concern is to deal with what he
calls ``the real problems of Canadians''. Yet, federal ministers are
unable to name a single major legislative measure taken by their
government, simply because there has not been any. Instead of
taking action, they are creating yet another committee.
Here is my question. While Canadians are faced with a growing
poverty problem as the federal government keeps postponing
reforms that will supposedly put the unemployed back to work,
how can the government claim that setting up another ministerial
committee will meet the real economic needs of Canadians?
[English]
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, jobs and growth have always been
central to this government's agenda.
It is very important to note that in the first two years of our
administration, from the fall of 1993 until the fall of 1995,
economic circumstances have been created in Canada whereby
500,000 new jobs have been created for Canadians. At the same
time, the unemployment rate in the country has dropped below 10
per cent, the lowest level in a long time.
That is good progress in the first two years of our administration.
It is still not enough progress from our point of view. We want to
work very hard to accelerate job growth and to reduce
unemployment. All members of the government, in cabinet and in
caucus, will be sparing absolutely no effort to achieve that larger
objective.
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, what the minister
is saying is that while they were creating jobs in the rest of Canada,
Quebec was becoming the poorest province in Canada with its
unemployed workers and its people living below the poverty line.
Can the Acting Prime Minister tell us-
Mr. Massé: It is because of the Parti Quebecois.
Mr. Robichaud: Stop talking about separation.
The Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Joliette.
(1125)
Mr. Laurin: Mr. Speaker, I realize it is not important for the
party in power to listen to the question because their answers never
make sense.
Can the Acting Prime Minister tell us what concrete and
substantial legislative measures his government has taken since the
referendum to tackle what he calls the real problems of Canadians?
[English]
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman knows that the
intervening period from the date of the referendum to now has only
been a matter of a few days. The member should take into account
the record of performance prior to the referendum date. It includes
a broad range of initiatives, probably longer than you would allow
me to answer during the course of question period, Mr. Speaker.
I can think of such things as the Canada infrastructure works
program which has been an enormous success from coast to coast
to coast. There are the internship programs for Canadian youth, the
Canadian Youth Service Corps. There is also the successful battle
against the deficit. Not only have we met but we have exceeded
every single one of our deficit targets which builds confidence in
the Canadian economy. There is also a large list of measures for
small business where 85 per cent of Canadian new jobs come from.
* * *
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it has been
a heck of a week. We have had the official disloyal opposition
acting-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Speaker: I would ask the hon. member to withdraw the
word disloyal.
Mr. Silye: Mr. Speaker, I will withdraw the word disloyal. It has
been a heck of a week. We have had members of the official
opposition acting like spoiled brats in not recognizing the results of
the referendum which they lost. Now we have the government
members who do not know why they won striking up the divine
nine committee. We have a Prime Minister who wants Copps out of
the House.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Silye: In the meantime, this week we have been busy
meeting with the governor of the Bank of Canada and with 10 of
this country's leading economists which prompts my first question.
16483
I believe that the size of our federal debt is
$567,902,132,500.57. Would the finance minister please confirm
to this House what the size of our federal debt is?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am sure the
member's estimate of our national debt is within a couple of
pennies.
The problem is not only the size of the national debt, but that as a
nation over the course of the last decade we did not face up to the
fundamental problems of job creation, the preservation of our
social programs and the preservation of the social fabric of this
country. What is crucial is that we continue the course that has been
set by this government. We must deal with the fundamental
problems so that a subsequent government does not have to stand
up and admit to the kind of heritage the member just described.
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
problem is the debt. That is this country's major problem. The soft
targets this finance minister has set are not solving the problem. He
should get serious and set some targets that really mean something,
such as a zero deficit within the time frame of his mandate.
I know the finance minister has heard what many of the
economists said yesterday when they were looking at forecasts into
the future. If the minister were to listen to the advice of these
leading economists he would recognize that the track he is taking
this country down is not good enough. There is a demand by
taxpayers to solve our problem quicker. It is better to err on the side
of quickness than to err on the side of slowness.
Why does this finance minister not commit his department and
his government to a clearly defined program of when we will get to
see a zero deficit?
(1130 )
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there has never been
a better expression of the difference that exists between the Reform
Party and the government than the one just expressed by the
member.
He in fact said that the end of government was to reduce the
deficit, that the purpose of government was to make itself smaller.
That is not true. The purpose of government is to make itself
smarter. The purpose in reducing the deficit is to help in job
creation. The fundamental role of the country is to give its citizens
a better future.
Yes, we have done a great deal to reduce the deficit. We will
continue to reduce the deficit and we will balance the budget, but
that is not the end of this society. The purpose of society is to give
citizens a better standard of living, to give children a better chance
and to make sure we take children out of poverty. That is what we
will do.
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the finance
minister talks about making things better for Canada. He talks
about how he will improve things for Canada. From when he came
into power until when he leaves power overall spending will be the
same, if not higher. He is not solving the problem. He is adding to
the problem.
The problem is the debt. The solution is to get to a zero deficit so
that we do not add to it. Whether it is over three years, two years or
whatever, that is the objective.
The Speaker: I know the member will ask his question right
now.
Mr. Silye: Mr. Speaker, for the good of the country and for the
good of the financial community, will the finance minister quit
playing politics with the deficit, come clean with Canadians and
present a balanced budget before he goes to the electorate in the
next election?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as set out in the last
budget, program spending by the government by 1996-97 will be at
its lowest level as a percentage of our gross domestic product since
1951. We will be the only government of the G-7 that will have put
into place an absolute reduction in its expenditures.
The minister of agriculture has just listed what we have done in
terms of job creation which is fundamental. If our only objective is
to reduce the deficit, the fastest way to do it is to put Canadians
back to work. The minister of agriculture has just set out what we
have done.
We will reduce the deficit. Let there be no doubt about that.
However we will do it in a balanced way, one that does not harm
the Canadian economy, one that gives our children a chance.
If we want anything different, we can take a look at the budget
set out by members of the Reform Party this year: scorch and burn,
demolish the country. They are so ashamed of it that ever since it
came out they have refused to bring it forth and talk about it
because they know it was a dud.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the defence minister. Yesterday, the
minister quoted, in support of his decision to buy new search and
rescue helicopters, an analysis published in
Le Devoir. Had he read
16484
it through, he would have learned that Quebec was the biggest
loser in the cancellation of the EH-101 contract.
Given that the Canadian aerospace industry is mainly based in
the Montreal area, that Quebec is far from getting its fair share of
defence spending and that the minister did not hesitate to award
without tender to Ontario a $2 billion contract for armoured
personnel carriers, how can he explain the fact that there is no
Canadian content requirement in the new contract? How can he
justify that?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member forgets that, a few years ago, the previous government
awarded a contract worth more than $1 billion to Bell Helicopter, in
Mirabel, to build helicopters for the Canadian army. This was a
major contract for 100 helicopters. But that is something he failed
to mention in the House.
[English]
Quebec has a large part of the aerospace industry. Bell
Helicopter has received the world product mandate for the
construction of certain types of helicopters it is now delivering to
the Canadian army. It was because of the government's
decision-perhaps this is one of the few things the previous
government did correctly-that Bell Helicopter company was able
to get the world product mandate and bring jobs to Canada, to
Quebec, for the making of these helicopters to serve Bell's
worldwide market.
(1135)
The hon. member conveniently forgets that, when he criticizes
the announcement I made on Wednesday.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the minister is like a propeller, we never know which way
he will turn. Does he not realize that, by refusing to include a
Canadian content requirement in this contract, he is not only
compromising our businesses' chances of securing the contract but
also completely ignoring the policy on managing major crown
projects, namely projects in excess of $100 million, which clearly
requires him to give top priority to industrial and regional
development?
[English]
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have stated
as government policy that we will get the best deal for Canadian
taxpayers. Where possible, we will buy off the shelf, and we have
done that.
As I said the other day, the hon. member and his party do not
have much confidence in Quebec companies, many of them world
class, that will easily be able to compete and offer their services to
provide components for these helicopters. He does not have faith
in their own industries in Quebec. That is shameful.
* * *
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Finance basically released his annual financial report.
On page 2 of that report the minister acknowledged that he
massaged the personal income tax collection figures for the
previous year to take $3 billion out of revenue in 1994.
Using the real figures, will the Minister of Finance acknowledge
that the 1994 deficit was only $39 billion and that the 1995 deficit
is exactly $38.7 billion, which means that the deficit has not come
down hardly at all?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the accounting
principles we followed in reporting the state of the government's
finances have been consistent and are ones determined by the
auditor general.
If the hon. member is accusing the auditor general of massaging
the numbers, I would suspect he should do so in another forum.
Even if one accepts the premise of the member's question, which is
obviously false, one would have to ask him to apply the same
principles from one year to the next and he would find that his
question does not stand up.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I was
quoting from the report of the Minister of Finance that there were
some changes and some fixing of the numbers in 1994.
While we listen to the daily drivel of the government of how it
cuts costs and is trying to create jobs, using his actual numbers tax
collections were up $7.3 billion and the deficit has only come down
by $4.5 billion.
Therefore would he acknowledge that he is reducing the deficit
on the backs of taxpayers, not by cutting spending, and that
increased taxation kills jobs? It does not create jobs as he talked
about earlier today.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the member did not
quote my words. He quoted his own words. He would have been
better off to have quoted mine.
First, we follow the accounting principles established by the
auditor general. Second, the member will understand the basic
problem of the country is compound interest. While our spending
may well go down in terms of programs, our interest costs continue
to rise. That is the basic nut we have to deal with.
16485
Over the course of the last two years we have engaged in more
deficit reduction than any government, certainly over the course
of the last decade. We have hit our targets and we will continue
to hit our targets.
It may reflect Reform Party policy but he should not say that
paying attention to job creation and job creation policies are drivel,
because that is what Canadians want their government to do.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday,
the government announced that it had reached a settlement to
compensate the Italian company Agusta, following the cancellation
of the contract for the EH-101 helicopters. No details will be made
public until several months, but we know that this settlement will
cost several hundred million dollars. Agusta, it must be
remembered, is currently facing bribe and corruption charges in
Europe.
(1140)
My question is for the Minister of National Defence. While the
terms of the settlement reached between the government and
Agusta are not yet known, and given that the inquiry called for by
the Liberals when they formed the opposition never took place,
how can the government explain that Agusta is still being
considered for the new helicopter contract?
[English]
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services and Minister for the Atlantic Canada
Opportunities Agency, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member was
quite right in saying that an agreement in principle had been
reached between the Government of Canada and the company to
which she referred. Unfortunately the hon. member went on to
make an assumption which has yet to be realized. In point of fact
the Minister of National Defence has yet to give to the Department
of Public Works and Government Services a request for a proposal.
We do not know who in the world might be submitting bids for
various procurement initiatives of the Government of Canada. How
the hon. member could stretch an agreement on termination costs
with a particular company into saying that it will now be somehow
successful in some subsequent bid is beyond the realm of reality.
[Translation]
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, that answer
has nothing to do with the question. My question was on the second
contract, but the minister keeps referring to the first one. Will we
have to make a video for the minister to understand the question?
Let me put it again. Since Agusta is at the centre of a huge
scandal in Belgium, how can the minister justify that, without any
inquiry on the circumstances surrounding the signing of the
EH-101 contract, he will pay Agusta hundreds of millions in
compensation, without telling us whether he intends to exclude that
company as a bidder for the new helicopter contract? That is my
question to the minister.
[English]
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services and Minister for the Atlantic Canada
Opportunities Agency, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to
receive the video at any time. Perhaps she might want to have
Canada Post deliver it.
The Government of Canada, as I am sure any reasonable
individual would understand, had a binding contract with the
company in question. We made a decision upon coming to office
about the termination of the contract. There are termination costs
the Government of Canada will have to provide in accordance with
the contract. We will live up to the contract obligations and we
hope to be able to provide that information in due course.
However the hon. member cannot jump from that resolution into
thinking that automatically the company to which she refers may
have some upper hand with regard to possible procurements of the
Government of Canada.
* * *
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
agree with the Minister of Finance that job creation and putting
Canadians back to work are not drivel. The brother-in-law of the
head of Canada Post is about to be awarded an untendered $300
million contract and get an extension on another to the year 2002,
and the minister responsible does nothing about it.
If the Minister of Public Works again alleges there is nothing
wrong here, would he assure the House that the contract will be
investigated as part of the much anticipated review of Canada Post?
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services and Minister for the Atlantic Canada
Opportunities Agency, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member once
again likes to roll around in the mud. It is pretty sad when in point
of fact we informed his colleague who raised the issue at a previous
time that the suggestion the hon. member was making was
incorrect.
A letter I have, which I would be pleased to table for the benefit
of the House, says:
Canada Post has completed their evaluation of your proposal dated July 28,
1995 for the sale and leaseback of community mailboxes. Our evaluation has
concluded that the financing cost does not meet Canada Post Corporation's
requirements.
16486
I do not know what the hon. member is talking about.
(1145 )
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
minister seldom does know what I am talking about.
I talked a lot about patronage and about rolling around in the
mud and the slime. We only have to go as far as Sydney, Nova
Scotia, to see what is going on at the tar ponds in the middle of the
member's riding.
The federal conflict of interest code is being blatantly ignored
over and over and this minister does nothing about it. Two senior
executives in public works dole out federal money to their
relatives, get caught in the act, and again the minister does nothing.
How does the minister of public works expect to clean up
nepotism at Canada Post when he continues to allow his public
works employees to give out money to their wives and nephews
without even going through the pretence of tendering?
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services and Minister for the Atlantic Canada
Opportunities Agency, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member
knows a lot about stench. He knows a heck of a lot about it. In point
of fact, he makes allegations continuously in the House.
He refers to the tar ponds, which are not even in my
constituency. I hope he will get his facts correct.
With regard to the specific allegations he raises, I hope the hon.
member would clearly understand that ministers of the crown do
not have the authority to deal with public servants within their own
departments. That is a responsibility of the respective deputy
ministers of each of our departments. That is codified by law.
My deputy minister responsible for public works and
government services has this particular issue in hand and he is
dealing with it in the most appropriate way.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia-Matane, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the minister responsible for regional
development in Quebec.
The minister responsible for regional development in Quebec is
now contributing to the loss of jobs in the forest industry in Quebec
since Ottawa decided unilaterally to withdraw from that sector and
he refuses to grant the $80 million requested by the industry.
By refusing that compensation to forest workers in Quebec, as he
did recently in the case of farm producers in Western Canada where
the federal government withdrew from the grain transportation
sector, is the minister not applying double standards and being
unfair to Quebec?
[English]
Mr. George S. Rideout (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this issue has been
discussed over a number of years. The previous government is the
one that cancelled those programs for forestry agreements. We
have continued to try to extend that to give the woodlot owners an
opportunity to adjust to the change. Last year the plan was
extended for a further year and it does not expire until March 1996.
The woodlot owners have been given lots of notice and lots of
compensation in order to adjust.
[Translation]
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia-Matane, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
does the minister recognize that when he refuses to react positively
to the claims of 170,000 stakeholders of the forest industry, he
simply confirms the fears of Quebecers who thought that after a no
to the referendum, the federal government would also say no to all
of their requests?
[English]
Mr. George S. Rideout (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I find it passing strange
that the member would be asking for compensation on the one hand
and at the same time saying that it is a responsibility of the
provincial government. So let the provincial government do its job.
* * *
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York-Simcoe, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
find it very disturbing that pornographic and sexually explicit
advertisements were delivered to several thousand households in
western Atlantic Canada. This unsolicited and unaddressed
material could easily be opened by children.
How does the minister responsible for Canada Post intend to
prevent this disgusting material from reaching people in my
constituency of York-Simcoe and other Canadians?
(1150 )
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services and Minister for the Atlantic Canada
Opportunities Agency, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon.
member for the question.
I too find the material in question very objectionable. The
president of Canada Post Corporation has issued a directive that it
will not be delivering in the future any of this unaddressed
material. Yesterday we were able to preclude the forwarding
through the mails of some 40,000 pieces in St. John's,
Newfoundland.
16487
There is another issue, however, the addressed pornographic
mail. I have conferred with my colleague, the Minister of Justice,
and we are hoping to combine our forces with a task force to look
at ways we can address that issue in terms of either amendments
to various statutes or other remedies. We want to get a remedy
that will be effective and will not be challenged by the courts or
by any of those companies that wish to distribute that
pornographic material.
* * *
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the Krever
inquiry has done a pretty good job of pointing out flaws in our
blood system. Our health minister's reaction is like a deer in the
headlights. The time for dithering is over.
Can the parliamentary secretary maybe give the health minister a
little nudge so we can have a little more accountability in our blood
system?
Ms. Hedy Fry (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to answer that question,
but it is really rather sad that such an important subject as blood
should be dealt with in such a flippant manner.
The Krever inquiry has been set up to look at the safety of blood
in the 1980s. That report has not yet come down. Mr. Krever has
had an audit done on safety so far, which has shown that the blood
system in Canada is as safe as any system of blood can be in any
other part of the world. The hon. member, as a physician, should
know that there is not 100 per cent safety in any issue that has to do
with pathogens or biotechnology.
We in health are not waiting for the Krever inquiry to come out
with its recommendations. We have already begun. We have
doubled the number of inspectors for blood in this country. We
have started annual inspections, which was never done before. We
have implemented at least 10 measures, which are too long for me
to respond to right now, that will enhance safety before the Krever
inquiry even comes out with its recommendations.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the minister
simply says that our blood system is fine. The report says the
system is confusing, has poor accountability, is frozen in the past.
If hers is not a flippant response, I do not know what is.
Maybe it takes a hip check for the health minister. Will the
parliamentary secretary ask the minister to at least clarify the lines
of authority so that we do not have confusion in our blood system?
Ms. Hedy Fry (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is not only the Minister of Health
who said the system is safe; it actually came out of Mr. Krever
himself. Those are his words on his safety audit.
I believe the hon. member is speaking about another audit. All
these audits are tools the Krever commission is using to come up
with its final report.
At the moment the Krever commission is looking at
management issues, which is appropriate to do. We are waiting for
that report to come out. When it does, we will look at it and take the
appropriate steps, as we always do.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Maurice Godin (Châteauguay, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Acting Prime Minister.
The Minister of Health said last Wednesday in the House, and I
quote: ``-we have not waited for Justice Krever's report before
taking steps to make the system safer''.
How, then, can the minister explain that the report prepared
recently for commissioner Krever deplored the same major
deficiencies as those identified by the expert committee report a
year ago?
(1155)
[English]
Ms. Hedy Fry (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, with regard to the safety of blood and
with regard to what the Krever inquiry has suggested so far, we
have responded to Justice Krever's interim report and have acted
on every recommendation within our jurisdiction. Unfortunately
we cannot react on recommendations that have nothing to do with
our jurisdiction. I will list these. I spoke to them earlier, but maybe
what I need to do is list them.
We have increased resources in the area of blood regulation. We
have increased the frequency of inspections and improved the way
we do them, making them on a yearly basis. We have enhanced the
way we do inspections, requiring now a written report at the end of
the inspection. We have introduced an exit notice that clearly sets
out our observations and requirements for corrective action. We
have established an independent advisory committee on blood
regulation to provide us with advice on a range of issues, and so on.
[Translation]
Mr. Maurice Godin (Châteauguay, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have a
supplementary. Can the minister then explain how it is that a recent
study by Dr. Robert Rémis, who was an important witness before
the Commission, shows that Canada has one of the worst records
among industrialized countries for the safety of blood products?
16488
[English]
Ms. Hedy Fry (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is up to the Ministry of
Health to respond to the witnesses who present to the Krever
commission. It is up to us to respond to what the Krever
commission itself says.
The Krever commission has, I repeat, said that the safety of the
blood system in Canada is as safe as any blood system in the world
can ever hope to be.
* * *
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the Senate
committee studying Bill C-68 has passed a motion asking the
Minister of Justice to ``document or conduct such consultations as
contemplated in section 35 of the Constitution and laid out in the
Sparrow case, and various agreements such as those with the Yukon
First Nations and the Cree, and inform the Senate committee that
the Constitutional requirements are not violated''.
I ask the Minister of Justice, will he comply with the senators'
request?
The Speaker: Order. This question is before the other house.
However, because it deals with the hon. minister, if he wishes I will
permit him to answer the question.
The hon. member for Crowfoot.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, that is a first
for this minister.
During the hearings of the other place on this bill a question was
raised. I will ask the minister if he wishes to respond to this
question. The question was why is the House passing legislation
that is not constitutionally sound.
I ask the minister, why was Bill C-68 rammed through without
the constitutionality of the bill being assured?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member and his party are
not in a position to say they are the champions of aboriginal rights
in this country. When they see in this issue an opportunity to attack
Bill C-68 they take it.
For the many months the bill was before the House committee,
of which the hon. member formed a part, it was examined in great
detail. There were both legal and constitutional witnesses before
the committee. It was established there, as it has been established
before the Senate, that this bill is completely constitutional.
* * *
Mrs. Marlene Cowling (Dauphin-Swan River, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food.
In recent weeks a small group of farmers have blatantly defied
federal law by trucking their wheat and barley across the U.S.
border without an export permit. Can the Minister of Agriculture
and Agri-Food tell the House what impact this illegal action will
have on prairie farmers who are not breaking the law?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, illegal action or illegal protest is
no way to have an effective influence on the shaping of government
policy. In fact that conduct sets back the case of those who would
legitimately argue for some changes.
It is a fundamental precept of democracy that we must all respect
the law, even those laws with which we may disagree. If we do not
have that fundamental respect for the law, soon we all descend to
the law of the jungle.
(1200)
Third, this kind of illegal conduct with respect to the United
States border is tremendously dangerous. It could trigger that very
political firestorm on the American side of the border which could
lead to increased pressures in the United States to shut the border in
some way for the access of Canadian grain into the U.S. market.
The conduct is dangerous in terms of trade.
The law is there. It is clear and it is valid. I want to make it very
clear the law will be enforced.
* * *
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a
point of order. During question period the Minister of Finance said
that I should quote my own figures rather than quote his. At the
same time the Minister of Finance said that my accusations called
into question the integrity of the auditor general.
If I may quote from the annual financial report-
The Speaker: What the hon. member has is an interesting point
but it is not a point of order. I rule it would be a point of debate.
_____________________________________________
16488
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
Translation]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in
both official languages, the government's response to three
petitions.
16489
[English]
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 109, I
am pleased to table in both official languages the government's
response to the ninth report of the Standing Committee on
Agriculture and Agri-Food entitled ``Dismantling the Crow:
Curbing the Impacts'', which was tabled in this House on June 22,
1995.
* * *
[
Translation]
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I have the honour to
table, in both official languages, the government's response to the
15th report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts
concerning the Atlantic Freight Assistance Program.
* * *
[
English]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I am pleased to table in both
official languages the first ever annual report to Parliament entitled
``Strengthening Government Review''. This is in keeping with the
commitment made by the government in its response to the sixth
report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, which I will
speak to shortly.
* * *
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (President of the Treasury Board
and Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to present my report on strengthening government
review.
[Translation]
This document is our way of delivering on a promise.
[English]
Specifically, it is delivering on our promise to address some of the
concerns expressed about review in the sixth report of the House of
Commons Standing Committee on Public Accounts.
In a larger sense this document is also part of our effort to fulfil
the government's election promise to Canadians. We told them that
we would make government more efficient, that we would make it
more affordable. We also promised we would make it more
accountable.
To get government right, we need to know what works and what
does not work. Feedback in the form of reviews, evaluations and
audits is the best way for the government to learn and to improve.
As well, regular reviews are an excellent opportunity to remind our
employees of what the public service is all about: delivering
quality service to the public and doing our best with the resources
that are available.
(1205)
Canadians want to know how their tax money is spent. They
want to be assured they are getting value for those tax dollars. As
the people's elected representatives, we have a right to an
accounting on those expenditures. Through the public accounts
committee we have been told we need timely, relevant and useful
feedback on the effects of government policies and programs.
As the auditor general pointed out in his 1993 report, the
government's feedback system does not always work as it should.
This is why we are implementing many initiatives for things like
quality management, a better expenditure management system, a
modernized financial information system, a smarter use of modern
information technology and of course with this report today, a
strengthening of government review of its programs and services.
The government-wide program review process is bringing many
significant changes to the way we govern. It is more than just a
short term tune-up. Our research shows that those changes are
making a real difference to the way we manage the public service.
We are working to create a new management culture, one that is
results oriented and one that is client focused.
Results oriented management means defining the results the
government seeks to achieve in its programs. It means giving
managers the resources and guidance they need to achieve those
results. It means performance measurements, measuring and
demonstrating actual achievements. It means ultimately finding a
way to share what we learn with each other in the government and
also with the public.
This report is our way of documenting these changes. It is the
product of a thorough investigation. We consulted many different
groups, both internally and externally. Our valued professional
auditors, our evaluators and others in the review community played
a key role in the evolution of this report.
What did we learn from these consultations? Our research
showed that public service employees really do understand the
importance of review.
[Translation]
This is apparent in the extensive amount of review activity
carried out in the departments.
16490
[English]
The Treasury Board is leading the evolution of review in three
key ways. First, we are linking results information with our
business plan process and other forms of decision making. Second,
we are improving our ability to co-ordinate government-wide
reviews. Third, we are enhancing our review and performance
database so that it will be a convenient source of information on
key reviews as well as lessons learned and best practices.
There is still room for improvement. We are committed to do
what it takes to continue down the road this report puts us on.
Administrative structures will be reinforced and results
commitments will be more visible. In helping to provide the
information for evaluation, we also need a better financial
information system. We will continue to find better ways of
measuring and making performance information available to
Parliament.
Finally, we are going to help departments develop better
accountability or control frameworks giving the kind of training
and expertise that is needed. We are going to analyse the
information gaps for issues where more than one department is
involved.
Review is a powerful tool for change. It is integral to delivering
quality services to Canadians. It is vital to the changes under way to
improve our expenditure management system. We intend to
continue our actions to strengthen government review and
evaluation on government programs and services.
(1210)
[Translation]
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the efficiency of
the civil service depends on a close and frequent assessment of all
of the government programs. Departments must ensure that their
programs meet their original objectives. Also, they must ensure
that the various departmental programs produce very good results,
in the best possible way, and that they do no waste the taxpayers'
money.
In his 1993 annual report, the auditor general made an
assessment of the federal government programs which was very
negative. He concluded that not only was the program assessment
process seriously flawed, but also that only a quarter of federal
expenditures had been reviewed between 1985-86 and 1991-92.
For over two years now, the official opposition has been calling
for a comprehensive assessment of all federal programs. Also, for
this assessment to be efficient, it must be transparent, which means
that members of Parliament should be able to take part in it. As you
know, only elected representatives are accountable to the people.
The President of the Treasury Board told us today that, as elected
representatives of the people, we have the right to be well informed
on how the money is spent. But what have we seen since this
government took office?
For example, the so-called program assessment undertaken by
his colleague from Intergovernmental Affairs was done behind
closed doors. At a finance committee hearing, the official
opposition even asked the President of the Treasury Board to
release the studies, especially those on duplication, made in
connection with the program review.
At the time, the President of the Treasury Board referred us to
the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs who refused to release
them on the grounds that they were useful only to the policy
makers. So much for transparency. We have to judge a government
by its actions and results rather than by its rethoric.
I am afraid this new management culture that the President of the
Treasury Board says he wants to put in place clashes with the
policies the present government has been practising since it took
office.
It is all fine and well for the President of the Treasury Board to
preach and to say he wants to improve the federal program review,
but the results will be disappointing as long as parliamentarians are
denied access to the necessary information.
I mentioned duplication of services earlier. To be effective, every
program review process must answer this very simple question:
Who is doing what? Which level of government is best able to deal
with various areas? The federal government said and still says that
jurisdiction must be given to the level of government which is best
able to deal with it. Again, we must ensure this is not only rethoric.
What is the every day reality since the present government took
office? The reality is that the federal government is interfering
increasingly in areas where the jurisdiction and legitimacy of
Quebec and the provinces are absolutely clear. I will give you
examples, passage of Bill C-76 and the issue of manpower training.
With Bill C-76, the federal government has given itself the
powers to unilaterally impose national standards, particularly in the
areas of post-secondary education and welfare, thus increasing
useless duplication.
(1215)
Even though all of Quebec's social and economic stakeholders
agree that the Government of Quebec is the level of government
which is in the best position and which is the most effective to deal
with manpower training, the federal government refuses to
withdraw from this sector with compensation.
A government is judged by its actions. The federal government's
profoundly centralist philosophy prevents it from improving
effectiveness in the public service. Instead of eliminating
duplication and the waste by making a strict assessment-through
an open and transparent process-of all of the federal programs,
the federal
16491
government has once again decided to send the bill to the provinces
and limits its action to tabling yet another report.
[English]
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to respond on behalf of the Reform Party to the minister's
first report on strengthening government review.
It is interesting to note that the first review, which the minister
has said he takes great pride in tabling, is the result of the work
done by the public accounts committee. It tabled a report last year
calling for this review. There were eight specific, strong
recommendations to help the government do its job better. We
know the government is trying. Quite often we give them a failing
grade but at least we see that they are trying.
Looking at the report I noted this. He said: ``What did we learn?
First of all our research showed that public service employees
really do understand the importance of review''. I hope so because
it meant that 30,000 of them were out the door.
During the last election, the Liberals said that they were going to
create jobs, that they were going to create an infrastructure
program and spend $6 billion of borrowed money.
The President of the Treasury Board admitted before the
committee that $6 billion only created 8,000 full time jobs. We
have now found that the government is spending another several
billion dollars to move 30,000 civil servants on to the street and on
to the rolls of UI.
Canadians are going to be out $10 billion and we are also down
about 20,000 jobs at the same time. We need program evaluation to
do things properly. Unfortunately, by looking at the report that was
just tabled-we have not had the opportunity to examine it in
detail-it seems to me that this is the same old review rather than a
proper evaluation of the programs of government, reviews that the
auditor general has said focus primarily on efficiency and tinkering
with the system rather than a full blown evaluation to save money.
Take an example. I am not going to give the government the
credit because it was actually started under the previous
government, when the department of transportation decided to do a
review of the Atlantic freight rates assistance program. This
program had been started around the turn of the century and
codified around the 1920s. This was to subsidize freight being
moved from Atlantic Canada westward into Quebec and Ontario.
By 1993 it was costing us $100 million a year in subsidies. When
an evaluation was done it was found the subsidy was going into the
hands of these poor people called Irvings and McCains and so on
in Atlantic Canada. It was all set up by trucking firms owned by
these large companies inflating the cost and the subsidy they were
collecting. We found out the subsidy was providing no public
policy benefits to the people of Canada, yet we were paying $100
million.
Program evaluation reviews can do the job properly if they are
focused and done well. However, the auditor general tells us that
the government is cutting back on its commitment to reduce $11.8
million, in I think it was in the 1992-93 contracting to look at
evaluation of programs. It cut back $8.5 million, a decline of 28 per
cent while we listened to these wonderful words of the President of
the Treasury Board telling us how reviews are doing a great job.
(1220)
Page 26 of the report is about UI. The minister says: ``Studies
include over 20 projects, assessing many aspects of the UI
program'', which continues to keep people unemployed while we
wait for the Minister of Human Resources Development to bring
down the big review to find out how we can save billions in the
program.
An hon. member: And it is coming in this lifetime.
Mr. Williams: Program evaluation can do very great wonders to
the deficits of the country if it looks at four fundamental elements.
First, is the program still relevant? Has the focus changed over the
years or should the focus be changed? Second, does the program
meet the relevant need which has been identified in society? Third,
is it being delivered efficiently? The fourth element is as important
as any of them. Is there a better way of spending our money to
achieve the same results more efficiently and ensuring that the need
is served?
I am glad to see that the President of the Treasury Board has
tabled his first report. Perhaps it is a new beginning. It is certainly a
small beginning. I have to compliment him on starting down the
road. I only hope he is going to move aggressively and sincerely to
save taxpayers a great deal of money.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to present the 98th Report of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, which will allow our
national anthem to be heard every Wednesday in the House. If the
House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in this report
later this day.
16492
[English]
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the 99th report of the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the
selection of votable items in accordance with Standing Order 92.
This report is deemed adopted on presentation.
Mr. Speaker, I also have the honour to present the 100th report of
the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs,
regarding Standing Order 107, which permits associate members
for the liaison committee.
If the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in
this 100th report later this day.
Mr. Speaker, I think you will find unanimous consent that the
following motion be put to the House without debate or
amendment. I move that the 98th report of the Standing Committee
on Procedure and House Affairs, presented to the House earlier this
day, be concurred in.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The House has heard the
terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to.)
[Translation]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
with the leave of the House, I move, seconded by the hon. member
for St.Paul's, that the 100th report of the Standing Committe on
Procedure and House Affairs, tabled in the House earlier today, be
concurred in.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to.)
* * *
(1225)
[English]
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (Parliamentary Secretary to
President of the Treasury Board, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I wish to
present a petition signed by a group of Canadians with respect to
the harmful effects of tobacco.
The petitioners point out that tobacco use is clearly linked to
many illnesses and should therefore, according to them, rightly be
termed a hazardous product.
Mr. Robert D. Nault (Kenora-Rainy River, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the honour to
present some 600 signatures on a number of petitions dealing with
the Keep Mining in Canada campaign. One of the most important
issues in Canada is the one of mining. It is a cornerstone for the
betterment of Canada.
The petitioners ask the government to look at overlapping
regulations and the investment climate. They hope that in reducing
the overlap they can get the mining industry back to the number
one position it held in the past.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the following questions will be answered today: Questions Nos 210
and 230.
[Text]
Question No. 210-Mr. Riis:
In 1994 and 1995, did the government provide any funding or financial
support for any festivals or events which included the names ``Du Maurier'',
``Players'', ``Craven A'', ``Export'', ``Matinee'', ``Benson and Hedges'',
``Rothmans'', and if so, what was the location and amount of funding or support
for each such event?
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): To the best
knowledge of the government, the following departments and
agency have provided funding to events which included the name
of a cigarette company:
![](/web/20061117183537im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/tables/nen2595x01_r0.gif)
To the best of their knowledge, seventeen other departments,
agencies and crown corporations had no information on this
subject.
Question No. 230-Mr. Blaikie:
What has been the total cost of developing, operating and marketing AECL's
slowpoke energy system project from its inception until the present time?
16493
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.):
The total cost of developing, operating and marketing AECL's
slowpoke energy system project from its inception until the
present time is $45.1 million.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
if Question No 101 could be made an order for return, that return
would be tabled immediately.
[Text]
Question No. 101-Mr. Breitkreuz:
For each federal riding, what has been the total amount of financial assistance
provided by the department of Western Economic Diversification from October
25, 1993, to date?
Return tabled.
[English]
Mr. Milliken: I ask that the remaining questions stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Shall the remaining
questions stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Before proceeding to Orders
of the Day, I wish to inform the House that pursuant to Standing
Order 33, because of the ministerial statement, government orders
will be extended by 18 minutes.
Again, before proceeding, I have a point of order from the hon.
member for Fraser Valley West.
* * *
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
earlier today in question period the Minister of Public Works and
Government Services indicated he would be pleased to table a
document. I request he do that for our information.
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am sorry. The minister obviously was called away following
question period and forgot to table the document.
He indicated his willingness to do so. I would be happy, on
behalf of the hon. member for Fraser Valley West, to raise the
matter with the minister and see if the document cannot be tabled
either later this day or on Monday. I hope that is satisfactory with
him.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I wish to thank the
parliamentary secretary for his co-operation in this matter and I am
sure that the matter will be resolved in due course.
_____________________________________________
16493
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-96,
an act to establish the Department of Human Resources
Development and to amend and repeal certain related acts, be read
the second time and referred to a committee; and of the
amendment.
Mrs. Sharon Hayes (Port Moody-Coquitlam, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to speak on Bill C-96, an act to establish the
Department of Human Resources Development and to amend and
repeal certain related acts.
Last week in my office I received a status of women document
that prompts me to speak to this bill today. That document was a
prepared camera ready piece to be used as an insert in householders
from members of Parliament across Canada.
It describes Canada's role at the fourth UN conference on
women to an unsuspecting public. It described the government as
recognizing the importance of strengthening the family. Nothing
could be further from the truth.
The Department of Human Resources Development is one of 24
federal departments included in the status of women plans. I will
read from the document:
In preparing for the Conference-
-that is the fourth UN conference on women-
-Canada developed its own national action plan for gender equality ``Setting
the Stage for the Next Century: the Federal Plan for Gender Equality,''
published in August, is a framework for federal action to advance women's
equality in Canada to the year 2000''.
This federal plan for gender equality outlines eight lofty
sounding objectives. Today I would like to touch on five of the
eight objectives to which the Department of Human Resources
Development has committed.
The first is to implement gender based analysis throughout
federal departments and agencies. The second is to improve
women's economic autonomy and well-being. Sixth, incorporate
women's perspective in governance. Seventh, promote and support
global gender equality and, eighth, advance gender equality for
employees of federal departments and agencies.
16494
(1230)
Human Resources Development before and after the
reorganization this formalizes agreed along with other federal
departments to implement this gender based analysis. What is
gender based analysis? What is the definition offered by the
government in its own publication? According to the federal plan:
A gender based approach ensures that the development, analysis and
implementation of legislation and policies are undertaken with an appreciation
of gender differences. It also acknowledges that some women may be
disadvantaged even further because of their race, colour, sexual orientation,
social economic position, region, ability level or age.
Notice the subtle reference to sexual orientation in this list. This
word, until recently with the passage of Bill C-41, did not exist in
federal legislation. Even now the recognition of sexual orientation
is not yet in our Canadian Human Rights Act. With this
government document, however, it is now official policy in every
government department, courtesy of the Status of Women and not
of Parliament.
It is the ambiguous concept of gender I should like to give close
attention to today. The dictionary definition of gender refers to a
person's sex. In contrast to this, according to the federal plan:
Gender refers not to men or women, but to the relationship between them and
to the ways in which the roles of women and men, girls and boys, are socially
constructed.
The document goes on to expand on the concept of gender
equality. To achieve gender equality, the social arrangements that
govern the relationship between men and women will have to
change to give equal value to the different roles they play as
parents, as workers, and so on and so forth.
The word parent does occur here. Does this mean that the
importance of parent and family is being recognized? Has the
traditional family or family been deemed to be worthy of the
government's attention? If we go further in the document we
realize that this is not the case. It goes on to say such statements as:
Equality for all women will come about only as these attitudes embedded in
the workplace, education institutes and family are challenged and begin to
change.
Another example of this policy duplicity is the following:
Unequal participation and progress in paid work further undermines a
woman's ability to achieve and sustain personal autonomy throughout her life.
This statement reflects the bias that it is only paid work that
defines a woman's ability, value and worth in society. This
illustrates the government's contempt for home and family
relationships.
Participation in the workplace defines ability, value and worth
according to this Liberal government document. With this bias it is
not only family structures that become criticized under the
microscope of their gender equality, but such things as religion,
customs and traditional practices. The free choice or preference of
individuals is replaced by this government imposed priority of
workforce participation.
Gender equality is also based upon the assumption of attaining
equal outcomes, as noted in the federal plan:
Attaining gender equality is predicated on the achievement of equal
outcomes for both men and women.
That is brought about not only by equal treatment but by
``positive actions''. Positive actions imply government
intervention. This document blatantly states that treating women
and men identically will not ensure equal outcomes. Thus the
philosophy of gender equality leads to the policy of employment
equity and affirmative action from the workplace right through to
the kitchens of our national homes. This policy has been rejected
outright by Canadians and certainly by my constituents in Port
Moody-Coquitlam.
A recent survey I conducted of my constituents indicated that
some 87 per cent believe that merit and merit alone should be the
sole criteria for hiring and promotion. They have rejected
employment equity and affirmative action, certainly in the
workplace and most certainly in the home.
(1235)
The policy or practice of employment equity is a fundamental
insult to the abilities of women. It is a fundamental insult to me.
The government cannot and should not mandate equal outcome in
workplace participation between the sexes, between men and
women. That should not be its role. Rather, the government should
seek to encourage equality of opportunity and freedom of choice.
Individuals should be free to decide how they wish to participate,
both inside and outside the home.
The government obviously has no respect for the value of
nurturing or sustaining families. The government does not take into
account nor does it respect that women may have other alternatives
and priorities in life, may wish to make choices other than
government choices, and may wish to invest their time and efforts
in their families. Therefore it was to my great surprise to read the
status of women document which states that they recognize the
importance of the family and the importance of strengthening it.
The minister pays only lip service to the needs and priorities of
Canadian families while giving full service to radical feminists
through such documents as the gender equality plan and the Beijing
platform for action. It should be noted that neither the platform for
action nor the federal plan for gender equality has been presented
to the House. We have not seen a shred of those documents in this
place for discussion. We have not been able to scrutinize what is in
them, as we deserve to do. The government has legislated in 24
16495
federal departments, including human resources, without this
legislature.
Where is the accountability in our system of government? The
government, according to its notorious red book, stated that ``open
government would be the watchword of the Liberal government
program''. Why has not the government brought this agenda to the
public's attention? Yet the two documents to which I referred, one
being domestic and the other an international UN agreement, will
have wide-ranging impact upon our legislation, our public policy,
our society and our families.
We will recall last month the passage of Bill C-64, a monument
to employment equity in all federal departments. It is no
coincidence that this is in the Beijing document.
Human resources development is a main player in the realization
of the Liberal government's gender based analysis agenda. It
intends at any moment to interfere in the free choice of Canadian
families by introducing a national day care program. It intends to
add a further tax burden to all Canadians with this program in its
desire to become a nanny state.
We thought last year that the power of the radical women's lobby
was defunded and disempowered with the removal of the National
Advisory Council on the Status of Women. The Human Resources
Development Department has committed to continued and added
support for and influence from gender equity activists through the
platform for action. This department among many others has
committed to the funding and advice of gender feminist NGO
groups to implement their gender equality objectives.
We find that even the promotion and support of global gender
equality is one of the mandates of the new human resources
development. It applied to the department's funding radical
feminists going to Beijing. It will apply to ongoing NAFTA labour
agreements. Its mandate even applies to other international
activities.
Nothing is free or even cheap in federal government. What will
the new priority cost this department or other departments? In lean
economic times should the limited resources and sadly needed
resources of a human resources development department be used to
realize the unwanted agenda of a powerful special interest group, or
should its limited resources apply to the needs of real Canadians?
Instead of debating substantive and controversial policy issues
such as the gender based employment equity contained in the
platform for action and the federal plan for gender equality, we are
debating a pro forma bill, Bill C-96, which actually offers nothing
new, nothing fresh, nothing bold enough to reform this department
or, more important, to reform federal-provincial relations. While
RD is enacting fundamental, costly, revolutionizing social policy
behind the scenes, Bill C-96 does not even have a royal
recommendation attached to it.
(1240)
I am sure however that the cost of implementing the plan for
gender equality and the platform for action will be considerable not
only in this department but in every department across government.
This is an issue that I intend to pursue. This cost will not only be in
dollars but it will be in the weakened viability of our most precious
societal institutions, and one such institution is our families.
The government's non-legislative agenda is of great concern to
me. This non-legislative agenda permeates every nook and cranny
of every federal department at this point in time.
Earlier the minister was saying that their policies affect the
social fabric of the country. They certainly do. This one in
particular strikes the very centre of our social fabric. The general
secretary to the Beijing conference, Gertrude Mongella, declared at
the opening ceremony of that conference that ``all evidence points
to a social revolution in the making''.
The two documents I have mentioned, the ones going into this
department and others, will have a profound effect on our
governments, our laws, our society and our families. What Bill
C-96 shuffles around on the surface and what we are talking about
today actually belie a whirlpool of change underneath.
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I always enjoy listening to the hon. member's speech, but
sometimes I find that members of the Reform Party miss some
major points in legislation. I will quickly review for the hon.
member the major objectives of the legislation and what the
legislation allows the federal government to continue doing.
Essentially it does a few things. It draws together portions of the
former departments of employment and immigration, health and
welfare, the secretary of state, and labour. The legislation will also
allow the Government of Canada to continue improving
employment programs and services for Canadians and building on
what I consider to be significant achievements over the past two
years.
I should like to list some of those. We enacted some major
changes to make student loans more accessible, flexible and
sustainable, helping more than 300,000 students this year alone.
The hon. member from the Bloc will know that because of the
flexible federalism that exists in the country there is an opting out
provision for the province of Quebec which allows the province of
Quebec to administer its own Canada student loans program.
16496
For the very first time the federal government moved to
establish a special opportunities grant for individuals, like high
need, part time students, women pursuing doctoral studies and
disabled students. Through this department we have also created
youth internship programs that have led to real jobs for some
27,000 young Canadians, which is 20 per cent more than the red
book commitment.
We have approximately 130 Youth Service Canada projects
across the country that give young people the opportunity to serve
their community and to obtain valuable work experience.
(1245 )
Through effective partnerships with major industries and
through the establishment of sectoral councils the government has
been able to generate, for every federal dollar, $1.50 from the
private sector because it believes the way to go in the new economy
is through effective partnerships. We also have joint
federal-provincial initiatives helping some 60,000 single mothers,
older workers, aboriginals, young people get the new skills and
new jobs.
Approximately $111 million has been spent on older workers.
The government has invested in a program for older workers over
the past three years to help displaced workers deal with the new
dynamic configuration occurring in the Canadian economy.
The government has also done something that I believe is
extremely important. In order to modernize the economy you must
modernize the way government delivers its services. Services have
been integrated and decentralized, moving from 450 to 750 points
of service reaching smaller communities 24 hours a day.
We talk about family. We talk about our seniors. We talk about
young people. We talk about providing all Canadians-we are part
of the Canadian family-with better services. There are four times
as many offices where seniors can get in-person service. That is a
fantastic accomplishment.
The best technology is used to speed up service for UI.
Processing time has been cut by two days. OAS claims have been
cut from eight days to one-half day. We are focusing on
employment programs that work like the self-employment
assistance program from which 34,000 Canadians have benefited.
They have created a job for themselves but more important, they
have also created jobs for others. On its own this program has
created 68,000 jobs.
The point I am making to the hon. member is if we are talking
about the Canadian family, i.e. everyone who resides within this
country, it is crystal clear the government has moved in a positive
direction. I hope that once in a while members of the opposition
would get up on their feet and applaud these excellent initiatives by
the Liberal government.
Mrs. Hayes: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if that was a question or
a comment.
I enjoy the opportunity to answer my colleague's presentation.
He talks about the Canadian family. I am talking about Canadian
families, the root of our society.
I would like to reflect on what has happened in the last 20 years
to Canadian families. In that time, especially in the last five years,
youth violence has more than doubled. Real income, the amount of
money a family has to support itself with, has dropped by some 6.5
per cent in the last five or six years because of taxation, because of
government overspending and because of fiscal policies that are
putting tremendous pressures on the people that are trying to hold
this nation together.
Consider suicide rates. We have the third highest suicide rate
among male youth in the world. The divorce rate has increased 10
times in the last 35 years and we are shuffling the chairs around on
the deck saying: ``We'll spend more money''.
What are the priorities of Canadians? Is it their priority to find
out what government can do or what they can do in job creation?
We want to put the tools in the hands of Canadians so they can
create the jobs. It is not what government can do, it is what
Canadians can do. Government priorities should not be prompted
by special interest groups, but what Canadian priorities are.
The Canadian priorities are that their families be strengthened
and that they be given the instruments to create their own future.
That is exactly what the government's fiscal policies, justice
policies and social policies are stripping away from those families.
I put that to the hon. member who made the comments.
(1250)
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I have a brief comment to make. I want to congratulate the
member for the relevance of the example she gave with regard to
the family. Indeed we can see how the government is giving itself a
lot of leeway in connection with policies that it is presenting abroad
as being Canadian without having them validated in the House or
even commented on.
Based on this example, we have good reason to question the
appropriateness of giving the federal government the responsibility
it wants to give itself in clause 20 of the bill, for example, which
says: ``-the Minister may enter into agreements with a province or
group of provinces, agencies of provinces, financial institutions
and such other persons or bodies as the Minister considers
appropriate''.
If this clause is left unchanged, and this is the question I will put
the member, it means that the federal government can go against
policies put in place by the provinces. Family policy is an
16497
interesting example because choices in this regard may differ
across Canada.
If clause 20 is left unchanged, it allows the federal government
to interfere in areas under provincial jurisdiction, in areas where
policies already exist. Does the member not agree that we should at
least amend this clause by adding to it that, when agreements are
signed with public bodies, financial institutions or any other
person, it be done in accordance with priorities established by the
provinces? I would like to hear the member's opinion on this
subject.
[English]
Mrs. Hayes: Mr. Speaker, certainly as a Reformer and as a
supporter of the accountability of programs being in the hands of
those closest to the people who have to put the programs in place, I
support the premise that the control of programs and decisions that
are made be as close to the people as possible.
I must add at the same time that every part of our nation should
have the same input into what those decisions are. Certainly
provinces can be deemed equal in the administration of the
programs. The federal government's participation in those
programs should be minimized as much as possible while
maintaining the integrity and protection of Canadians across the
system. The actual delivery of programs should be in provincial
hands in an equal fashion from coast to coast.
[Translation]
Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Carleton-Gloucester, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-96,
the act to establish the Department of Human Resources
Development.
The main object of this bill is to lend unified legal status to the
department, enabling it to continue to assist Canadians in getting
back to work. This is a housekeeping bill and is not intended to
implement any major reforms. It does not call for any new
organizational changes or new expenditures, and does not affect
federal-provincial relations.
[English]
Bill C-96 draws together and consolidates the legislative
foundation of the new Department of Human Resources
Development. It does not add anything new or subtract from the
foundation. It merely puts everything in one place. That in itself is
important. It is plain common sense. For administrative reasons
alone, it is far more efficient to have a single legislative basis for
the department. However, there is more to this than mere
administrative convenience.
When the government launched the department under the name
of human resources development, it set the stage for a real change
not just in name but in direction, in the way Human Resources
Development Canada serves Canadians.
Over the past two years, HRDC has been changing, innovating
and adapting to the realities of today's economy and today's labour
market. It is modernizing the way it does business, the way it
delivers the services Canadians need, the way it works for
Canadians in the changing world. For the nine million Canadians
who come to HRDC for help this is why Bill C-96 is so important.
The bill provides the solid foundation the department needs to keep
moving forward.
(1255)
It is important to Canada's seniors. Last year the department
completed the first year in a three-year income security program
redesign project. Phase 2 is already well under way. The
department is streamlining rules and procedures, developing the
best technology available. The end result will be a fully
modernized, efficient network for delivering services to clients of
the old age security and Canada pension plan programs.
[Translation]
Once fully implemented, the new system will save taxpayers up
to $100 million yearly in operating costs. Moreover, it will also
provide faster service to seniors, the people who really depend on
these programs for their security. For their sakes, let us ensure that
the bill stays on track and is passed as quickly as possible.
Income security program redesign is only the start. As the
minister has already announced in the House, Human Resources
Development Canada has undertaken a complete review of its
service delivery network, with a view to making it decentralized,
integrated, user friendly and flexible. It will serve a greater number
of Canadians everywhere in the country better than before. In
reality, because of the new network, the number of departmental
service points will be increased from 450 to 700 within three years.
These will include 300 Human Resources Development Canada
centres, which will provide quality one-on-one counselling to
clients; self-serve mechanisms such as telephone, interactive
television and computer services, which will broaden access to
HRDC services; up to 400 electronic kiosks, which means
self-serve terminals will be available in communities throughout
the country.
[English]
The department is already creating the most advanced, efficient
service delivery network in the federal government. Work on
developing new technologies for this new network is well
advanced, with things like a national on-line labour market
information system incorporating an electronic job search bulletin
board. The system will help people do their own matching between
their skills and the jobs available anywhere in Canada.
Pilot testing a new system called TELEDEC lets unemployment
insurance claimants submit their bi-weekly report over a touchtone
16498
telephone instead of by mail or in person. TELEDEC allows
people to get their cheques two days faster.
TELE-APP, a new system being tested in partnership with NBTel
allows people who have collected UI in the last 52 weeks to reapply
using a touchtone phone.
APPLI-SYS, a touch screen computer program helps people
apply for UI benefits more quickly.
Pilot testing document imaging begins the movement toward
paperless claim processing.
Early results from these new systems are promising. They are
just the first of a range of technologies from the Internet
application to software training packages that HRDC will explore
to provide faster, more efficient service.
We are bringing service delivery into the 21st century. In the
process we are empowering more Canadians to help themselves.
[Translation]
One of the main objectives of the new service delivery network
is to facilitate decentralization of the entire structure of
departmental operations, to put into place programs and services
within the community, to move decision making centres as close to
the client as possible, and to get those most affected by programs
and services actively involved in them.
(1300)
For instance, the network will include community-based
mechanisms which will involve input from provincial governments
and business, municipalities and community groups, working as
partners with Human Resources Development Canada.
With the human resources investment fund, we integrate these
partnerships with our programs and services. Partnerships work, as
seen from what has been achieved by sector councils that bring
together entire industries and promote strategic initiatives with the
provinces and co-operation with community groups across the
country.
Take one of the youth internship projects, in Winnipeg, where 45
young people go to work every morning and go to school every
afternoon. They acquire practical experience while taking courses
that are relevant to that experience, and they are guaranteed a job
when they finish the course.
[English]
What is really interesting about this project is that five major
private sector firms in Winnipeg, for example, are not only taking
part, they are taking the lead enthusiastically. It is not a case of
government and business working on separate tracks; it is a case of
partnership in action. And this year alone there will be 25,000
young interns in similar projects across the country.
That is where the department is headed. It is a new direction for
Human Resources Development Canada and it is getting real
concrete results for Canadians, for seniors, for young men and
women, for people working hard to develop new skills for a new
economy. It is getting results for the single mother, who for the first
time can now get a grant to help care for her children while she
goes to school. It is getting results for the older worker who finds a
lifetime job taken over by technology but now has a real
opportunity to prepare for new work and find a new job. That is
why this bill is important.
Over the past few years the transitional arrangements put in
place to create the new Department of Human Resources
Development have worked well. They have helped to put HRDC
and our labour market and social programs on a new course. It is up
to us to make sure the department can continue on that course. It is
up to us to ensure the department moves forward and does so with a
solid foundation. Bill C-96 provides that foundation. We need to
pass the bill and get on with the work of serving Canadians.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I was particularly surprised the hon. member's remarks at
the start of his speech, when he said the bill served to consolidate
legislation and that it had no effect on federal provincial relations.
I would like to ask the member why, then, the Quebec minister of
employment made the following statement: ``Bill C-96 flies in the
face of the consensus in Quebec that the federal government should
get completely out of labour matters and give the budgets involved
back to Quebec''.
I would also like the minister to tell us why the Société
québécoise de la main-d'oeuvre passed a unanimous resolution in
favour of the bill's withdrawal, stating that Quebec should have
sole responsibility for workforce adaptation policies and
occupational training within its borders and should therefore have
the funds the federal government allocates to these programs in
Quebec.
I would also like the member to tell us why Ghislain Dufour, the
spokesperson for the Conseil du patronat du Québec, known in
Quebec for his federalist stance, said the same thing in the papers
yesterday. According to him, if the federal government really
wants to show its good faith in wanting the sort of change Quebec
was seeking in the referendum, could it not, in this sector, at least
have the decency as a federal government to correct its bill so the
provinces could withdraw from its application, should they
consider it relevant to do so, so that, in the end, the consensus in
Quebec echoed by union federations, the Conseil du patronat, the
party in power and the opposition may extend to all Quebecers?
Why does the government not decide to give Quebec an
opportunity to exercise its jurisdiction over manpower? Have the
promises of
16499
change made prior to October 30 already disappeared in a puff of
smoke?
(1305)
Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Carleton-Gloucester, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, here again we have a Bloc member, a separatist member,
who is babbling away in true separatist fashion, in a parochial
manner, focusing exclusively and constantly on Quebec.
He should be talking about Canada as a whole, and considering
how we can advance the cause of young people, single mothers,
single parent families, and senior citizens. We are debating a bill
providing the federal government with a structure to maintain and
develop partnerships with the provinces and territories,
management, labour, community groups and those involved in
education, in order to reach common social and economic goals.
We are talking about giving young Quebecers, since he is only
interested in Quebec, the opportunity to find out, via computers in
their own area or community, if there are jobs outside their own
parish, town, or province. They are given access to the labour
market anywhere in Canada, and mobility throughout the country.
Mr. Crête: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member does not want to
answer the question for a bad separatist member, could he answer
Ghislain Dufour, spokesperson for the Conseil du patronat du
Québec, a recognized federalist, and Gérald Ponton, president of
the Association des manufacturiers du Québec, who is not
identified with the sovereignist camp either? Let the member reply
to those people if he will not give an answer here, to the Bloc
Quebecois, or to the Quebec government. Let him reply to the
federalist Quebecers who unanimously support Quebec's
consensus on the repatriation of jurisdiction in the manpower
sector.
What is the member's answer to those people concerning
Quebec's request that has been there on the table for five years?
Mr. Bellemare: Mr. Speaker, I find it funny that the hon.
member for Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup has finally admitted
that he is a no-good separatist.
Mr. Crête: I did not say ``no-good''.
Mr. Bellemare: I editorialized a bit; he is a separatist. I do not
know if separatist is synonymous with no-good, but many in this
country would say that the separatists are no good as a group but
not necessarily as individuals.
Do you think for a minute that I will answer questions from Bloc
members, from people who have led the province of Quebec in all
kinds of directions, into a muddle, who drafted a referendum
question that got everyone confused? Thirty per cent of those who
voted yes thought they were voting for some kind of association
and not for separation.
Bloc members, Quebec separatists and PQ members
manipulated referendum scrutineers, telling them to reject ballots
marked with an X that was too dark or not dark enough. There is an
appalling number-this is unprecedented in Canadian
history-except perhaps when Maurice Duplessis was in power.
Maurice Duplessis may have come back as a Bloc member. During
the referendum, these blockheads blocked some people's access to
the polling stations.
If they did not like someone's face, colour or language, they
stopped and harassed them to prevent them from voting. Then,
after those Canadians living in Quebec managed to cast their votes,
they would check to see if their X was a little crooked. Those with
shaking hands were unfortunate because their votes did not count. I
have never seen something as outrageous as the counting of the
votes on the night of the referendum.
If you think I will answer quotes from a separatist-First of all, I
would question the accuracy of his quotes and, second, I will not
waste my time answering Bloc members.
(1310)
Mr. André Caron (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
to take part in this debate on Bill C-96, to restructure the
Department of Human Resources Development. I have been
following the debate with interest ever since the minister made his
presentation yesterday. I listened to the minister and his
parliamentary secretary. I also listened to some speeches made by
government members and the various questions that were asked,
including the one put by our colleague from Parkdale-High Park.
I draw from all of this a vision of Canada. I am not one to
impugn motives right off the bat. I noticed that speeches were high
quality, and a number of general principles have emerged. Of
course, other remarks, and those made by the previous speaker are
perhaps an example of this, remind us that mediocrity is to be
found everywhere, even in the House of Commons.
I would like to look back over the debate, because, as I listened, I
could perceive two visions: the standard Liberal vision and the
Bloc Quebecois vision. I will not deal with what my hon.
colleagues from the Reform Party said, but I think that basic issues
were raised by the Liberals that need to be pointed out and set in the
context of this debate.
Basically, we are looking at the same mountain, except from
different points of view. I think that the Minister of Human
Resources Development was sincere in his presentation. What did
this presentation contain? First, he described a vision of Canada,
along with the federal government's responsibilities according to
that vision.
I understood the minister to say that the federal government feels
it has responsibilities regarding the development of human
resources everywhere in Canada. That sector includes issues
related to manpower, employment, education, daycare and, in fact,
any-
16500
thing that directly concerns individuals, such as their families, their
training, their education and their children.
The minister told us that this bill merely seeks to provide a
legislative framework for what is already being done in Canada,
partly through the federal government's spending power, but also
under the laws passed by this Parliament. I have seen, in my riding,
some initiatives taken by the Department of Human Resources
Development. I must say that, before coming here, I was not very
familiar with the Canadian realities related to that department. I
knew that there was an employment centre. I also knew that the
federal government was involved in various ways, and I saw it take
action.
I have no criticism of the way department officials take action.
They implement the programs. They do so with the best of
intentions and they also try to do it efficiently. Just think of
programs such as Article 25, the employability development
program, and also programs such as the youth service, or the access
to work program for women, which is designed to help women who
do not get UI or welfare benefits find work.
(1315)
These programs reflect good intentions, as well as a clear desire
to do the utmost. Through its initiatives, the department seeks to
reach out to people in their everyday lives. It reaches out to
individuals and community groups, and it signs agreements with
municipalities. All this is currently taking place. It is being done
and the bill before us seeks to provide a legislative framework for
all these initiatives.
Clause 6 clearly states that the minister's powers apply
anywhere in Canada. It says:
The powers, duties and functions of the Minister extend to and include all
matters over which Parliament has jurisdiction relating to the development of
the human resources of Canada-
That provision is extremely wide in scope. As for clause 20, it
provides that:
-the Minister may enter into agreements with a province or group of
provinces, agencies of provinces, financial institutions and such other persons
or bodies as the Minister considers appropriate.
In other words, given the provisions of this bill, the minister may
enter into agreements with anyone, so as to get involved in the
education, manpower and employment sectors.
If we lived in a unitarian state, that might be a solution. Although
Canada is a very big country, it has a rather large population and it
could be said that, because of regional characteristics, it may be
good to have some degree of decentralization so that local needs
are taken into account by the minister.
But we are not in a unitarian country although a number of
constitutional experts, considering the evolution of Canada, are not
willing to say that we are in a federation, let alone in a
confederation. But, in a federation, there are various levels of
government and, ordinarily, these levels of government are
sovereign in their jurisdiction. Canada is made up of provinces
which, if we take a look at the Constitution, are supposed to have
jurisdiction over education, training, over all the areas that have to
do with Canadians as individuals, the federal government having
kept, in 1867, jurisdiction over external trade, defence and the
economy in general.
If we examine the bill and the objectives of the bill, we realize
that this legislation which is now before Parliament will give a
federal minister the right to interfere in areas under provincial
jurisdiction. It is shocking. People of my race have found this
shocking for years-and I use the word race in the sense of nation,
as Mr. Duplessis did, since, moments ago, the member for
Carleton-Gloucester reminded us of Maurice Duplessis. My
people have always been shocked by these ways of doing things.
For us, it is not only a question of what we could call a
constitutional orthodoxy, according to which the federal
government should have no say in provincial jurisdictions, but
there is also an element of efficiency because in Quebec-other
provinces may do what they want in this regard-there has been a
large consensus for years now. My colleagues talked about it,
especially the hon. member for Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup,
who raises the issue every time he has the floor. That consensus is
that, for reason of efficiency, all the issues of professional training,
manpower and employment must be Quebec's exclusive
jurisdiction.
I think that is self evident. I do not want to repeat what has
already been said by other Bloc speakers, but nonetheless, I want to
relate a personal experience. A few years ago, I was a career
counsellor in the professional training centre in Jonquière, which is
the biggest training centre in the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean
region. At the time, we provided training in many areas:
mechanics, plumbing, electricity, and so on. Every year we trained
a group of students in industrial mechanics.
(1320)
At one point, a study had concluded that industrial mechanics
was a trade with a future.
What happened? Our school board kept offering a course in
industrial mechanics to a group of about 20 students. The
Government of Quebec, willing to provide training to social
assistance recipients, commissioned the school board to train
people in industrial mechanics-which made two groups-and the
federal government also commissioned the school board to train
two other groups in industrial mechanics.
16501
Whereas every year we used to have one group of students in
industrial mechanics, that year we had four groups. The school
board, the Government of Quebec and the federal government did
not consult with each other, everybody being busy with their own
little policies.
What happened? At the end of the year, instead of 20 people
applying for a job, they were about 80. As a result, most of them
did not find a job, which killed the industrial mechanics option in
the area for several years.
It is sad to see that people genuinely wanting to go back to the
labour market were offered training for what was basically a dead
end trade, not because studies promising jobs in that field were
badly done, but because there had not been any consultation
between the federal and provincial governments and the school
board. That is what we want to avoid in Quebec.
In Quebec, we want to have a full employment policy, the same
type of policy they have in Austria, in some Scandinavian countries
or even in Germany. Those full employment policies usually
produce unemployment rates of about 6 or 7 per cent, instead of the
12 or 13 per cent rates we have in Quebec and instead of the 15 or
16 per cent rates we have in my area, Jonquière, or in the
Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean area.
That is what we want to do, but to do so, we need tools. We need
co-ordination, but with the present practices in Canada, there is no
co-ordination.
This is why everyone in Quebec, whether the Quebec Liberal
Party, the Conseil du patronat du Québec, or central labour
bodies-with the exception of the provincial wing of the Liberal
Party of Canada-is calling for the return of powers regarding
manpower training and employment policies to Quebec so that the
province can set policies to ensure that people will get useful
training, taking the present job market into consideration, and will
not be the victims of jurisdictional disputes or arguments between
public servants.
For four or five years now, the Government of Quebec, whether
Liberal or Parti Quebecois, all governments of Quebec have been
calling for training to be made the responsibility of the government
of Quebec.
And what do we see this morning in the House? Bill C-96, which
says exactly the opposite, which says that the co-ordination will not
be done by the Government of Quebec. This bill tells us that the
minister will be entitled, for each community, municipality or
province, as he wishes, to present programs, to suggest actions to
community groups in order for them to create jobs or to propose the
hiring of trainees to employers.
This maintains the present policy, which is not effective. Despite
all the good will, despite the relative success of some federal or
provincial programs, we realize that we do not have the expected
results when we take into account all the money invested and all the
skills called up in both the federal and provincial public services.
Why is that? It is not due to ill will or lack of skill; it is simply a
matter of organization. Things are poorly organized, and in order to
properly organize manpower training, to properly organize
employment policies, there must be only one decision maker.
In Quebec, past and present governments, Liberal and PQ alike,
unions and business owners' associations, everybody says
unanimously that, considering the circumstances, considering the
history, considering the needs, considering what is in place right
now, it is the Government of Quebec that should have the
responsibility for co-ordinating all these policies so that we can one
day train our people properly and have a full employment policy
that makes sense.
(1325)
The bill before us means exactly the opposite. This bill says no.
The consensus in Quebec is totally useless because a minister in
Ottawa, the Minister of Human Resources Development, will have
the power to develop programs and enter into agreements with
provinces, municipalities, community groups, and individuals,
implementing these programs in order to help Canadians get better
training and better jobs.
By saying ``to develop programs'', we are referring to money,
because, in the end, it is always a matter of money. In fact, there is
always a relation between any given program and the funds
allocated to it by the Minister of Finance. So, a proposal is being
made to Canadians, even in my riding, where people voted-one
mentioned that the sovereignists were defeated in the referendum,
but it fact they received almost 50 per cent, or 49.4 per cent. In my
riding, however, it was 71 per cent for Quebec's sovereignty. You
cannot ignore 71 per cent of the population. My riding came third
in Quebec, after the riding of my colleague for Charlevoix and the
riding of my leader, the Leader of the Opposition. This is no mean
feat.
In a sovereignist region like ours, people are still getting
involved in the process, so they keep asking Quebec to fund certain
programs and they request funding under some federal government
programs. People know perfectly well that something must be
done, in Quebec and Canada, as far as training and employment are
concerned.
People are not as partisan as some others, and in any case-I am
not sure this is parliamentary-people are not against the federal
government's involvement, even though they may have very
deep-rooted sovereignist convictions. People are concerned and
ask themselves: Will there be someone, one day, to make a decision
and give us employment policies which are worthwhile?
We do not see any hopeful sign coming from the government
side. We do not see any in the area of manpower and, as we have
16502
seen this week during Question Period, we do not see any hopeful
sign either in the area of constitutional reform.
I have the distinct impression that eventually, when the question
is asked next time, people are going to give the answer that the
Quebec sovereignist movement has been waiting for for so long.
Why? In order to have effective policies and a state which is
efficiently managed, so that its citizens get their money's worth.
Taxpayers want effective programs. It is not by stepping on each
others toes, as we are doing now, that we will get valid manpower
and employment policies.
I hope that the House will support the motion from my colleague
from Mercier and that this bill will be sent into oblivion as quickly
as possible.
[English]
Hon. Roger Simmons (Burin-St. George's, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I want to speak on debate, but I also want to embellish my
fan club member from Simcoe Centre. He does well to applaud
before because he may not applaud after he hears what I have to
say.
After reading the title of the bill, we realize it is just another
piece of legislation, typically dry, typically complicated. It is easy
in that context to lose sight of what the bill is about. Bill C-96,
which I am happy to address for a few minutes, does just one single
thing. It has a very simple and single purpose, and that purpose is
integration.
(1330)
My friend from Crowfoot would understand all about
integration. Any party that can get the member for Simcoe Centre
and the member for Crowfoot at the same caucus table understands
integration, I submit.
[Translation]
I would also like to emphasize to my colleagues in the Bloc that
this bill is about integration, and just that. It will consolidate the
legal powers of the original departments in a single piece of
legislation that is clear and coherent.
This is the only goal of this bill. It does not provide new powers
or establish new programs. It does not add anything to or take
anything away from the powers of the human resources
development department.
This bill is merely an official document that puts the integration
of social programs and labour market programs in Canada on a
sound footing. That is important. But the underlying principle of
this bill is even more important, that is the implementation of an
integrated approach to human resources development in the new
department.
[English]
I recognize that my friend from Mercier has an amendment to
which technically we are speaking right now. That is another
debate. This is really about bringing together a number of functions
that heretofore had been under the umbrella of several departments
of government.
I say to my friend from Port Moody-Coquitlam who spoke a
few minutes ago in this debate that we have to make up our minds
about what we want. I heard critics of the government at one point
talk about duplication of effort, doing several things, the left hand
not knowing what the right hand is doing. Then when we come up
with what I believe is an absolutely laudable effort under Bill C-96
to bring together some functions, so we do not have that kind of
duplication, we are accused of just shuffling the chairs.
It is difficult to do the right thing? No, it is not difficult to do the
right thing, but it is difficult to be seen to be doing the right thing if
somebody has a cliché to cover every situation, even if some of the
clichés are mutually exclusive. Which are we doing: are we
unnecessarily duplicating effort, or are we just shuffling the chairs?
I listened with interest to her speech, as I did to the speech of my
friend from Jonquière, who I always enjoy. We do not always
agree, but he has a real ability to state his argument in a very
reasoned way. I have always admired his ability to do so.
I want to come back to my friend from Port Moody-Coquitlam.
At one point in her speech she said something that was rather
curious, about the bill's not having a royal recommendation. I
wanted for the record to come back on that one. If she looked at the
bill, she would realize that what she says is not true. It does have a
royal recommendation. There are several proofs of that in the
documentation she has in front of her. If she looked at the Order
Paper for today, where Bill C-96 is listed, she will find a little ``R''
beside it. That means that this bill has a royal recommendation. If
she does not believe my word, she should look at the bottom of the
page, because it says at the bottom of the page ``Recommended by
the Governor General''.
Or if she wanted to actually look at the bill, and far be it from me
to suggest she did not look at the bill, her own words almost
condemn her on this point. If she had taken the time to open the
cover to page 1A, the very first page inside, the very first thing she
would have seen would have been ``Recommendation. His
Excellency the Governor General recommends to the House of
Commons'', et cetera. That is the royal recommendation she says
the bill does not have. I can only hope that the rest of her input was
more informed, because that one was dead wrong.
(1335)
With this bill the Department of Human Resources Development
brings under one roof all of our efforts to help Canadians achieve
16503
their full potential in our society and in our economy. Within a
single department we are going to have programs and services
under this bill that will help people who are looking for work find
and hopefully keep jobs. It will help the employers find the people
they need. It will provide services that will help both workers and
employers under federal jurisdiction to maintain fair labour
standards and a safe work environment.
It will provide services that will help people between jobs,
Canadian seniors, families with low incomes, and people with
disabilities to get the income support they need. We will have under
this umbrella department services to help people get training and to
develop new skills for an economy that is always changing. It will
provide services that will help local businesses and communities
and entire industries to target the skills of the future and build a
skilled workforce to keep Canada competitive and prosperous in a
changing world.
I think this integrated approach makes sense. It recognizes that
in reality people do not neatly fall into tidy little categories. A
young person looking for work may really need to get back to
school first. She may also be a single mother and the lack of good
child care support may prevent her from taking a course she needs.
The person with a disability may be quite capable, willing, and
eager to work, but also needs help meeting special medical costs.
The older worker displaced by technology may need income
support, but in the long run he or she needs help retooling and
adapting to a new labour market.
By bringing all the different programs these people need into one
department we have taken the first step toward making sure the
programs work together to provide meaningful co-ordinated
solutions for the real world. By taking that first step we set the
stage for real integration in the way programs and services are
delivered to Canadians. For example, employment and UI services
used to be delivered through Canada Employment Centres. Canada
pension plan and old age security and guaranteed income
supplement services, which used to come from a separate
department, were delivered through separate client service centres.
Now we are bringing all these together in new human resources
centres across the country.
Let us face it, when someone comes looking for a service they
could not care less which particular program, branch, or
department delivers that service. The last thing they need is to be
sent running from one office to another to obtain those particular
services. Combining those services in one location means reduced
overhead, reduced administrative costs, and more importantly it
means people getting better access, with one-stop shopping for all
federal social security and labour market services. The ability to
access those services under one roof on the part of the client is the
real immediate benefit of the integration this bill provides for.
(1340 )
The new service delivery network the Department of Human
Resources Development is developing goes a bit beyond that. It
goes well beyond that. The new network will make a new kind of
integrated service possible, one that is more flexible and
responsive to changing needs and circumstances. A fundamental
goal of this approach is to ensure that integration takes place at the
local level by locating the decision making and even the design of
services at the local level instead of highly centralized and
compartmentalized programs dictated from a headquarters
somewhere.
Ultimately each human resource centre would become an
integral part of the community it serves. Decisions about what
kinds of programs make sense in that community will be made in
that community by the community. To make this work we have to
completely rethink the way we define programs and services. We
cannot say to communities across Canada here is a program and
here are all the rules you have to follow, do it our way or not at all.
[Translation]
We cannot tell people: ``We will enrol you in this program even
if you do not need it because it is the only one we can afford''.
We want to be able to tell communities and individuals: ``Here
are the basic tools that have proved useful. Here is the money and
the resources that are available. It is up to you to decide which tools
you want to use and how you can use those resources most
effectively. You should not worry about the restrictions of the
various programs. The only thing that matters is the task at hand''.
[English]
We have developed an increasingly sophisticated and effective
set of employment programs, a set of tools to help people develop
new skills, gain work experience, and find jobs. Our challenge is to
integrate these two components to build a single integrated
employment system that people can turn to not just for a cheque but
for help to get back into the workforce. This means finding a way to
combine that essential system of income protection provided by UI
with an effective active system of empowerment, a system that
gives people the resources and the opportunity to make choices
about the kinds of jobs they need, the kinds of skills that are
required, the kind of future they want to build for themselves.
For example, we are experimenting with a form of internship
with small businesses. These are companies that desperately want
to hire new workers but cannot afford the training new workers
require. With this program, we help them hire young people, older
workers, women coming back into the workforce, and we provide
some support to pay for the learning curve, the time it takes the
workers to become fully productive in their new jobs. That
experiment is already beginning to show some good results. Small
businesses are creating permanent jobs for unemployed Canadians.
That simply would not exist otherwise.
16504
Let us look at another example. Over the past year we developed
a program for self-employment under unemployment insurance so
that people have a choice: rather than simply collecting benefits
and waiting for a job to come around, they can create their own
jobs. The department provides some financial support, mentoring
and counselling to help participants get their businesses started.
Over the past year 30,000 individuals have started up their own
businesses through the unemployment insurance program. They
have created not just 30,000 jobs, but 60,000. Not only are they
helping themselves, they are helping other unemployed Canadians
to get back to work.
(1345)
That is the kind of thing that can happen when we stop thinking
in terms of separate compartments and start thinking in terms of
integration. By bringing together the full range of Canada's social
and labour market programs, we are setting a new course and
making a real difference in the lives of Canadians.
Bill C-96 provides the basis for this new direction. It ensures that
the structure is in place for the federal government to continue
bringing programs and services together, working with our partners
in the provinces and communities across Canada.
As we debate all of the detailed clauses of the bill, let us not
forget what the bill is about. It is about making this kind of
integration possible. It provides Canadians with a future which is
full of new possibilities. That is what the bill is about.
Implicitly the bill is not about several things. It is not about
shuffling the chairs, as someone has said. It is about trying to
eliminate the unnecessary duplication, unnecessary inconvenience
for clients, Canadians across the country who demand and have a
right to certain services from government. They demand and have a
right to services which are provided at the least possible cost, in the
most efficient manner and at the least inconvenience to the
taxpayers.
The bill brings together various functions of other departments,
including the Department of Health, the Secretary of State, the
former department of labour, as well as the Department of Human
Resources Development. The bill seeks to consolidate in a manner
which gets a bigger bang for our buck. At the same time, it is not
meant to underline the role of the provinces, as has been suggested.
That is another debate for another time. This is simply a bringing
together of several functions which have always pertained to the
federal government and will continue to do so until some level of
government decides otherwise.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): It being 1:48 p.m., the
House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members'
Business as listed on today's Order Paper.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I think you would find unanimous consent for the
following motion. I move:
That the vote on Bill C-94, previously deferred until November 20, 1995, be
further deferred to the conclusion of Government Orders on Tuesday, November 21,
1995, and that any recorded division which may be requested on Bill C-317 later this
day be also deferred until the conclusion of Government Orders on Tuesday,
November 21, 1995.
(Motion agreed to.)
_____________________________________________
16504
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
Translation]
The House resumed, from October 17, consideration of the
motion that Bill C-317, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code
and the Public Service Staff Relations Act (scabs and essential
services), be read the second time and referred to the Standing
Committee on Human Resources Development.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to begin my remarks with a quote by the
present Minister for Human Resources Development who said, on
November 23, 1994, in a letter he sent me: ``I wish to inform you
that I am presently examining all aspects of the Canada Labour
Code, including the issue of limiting the use of replacement
workers, with the view to updating and improving the code to bring
it more into line with today's realities''. We are now in November
1995, and we still have been given notice that this overhaul of the
Canada Labour Code would take place.
(1350)
In the meantime, a member of the Bloc proposed a private bill,
which is before us today and which, in my opinion, makes good
horse sense. There has been anti-scab legislation in Quebec since
1979. We have witnessed a 35 per cent decrease in labour disputes
in Quebec since that date. This has led to decreased tension in
labour relations, and has avoided very awkward situations that
would have ended in unacceptable assaults.
16505
To find out what occurred in Quebec before the adoption of
anti-scab legislation, one need only remember the Ogilvie conflict.
Unfortunately, this company came under the Canada Labour Code
which contains no anti-scab provision, and that poisoned labour
relations.
Learning from this experience, learning from what has been
done in Quebec in this area, it would be very important for
Parliament as a whole to pass this anti-scab legislation at second
reading.
On October 17, 1995, the member for
Glengarry-Prescott-Russell said that it was not appropriate to
amend only one aspect of the Labour Code, that it was not the best
way to proceed, and that the whole code should be revised. I recall
last year's statement by the minister who said that we cannot wait
forever for the government to act, if it does not take action. I
believe that when a member chooses as a vehicle a private
member's bill, and proposes an amendment which could improve
Canadian legislation, it should be taken advantage of and that he
should be given as much leeway as possible.
This kind of legislation, which will make it possible for all
Canadian workers to be covered by anti-scab legislation, is
something of a sign of respect for workers. In the past, gains were
made by labour unions, and also by the population, in Quebec, for
instance, where minimum working conditions are set out under
legislation which is a bit like the collective agreement of non
unionized workers. This is why, if we passed anti-scab legislation
which covered federal civil servants as a whole, it would somewhat
remedy an unacceptable situation. I think this could be compared to
the minimum wage issue.
A few months ago, it was because the Bloc questioned the fact
that the minimum hourly wage within the federal government was
still four dollars that the government reacted, a few weeks later and
rectified the situation by order in council. This is completely
unacceptable.
Now we are faced with another situation in which the inaction of
the present government and of preceding governments as well is
perhaps more of an ideological choice. We have to remember that
some of the members of this government voted in favour of the
recent anti-scab legislation tabled in the House. A number of these
people are now in cabinet, and it would be most inappropriate for
them to vote against the present bill.
The advantage of such a private member's bill is that it does not
necessarily require party solidarity. It will be a recorded division.
So we will have an opportunity to see whether those in favour of
anti-strikebreaking legislation a few years ago, who are now
members of Parliament, will be consistent and let Canada give
itself legislation that-I would like to say, will set the record
straight-will give workers governed by the Canada Labour Code
the same rights as Quebecers.
This is all the more important given the example we have just
seen in Ontario.
(1355)
The Government of Ontario decided to abolish this right. I
believe that in the coming years we will witness disgraceful acts,
bodily assaults; relations between employers and employees will
grow more bitter and create all kinds of problems that the antiscab
bill prevents.
To give a concrete example of this, one or two years ago in
Quebec, the Conseil du Patronat du Québec had a favourable
judgement from the Superior Court which would have allowed it to
have the antiscab legislation quashed by the Supreme Court. We
are not talking of a union here but of the Conseil du Patronat du
Québec. They thought preferable not to take their case to the
Supreme Court, even if they could have won in that instance,
because they realised, in the time it took to get that judgment, that,
in a majority of cases, antiscab legislation contributes to better
labour relations.
Let us remember what happened as regards the definition of
essential services. During the first few years, there were a few
problems: what should be considered an essential service and who
should define them? We used the experience we had gained so far
to come up with the most adequate bill possible, in order to give the
workers who come under the Canada Labour Code the opportunity
to be properly covered and also to give the employers who are
subject to this code the chance to enjoy better labour relations.
With an antiscab legislation, we will not have to deal in the
future with so many situations as the one we had with the Ogilvie
workers.
This is why I would ask members of this House to put their
partisanship aside for the second reading of this bill and to
determine if, given the way they perceive quality labour relations
in the future, in the 20th century, it would not be better to pass this
piece of legislation, to promote it internationally and to gain from
Quebec's experience in that field?
[English]
Ms. Jean Augustine (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime
Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I too rise today to speak on Bill
C-317, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code and the Public
Service Staff Relations Act to prohibit the use of replacement
employees during a legal strike and to maintain essential services
during a work stoppage at a crown corporation or in the public
service.
I shall confine my remarks to those matters pertinent to the
Canada Labour Code but I would like to say a few words about the
Public Service Staff Relations Act.
As members opposite may know, it was under a Liberal
government that federal government workers gained the right to
strike. However, it was also recognized at that time, 1967, that the
rights of federal government employees to strike could not be
absolute.
16506
There are health, safety and security considerations that come
before the employees' rights to engage in job action.
As a result, the Public Service Staff Relations Act provides for
the right to strike but it ensures that services which are essential to
the health, safety and security of Canadians are maintained during
a legal work stoppage. The act does this by permitting the employer
to designate three months prior to the notice to bargain the
positions that cannot go on strike because they are essential to the
health, safety and security of the Canadian public.
In addition, the employer has no right to lock out employees
under the provisions of the act. This approach is a reasonable one
and it is not clear to me why the member across the way would
want to change this.
I read very carefully the member's speech of June 15 when he
discussed the intent and provisions of his bill. I really must
question some of his exaggerated comments. For instance he says:
A strike broken by scabs is no strike but a right to strike hypocritically
denied. Either we are for the right to strike, a basic right won by workers after
many years of fighting, or we are against. If we are in favour, we will not
undermine, either directly or indirectly, the workers' sacred right to strike-
(1400)
Surely the member would agree with me that no right is absolute,
let alone sacred. The Canadian citizenry, employers, managers,
entrepreneurs and employees, all know there are limits to every
right, including the right to strike. That is only common sense.
Even the right to free speech is not absolute. To use a famous
example, we do not have the right to scream ``fire'' in a crowded
theatre. So it is with the right to strike. It too must have some
limits.
I also note that in his speech the member referred a number of
times to the three provinces, Quebec, Ontario and British
Columbia, that have anti-replacement worker legislation. The
member must be aware that as of last week only two provinces
currently have such legislation.
I want to draw attention to the views of a distinguished authority
on labour relations, Mr. Paul C. Weiler. For those who do not know
this gentleman, he is a Canadian labour lawyer who at one time
chaired the British Columbia Labour Relations Board. Under his
guidance the British Columbia board was responsible for
introducing a number of progressive innovations in labour
relations. His work has been praised by neutral observers and union
leaders alike.
Mr. Weiler is now teaching labour law at Harvard University.
Recently he served as chief counsel to the U.S. Commission on the
Future of Worker-Management Relations. I am saying all this
because I want to quote Mr. Weiler who wrote:
For employees who may have spent 20 years with a company building up a
wealth of experience and seniority that can rarely be duplicated elsewhere, the
stark reality is that if they do go on strike, they can be replaced by the company
with people who, in less than 20 minutes on the job, gain permanent priority
over the striking veterans.
Clearly the American practice is unacceptable, but while Mr.
Weiler is strongly against the hiring of permanent replacement
workers, he does not favour the Quebec solution. He speaks about
this:
The type of alternative rule that I favour exists already in Ontario labour law,
which grants lawful strikers a right to return to their jobs for a period of up to six
months after the beginning of the work stoppage, even if their return will
dislodge newly hired replacements.
He states unequivocally that he does not ``favour adoption of the
recent response of Quebec labour law to this problem'' whereby the
government ``effectively requires employers to shut down at least
the bulk of their operations because they are legally prohibited
from using any non-managerial personnel to replace strikers''.
I am not saying that I agree with everything Mr. Weiler has said,
but I do think that the issue is not clear. If this highly regarded
expert in industrial relations, as strong a supporter of the collective
bargaining process as we will find anywhere, does not favour a ban
on the use of replacements, then I as a federal member concerned
with the interests of the country as a whole must proceed cautiously
and thoughtfully on this question and be open to the arguments and
concerns of both sides.
Labour law is about balance among other things. We need to
balance the rights of workers with the rights of employers. We need
to balance equity concerns with growth concerns. As national
legislators we must be interested in policies that increase
democracy at work and give greater protection to workers and in
policies that encourage the efficient management of enterprises.
We must also be sure that we know the priorities of the workers.
There are a number of issues of concern to workers on matters
related to labour standards, occupational safety and health,
employment equity and industrial relations. These issues are best
dealt with through the consultation process involved in a
comprehensive and careful review of the federal labour code.
The member across the way I am sure knows that such a review
is presently under way in the House. It is a timely undertaking since
a complete review of part I of the Canada Labour Code has not
been done in over two decades.
(1405)
Since last winter federal government officials have been having
discussions with labour, management, academics and others. The
review is now in the capable hands of a task force headed by
Andrew Sims, former chair of the Alberta Labour Relations Board,
a man well qualified to lead the task force. Rodrigue Blouin from
16507
Laval University, and Paula Knopf, a Toronto based mediator, are
the other members of this task force.
The task force is mandated to look into a number of critical
labour relations issues including those raised by the member in his
bill. I have considerable confidence in the task force and I might
add in the Commission of Inquiry on Labour Relations at West
Coast Ports. Both are comprised of very knowledgeable, dedicated
and highly regarded experts who I am sure will have important
things to say on labour relations.
I agree with those who argue that once we have had a chance to
study and discuss the findings and analyses and the
recommendations of these two groups, we will be in a much better
position to decide on the questions that concern the member and
indeed all of us in this House.
I want to make one point before I conclude. The review of the
Canada Labour Code is taking place while the Canadian workforce
is in the midst of profound transformation. We need to take account
of new computer technology among other factors transforming our
workplace. The emphasis is now on flattened hierarchies,
decentralized decision making, flexible production systems, work
teams, high quality products and services and continuous learning.
Labour has generally not shown opposition to technological
change. However, with the pressures which come to bear on us as
Canadian legislators it is important and fortunate for us to have this
discussion in the House.
It seems to me that because this change is occurring, reform to
the federal law should be studied very carefully. We would not be
doing anyone any favours by acting in an imprudent and
precipitous manner.
Whatever the merits of the member's bill, those who have been
telling the member to wait until the court review is completed are
right. It seems to me to be common sense that we wait on those
results.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is a delight to
enter into the debate on Bill C-317, a bill that would cause certain
amendments to be made to the Canada Labour Code.
I will preface my statements by saying that the hon. member who
has proposed this bill and its amendments to the code has a very
good motivation in standing up to try to defend the workers. This
country is very dependent upon its labour force in order to continue
to enjoy our high standard of living. The bill is certainly in the best
interests not only of the workers but also of the companies
involved, the organizations, the rest of Canadians and customers
both in Canada and around the world. They benefit from Canadian
products if the workforce is very well organized and works
efficiently and smoothly.
What is being addressed here is the problem of a dispute. What
happens when the firm that employs the labourers and the labourers
cannot reach an agreement? Sometimes these disputes are over
wages. Members will agree that there have been occasions where
employers have been unfair to workers with respect to wages. Even
more important, there have been a number of occasions where the
workers' safety is at risk and the employer is unwilling to spend the
money or to take the necessary measures to protect the safety of the
workers.
Bill C-317 proposes that if any of these disputes regardless of
their origin result in a strike, then as that strike is a hard won right
of the workers, it should not be reduced or eliminated by the hiring
of replacement workers. To me, that is indeed one of the solutions.
If we are going to provide that workers cannot be replaced, that
indeed considerably strengthens the bargaining position of the
workers in areas of dispute.
(1410)
However, we need to ask whether this is the best way of solving
the problem. I propose that it is not. While we are saying the
worker is having his hamburger taken away from him, what this
bill proposes is to simply give him ketchup on the hamburger. What
I would like to propose is that we offer that worker a good Alberta
steak instead.
What am I talking about? I am talking about ways of dispute
resolution. Having worked in this area for a number of years as a
representative of people who were employees in a professional
association, which to a degree is a euphemism for a union, because
we did collective bargaining, I believe very strongly that the very
worst way of dispute resolution is that of the strike, because no one
wins in a strike. When there is a strike and business is shut down, or
in my case the educational institution is shut down, the students,
the employees, the instructors, and all of the other employees in the
work suffer because of a loss of wages during the time of the strike.
In the case of industry across this country, not only our own
domestic customers suffer but our customers around the world
suffer when our businesses are put on strike or when our
transportation systems fail because of strike or our
communications systems are brought down to their knees because
the employees refuse to work and no one else is ready and
permitted to work in this area.
What then is the solution? If it is not a strike, what can be done?
There are many, many other areas of disputes in which we do not
resort to strike. For example, if there is a dispute between one of us
and our neighbour as to where the boundary should be, we do not
proceed to put something in front of their driveway so they cannot
get out of the house in the morning. That would not be an
acceptable way of solving that problem. Instead, we go to the
authorities. We may get surveyors in to make sure the boundaries
16508
are clearly marked. When that is done and if your neighbour still
does not agree to it, then we may go to a court of law.
I propose, and I have experience in this and it works very well,
that what we need to do in the case of a dispute between employees
and employers is to have an orderly mechanism that works to solve
this problem, so that the workers, the employers, all of the
customers, all of the citizens, and indeed our reputation around the
world for timely delivery of goods and services can be maintained.
It would help us in the long run because of the reliability that would
be automatically assumed when people around the world place
customer orders with Canadian firms.
I am proposing that we should be using a dispute mechanism that
involves some sort of a hearing, a court, an arbitrator, something
that is final and binding.
I would like to tell you that I have had first-hand experience with
this. I had the honour of being chosen by my fellow instructors,
way back in 1982, to be the founding president of our staff
association. I had considerable input. It was not a one-man show by
any means, but I had considerable input into the formulation of our
first collective agreement, which then became the pattern for all
subsequent agreements at the Northern Alberta Institute of
Technology, where I worked. Indeed, many of the items in that
contract persist to this day. And one of the things I pressed for very
strongly was that we would immediately bargain away our right to
strike.
(1415 )
We built into our contract and the constitution of our association
a mechanism that provided for a dispute resolution with time lines.
So many days prior to the expiration of the contract we had to give
notice of our desire to enter into negotiations, and if we did not the
employer might. If neither of us did, that was a tacit understanding
that we would carry on with the current agreement. After so many
days of that happening we had to have negotiators in place. After so
many days we had to lay our opening positions on the table. After
so many days if an agreement had not been reached we had to name
an arbitrator. And so it went. It was all set up in such a way that
prior to the expiry of a contract the new contract would be in place
by one means or another.
A very important problem developed. With that contract we had
an excellent mechanism and did not have any strikes or work
stoppages. Unfortunately the Government of Alberta played its
hand. I need to say this because there are dangers in this type of a
system. When we went to the arbitration system the government
passed a law that stated that in the case of an arbitration the
arbitrator must take into account the policy of the government.
Unfortunately the government was our employer. We were in the
situation of being in the boxing ring and our opponent happened to
also be the referee, which made it very difficult to get fair
settlements from then on.
If the mechanism is truly independent of any pressure from
either party so that there can be a really justified way of reducing
the problem and dispute to a resolution, that is by far the best way.
In conclusion, if we are not going to go for things like final
position bargaining or arbitration as the method of solving labour
disputes, we will continue with these very wasteful and hurtful
strikes. Instead of supporting this bill, which would only strengthen
the dispute mechanism of striking and fighting with each other, I
would like to propose the opposite: that we move toward a more
rational system of dispute resolution, which would benefit us all.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I am highly tempted to dedicate this speech to the
government whip, but I will resist the urge.
It might a good idea to remind everyone of what this bill is all
about. Thanks are due to the member for Manicouagan for having
introduced this private member's bill, the purpose of which is to
prohibit the hiring of persons to replace employees of an employer
under the Canada Labour Code or of the Public Service who are on
strike or locked out.
Why did I insist on reading the purpose of this bill word for
word? Because the bill under consideration is a logical follow-up to
rights workers presently have, the right to unionize, the right to
strike. What surprises me, in the statements I heard from the
government majority as well as from the Reform Party, is that they
claimed that providing anti-scab mechanisms would hinder any
attempt at mediation prior to a strike.
Members will agree that, in a labour organisation, a strike is a
final step and it is defined as such by the legislator. No
parliamentarian wishes to see strikes become a spontaneous
solution in the workplace. Everybody agrees on the fact that any
group that goes on strike was forced to do so by circumstances.
Adopting antiscab legislation does not spare us the previous steps.
I cannot see why government members as well as our Reform
Party colleagues have presented this bill as a rather sorry mess
without going into this kind of nuance that we feel is very
significant. Worse still, the parliamentary secretary to the Prime
Minister-whom I usually respect and will continue to respect as
long as you are in the Chair-argued that this measure was put
forward by the Conservatives in Ontario.
(1420)
First, you will allow me, Mr. Speaker, to ask the parliamentary
secretary not to quote that government too often. I do not think that
government should serve as reference to the government majority
unless, as we suspected, blue or red in Ottawa amounts exactly to
the same thing and that no distinction has to be established.
16509
Until very recently, three provinces making up 70 per cent of
the labour force were protected by antiscab provisions. What did
this have as a concrete effect? Two things. As we have said on
several occasions an antiscab legislation brings an element of
civility, of courtesy to a power relationship that could be tempted
to break negotiations. That is the first thing.
What very concrete effect does this have? When we look at the
specialized literature on the subject, we learn, and that has been a
powerful argument raised by the member for Manicouagan, that in
provinces where there are laws such as this one, labour disputes do
not last as long. I think this is an objective which must be
supported.
It is not the first time that we have a legislation such as this one.
In its time, the NDP suggested a similar provision. The member for
Richelieu did so in a more recent past. Yet, no agreement was
achieved, they were not successful in ensuring that a provision,
without being insignificant, would be a tool for the legislator, a tool
for those who are concerned with labour relations and a tool for the
management of human resources.
What do we say when we are in favour of a provision such as this
one? We say that, a few years ago, as a society, the people of
Quebec and Canada democratically voted for a recourse, and that is
the right to strike. Admittedly, this is a last resort. A strike is never
fun for the union, the workers or the employer, because this has to
do with carrying out work.
When there is a work stoppage, we can all agree that,
unavoidably, the economy in general is affected. This kind of
situation is not desirable. Once it has been democratically
recognized by a society-and you will recall that, around the time
when discussions started, people used to say, even in the public
service, before there was a legal right to strike: ``The Queen does
not negotiate with her subjects''. I am sure that those of us who are
older will remember. For me, this is history, but some were there
when all this was happening.
Once the choice has been democratically made to give workers
the right to strike, we, as legislators, have the duty and
responsibility to ensure that strikes are carried out with civility and
without violence.
When you have workers who get up every morning to earn a
living, who must go on strike for various reasons including
improved standards and better salaries, and who see their jobs
threatened by scabs doing their work, you end up with a potentially
explosive situation.
As even the political neophytes among us know, without
antiscab legislation all long term strikes involved violence.
We as legislators-and I am sure my colleagues across the way
will agree-have a responsibility to ensure that the people who
exercice their right to strike, a right that is recognized and well
defined, can do so in the right conditions.
I did not quite understand the comments made by the previous
speaker, who, as we know, is rather easy to get along with. He
seemed to be saying that they would rather try to use existing
mechanisms. That goes without saying.
(1425 )
Furthermore, the hon. member for Manicouagan, wise man and
experienced parliamentarian that he is, provided in the legislation a
sound instrument known as an essential services board. This is to
say that, even in cases where the final step a strike is taken, it will
be recognized that nobody can be taken hostage because a
democratic right is used, and that certain conditions have to be met,
a notice has to be given and essential services have to be
maintained.
Where have all the true Liberals gone? People on the other
side-the government whip among them-tell us that they are
Liberal in the noble, true and historical sense of the word. They tell
us they are Liberals. To be a Liberal, to be a liberal, is to recognize
a number of rights in a very clear context.
What are they afraid of? I would like to ask them, through you,
why they are afraid of such a bill. Is it because workers will be able
to exercise their democratic right to go out on strike? If this
legislation is not passed on the pretext that it is incomplete, this
will bring us back to a dramatic truth about this Parliament, which
is that our labour minister is a time shared minister, a part time
minister. A full time minister would have had taken her
responsibilities. Since it came into office two years ago, this
government has had ample time and opportunity to introduce a
major revision of the Labour Code.
We have a part time minister, and the government whip will
agree that this is why we are in a deplorable situation where the
Labour Code has not undergone a major overhaul.
This is a balanced and democratic bill. It reflects values that are
widely recognized in our society.
If the government majority went so far as to oppose this bill, I
am sure that the price it would have to pay would be extremely
high, both in Quebec and elsewhere, because workers under federal
jurisdiction have the right to be legally protected against the
possible use of scabs.
You are indicating to me that my time is up. My colleagues will
be disappointed, but I will use this last opportunity to urge them to
adopt such a bill.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The hon. member for
Manicouagan, who presented this motion to the House, has
indicated to the Chair that he would like, if possible, with consent
of the House, to take two minutes to close the debate. But I want it
to be clearly understood that after the House gives its consent, the
16510
member will speak to close the debate, which means that nobody
else will be able to speak after that even if there is some time left.
Mr. Bernard St-Laurent (Manicouagan, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
first I would like to thank, naturally, all those from each party, who
made the effort to speak, to express their personal opinions and that
of their party.
I am sure we have made progress, ideologically speaking, in
many areas. We have also had the opportunity to understand
somewhat better the more radical positions of certain other
individuals and certain other parties.
I heard certain key words, like ``wait''. This bill is a bit too early,
we have to wait for the upcoming reform. I say that, if we have to
wait, why not wait for third reading on this? It might perhaps
provide an opportunity for the Code to get out in the meantime.
This business about waiting, you know, it is not our fault if we are
ahead. We are what we are in the Bloc.
Bill C-317 provides a good opportunity for social advancement
and for respect of those who keep the economy moving, that is, the
workers, and the employers too, because Bill C-317 has the highest
regard for employers, as it indicates.
I would simply like, at this point, to repeat my thanks to all those
who felt it was worthwhile taking part.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I want to thank all the hon.
members for their co-operation. Is the House ready for the
question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those in favour will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): In my opinion the yeas have
it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Pursuant to the order made
earlier today, the recorded division on the proposed motion stands
deferred until Tuesday, November 21, 1995, after government
orders.
[English]
It being after 2.30 p.m. the House stands adjourned until
Monday, November 20, at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Orders 28
and 24.
(The House adjourned at 2.41 p.m.)