CONTENTS
Thursday, November 9, 1995
Bill C-356. Motions for introduction and firstreading deemed
adopted 16399
Bill C-94. Consideration resumed of motion forthird reading 16400
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 16400
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 16407
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 16407
Division on amendment deferred 16408
Bill C-96. Motion for second reading 16408
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 16408
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 16418
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 16431
Ms. Brown (Oakville-Milton) 16432
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead) 16432
(The sitting of the House was suspended at 2.27 p.m.) 16435
The House resumed at 2.45 p.m. 16435
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 16437
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 16437
Mr. Leroux (Shefford) 16437
Mr. Leroux (Shefford) 16437
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 16440
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 16440
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 16441
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 16441
Mr. Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing) 16442
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 16442
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 16443
Mr. Leroux (Shefford) 16443
Bill C-96. Consideration resumed of motion forsecond reading 16446
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 16447
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 16452
Consideration resumed of motion 16459
16399
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Thursday, November 9, 1995
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
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 two petitions.
* * *
Mr. Derek Wells (South Shore, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
Standing Order 34(1) I have the honour to present to the House, in
both official languages, the report of the Canadian group to the
interparliamentary union which represented Canada at the 1995
interparliamentary conference held in Bucharest, Romania, from
October 7 to 14, 1995.
* * *
Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have the honour to table, in both official languages, the 11th report
of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
Pursuant to the order of reference of Thursday, October 5, 1995,
the committee has considered Bill C-78, an act to provide for the
establishment and operation of a program to enable certain persons
to receive protection in relation to certain inquiries, investigations
or prosecutions. The committee has agreed to report it with
amendments.
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Bélisle (La Prairie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have the
honour to present the 16th report of the standing committee on
public accounts. In its sixteenth report, the public accounts
committee studied chapter 9 of the auditor general's annual report
for 1994 on the overall management of federal science and
technology activities, chapter 10 of that same report on the
management of departmental science and technology activities,
and chapter 11 on the management of scientific personnel in certain
federal research establishments.
Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee is asking the
government to table a comprehensive response to the report.
* * *
(1010)
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec-Est, BQ): moved for leave
to introduce Bill C-356, an act to protect contractors who disclose
government wrongdoing.
He said: Mr. Speaker, we know that a number of private
companies do business with the government. Contracting out
accounts for close to $10 billion of business, and we also know that
there are a great many irregularities in contracting with the private
sector. There are sometimes illegalities and waste. This bill would
protect private contractors who decide to disclose government
wrongdoing, waste or other irregularities.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
[
English]
Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36 I am pleased to present two petitions
signed by over 100 residents of Hamilton and nearby towns on the
subject of euthanasia and assisted suicide.
The petitioners request Parliament to ensure the present
provisions of the Criminal Code prohibiting assisted suicide be
retained without changes and enforced in order that Parliament not
sanction or allow the aiding of suicide or euthanasia.
16400
Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
also have thousands of signatures from across Canada on the
subject of crimes of violence. The petitions are part of a petition,
begun by Mrs. Priscilla de Villiers, which has already collected
over three million signatures.
The petitioners ask Parliament to recognize that crimes of
violence against a person are abhorrent to society and ask the
government to continue to amend the Criminal Code of Canada, the
Bail Reform Act, 1972, and the Parole Act of Canada accordingly.
[Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would like
to present a petition signed by 356 persons in my riding of
Bourassa and the Montreal region, concerning closure of the
Canada Employment Centre on Papineau Street, which services my
riding of Bourassa North, as well as neighbouring ridings.
(1015)
This is a centre providing exceptional service to a very large
population. Those working in the centre, along with unemployed
persons and community organizations, are therefore petitioning the
government not to close this employment centre, and I strongly
support this petition. I trust that the government will reconsider its
decision and that this centre will be able to continue its operations.
[English]
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to present a petition, in accordance with Standing Order
36, on behalf of constituents who say that we should be aiming for
a just and safe society, that the safety and protection of the public
should precede the protection of dangerous criminals and that the
rights of victims should precede the rights of criminals. Many
things are listed here.
The petitioners are asking for legislation to reform the justice
system and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in
accordance with Standing Order 36, I present a petition on behalf
of the citizens of the community of Athabasca.
The petitioners request that Parliament continue to reject
euthanasia and physician assisted suicide, that the present
provisions of section 241 of the Criminal Code which forbids the
counselling, procuring, aiding or abetting of a person to commit
suicide be enforced vigorously, and that Parliament consider
expanding palliative care that would be accessible to all dying
persons in Canada.
[Translation]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): I ask that the
other questions be allowed to stand.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
16400
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed from November 8 consideration of the
motion that Bill C-94, an act to regulate interprovincial trade in and
the importation for commercial purposes of certain manganese
based substances, be read the third time and passed.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure once again to speak to Bill C-94, an act to
regulate interprovincial trade in and the importation for
commercial purposes of certain manganese based substances.
The purpose of the bill is to ban the import and interprovincial
trade of MMT, an octane enhancer. Essentially MMT reduces
emissions from motor vehicles. The government claims that MMT
damages the onboard devices in new 1996 cars. It is going to be
obligatory for cars used in Canada not to use MMT. This was at the
prompting of the Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association.
The Ethyl corporation that makes MMT and the petroleum
products group claim that first, MMT is not a health hazard to
Canadians and second, does not damage onboard devices.
If the minister wishes to ban MMT, then she has to prove that
MMT is a health hazard to Canadians. The contrary has been
proven by the Ministry of Health which has shown that MMT does
not damage the health of Canadians. I have heard some spurious
allegations by members across the way who have actually claimed
that since the health department said what it did, that maybe MMT
really does harm Canadians. Those are statements made off the top
of their heads without any factual basis. If we look at the facts,
MMT does not harm the health of Canadians.
Central to the bill is the question, does or does not MMT damage
onboard devices? There is ample evidence showing that onboard
devices are not damaged by MMT. It is wise to look at the situation
in the United States. We say we want a common gasoline for our
vehicles, but the United States is bringing back MMT. It is bringing
MMT back for a couple of very important reasons: first, that it is
16401
not a health hazard to people; second, that it does not damage
onboard devices; and, third, that if it is removed from gasoline
nitrous oxide emissions will be increased by more that 20 per cent.
Nitrous oxide is a very important component of smog. Smog
exacerbates respiratory problems in people who suffer from asthma
or chronic obstructive pulmonary diseases.
(1020)
If MMT is to be banned another substance will have to take its
place. That will make gasoline more expensive. It will translate
into more expense at the pump and in turn will cost to the industry
more. It would act as a depressant on the economy, which means
fewer jobs.
The minister cannot ban MMT on the basis of health reasons so
she is going to try to ban its movement in interprovincial trade and
in import and export which, in effect, is a ban on the substance.
That is how the minister has managed to get around that.
The real truth behind this is that the Motor Vehicle
Manufacturers Association is looking for a scapegoat because its
members know that their onboard devices malfunction. They want
to find some other reason for this and have found a handy peg to
hang their hat on by claiming that MMT damages the onboard
devices. However the facts prove otherwise.
When looking at the situation in the United States which does
not use MMT, we find that onboard devices malfunction at exactly
the same rate as they do in cars using MMT. This is very
conclusive, suggestive and strong evidence that MMT, as a reason
for the damage of onboard devices simply does not hold water.
I ask the minister to look at new ways and new energy sources.
The transport sector has a 90 per cent plus dependency on fossil
fuels. As we all know in the House, fossil fuels are finite and one
day they will come to an end.
We must also look globally. By the year 2025, 11 billion plus
people will be living on this planet or twice as many as lives on it
today. Therefore, energy consumption will double or, as many
people believe, will increase even more than that.
Another reason is that in developing nations people are actually
consuming energy at a far greater rate than they have in previous
years. Through industrialization and manufacturing the demands
for energy and fossil fuels increase.
I ask the minister to work with the minister of science and
technology and the Minister of Transport and look at different ways
we can work on new and more environmentally sound alternatives
to fossil fuels in the future. One alternative is electrically powered
cars. We cannot provide energy now at the low cost that we have
with fossil fuels but in the future this will be an important
alternative for powering vehicles. While we cannot do it now, we
must look to the future and develop the research and technology so
that we can do that.
Another interesting concept is the hydrogen fuel cell which
works on the electrolysis of hydrogen sulphide or water. Although
these systems are too bulky right now to use this might be an
alternative form of power for vehicles in the future. Another is
photovoltaic cells which take energy from the sun. The Holy Grail
of all energy sources is the concept of fusion.
As a country we do not have the finances to engage in extensive
projects in this area. By working with our neighbours to the south
and some Europeans that are doing some fascinating work on
fusion technology, we can provide our scientific expertise to them
to try to make this into a reality in the future. While it may not be
practical for the transport sector, there are many other energy
sectors for which this technology will have to be used.
(1025)
Although these alternatives cannot replace fossil fuels right now,
we do not see enough of working together between ministries. In
this instance the Ministry of the Environment has logical partners
in the ministry of science and technology and the Ministry of
Transport. They are intimately entwined. It would serve Canada
well if these ministers got together with their staffs and determined
areas where they could work together in an efficient fashion.
I suggest the minister look at some other areas in the
transportation sector and work with the Minister of Transport, as I
said before. It costs about $7,000 a year to operate a car, with high
social and environmental costs. It is very expensive. Canadians
should look at the European model and extract from that more
environmentally sound measures on the transportation of people,
paying particular attention to bicycles and rail travel.
There is a very important issue in my riding. The E & N railway
runs north-south on Vancouver Island. It can be a very potent and
environmentally sound mover of goods, services and people. This
railway has been lying idle for many years and is highly
unproductive. I hope the Minister of the Environment will work
with the Minister of Transport to try to make this railway a reality,
not in the public domain but in the private domain; ownership
being retained in the public domain but management and
functioning in the private sector.
Vancouver Island is an area where the population is growing at
perhaps the fastest rate in all of Canada. Unfortunately we are
seeing the southern California syndrome where we have urban
sprawl at its worst. We can look at Vancouver to see what happened
there.
With that growth in population will come transport and energy
demands. These must be met by looking toward the future by
determining ways in which we can provide this transportation
16402
without damaging and destroying the pristine environment that the
island affords.
In conclusion, with respect to MMT our role in the House is to
determine the truth. The minister acknowledges the conclusive
evidence that first, MMT does not damage people's health. Second,
there is conclusive evidence within our own country and even south
of the border to show that MMT does not damage onboard devices.
We need to determine the truth. I ask the minister to review the
relevant data and rethink this issue. Clearly there is no reason to
ban MMT in Canada now. If the minister has to have an
independent study to determine once and for all whether MMT
actually does damage onboard devices then she ought to do that.
Again I hope the minister would work with the minister of
science and technology and the Minister of Transport to look at
new and improved ways of meeting the energy needs of Canadians
in the future.
I wish to move the following motion to Bill C-94. I move:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word ``that''
and substituting the following therefor:
``This House declines to give third reading to Bill C-94, an act to regulate
interprovincial trade in and the importation for commercial purposes of certain
manganese based substances, since among other things the bill does not take
measures to compensate for the fact that MMT free gasoline would cause the
fuel industry to burn more crude oil, causing greater emissions into the
atmosphere while at the same time increasing tailpipe nitrous oxide emissions''.
(1030 )
The Speaker: The motion is in order. Is the hon. member rising
on debate?
Mr. Caccia: Mr. Speaker, we are still in the 10-minute phase
which would permit a question or a comment.
The Speaker: Because the hon. member for Esquimalt-Juan de
Fuca moved an amendment we now move to debate on the
amendment. There will be no questions or comments. That is how
we will proceed.
Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
many questions have been raised about the legislation now before
the House. In some cases the debate has obscured what really is at
stake. I would like therefore to try to answer some of the questions
to give members a clear picture of the issue.
First, we have heard about the harm MMT causes to pollution
control equipment in vehicles. Does this not have a plus side? Ethyl
corporation is the producer of MMT. According to this company
the use of MMT allows less intensive refining, thereby reducing
emissions from the refineries. Ethyl corporation also maintains that
MMT reduces tailpipe emissions of nitrogen oxide by up to 20 per
cent and lowers toxic benzene emissions. If so, what is the point of
banning such a useful additive?
Let us take the question of refining. It is true that MMT allows
less intensive refining. In 1992 a report was prepared for Ethyl
Canada. It indicated that if the additive were banned Canadian
refineries would emit 40 to 50 tonnes more of nitrogen oxide per
annum and 34 to 43 more kilotonnes of carbon dioxide. Those
amounts represent 0.0025 per cent of our yearly emissions of
nitrogen oxide and 0.01 per cent of our carbon dioxide emissions.
Such slight increases are clearly minuscule.
What then about emissions from vehicle tailpipes? The data
collected by Ethyl corporation showed an average reduction in
nitrogen oxide emissions with MMT of up to 20 per cent. But the
figures were for a test fleet of well maintained vehicles, whereas
the actual Canadian cars are not on average as well maintained. If
we put the findings into the context of the current Canadian cars,
another analysis indicates that MMT causes a much smaller
reduction in nitrogen oxide emissions, no more than about 5 per
cent.
As for toxic benzene emissions, these should not increase as a
result of the banning of MMT. Gasoline can be refined to limit its
benzene content. This past July the Minister of the Environment
announced that she intended to regulate benzene levels in gasoline
to a maximum of one per cent per volume. The regulations would
also limit any increase in the amount of aromatics in gasoline.
(1035)
MMT has been used as an octane enhancer in gasoline, but the
oil refining industry has various options for replacing it. These
options should still limit the benzene content. For example, the
refining process could be changed to produce higher octane
gasoline constituents. Along with or instead of that, other octane
enhancers are available such as ethyl and MTBE.
This raises another question: Are we banning MMT to promote
the use of ethanol? The answer to that is no. Ethanol is only one
option for replacing the octane now provided by MMT. There are
other options available, and it is up to the petroleum industry to
make that choice.
What about the financial costs? Some wonder whether MMT
removal would place a heavy financial burden on the oil industry or
consumers. According to the industry's own estimates, the cost
would translate to an increase of approximately 0.1 cents to 0.24
cents per litre, a minor amount, especially considering the normal
day to day price fluctuations we see at the fuel pump in the order of
a few cents per litre.
Other questions have been raised about the studies that provide
the basis for the legislation. Why, it is asked, are we accepting the
word of the auto industry, which is surely an interested party in the
dispute. Why do we not make use of independent studies? The fact
16403
is there have been no independent studies to determine the effect of
MMT on emissions control systems. The research has been
sponsored either by the auto makers or by Ethyl for the oil
producers.
Some would ask why Environment Canada has not sponsored or
conducted its own research. The department has sought technical
opinions from two outside experts, one of whom was called on by
both industries to participate in joint discussions. Both experts
agreed that we do not have conclusive data but that MMT tends to
affect emissions performance and increase costs.
To go further and conduct a government study of the issue would
simply use up taxpayers' dollars and delay the introduction of new
pollution control technology into Canada. We cannot afford to do
that. Both industries have done their work and studied the issue. It
is now time for a decision. Some might ask why that must be a
government decision; why not leave it to the industries concerned
to arrive at their solution? That is exactly what we have been trying
to do for more than two years, but so far that approach has not
succeeded.
Senior officials from four federal departments have met with
representatives of the oil and auto industries. I would stress this
about four federal departments because the previous speaker
suggested we should be talking among the different departments
and getting answers. This minister has spoken to and worked with
four federal departments. More recently the Minister of the
Environment attempted personally to negotiate an agreement. All
these efforts have failed. We have no alternative but to legislate the
necessary changes.
Still another question concerns actions on MMT in the United
States. In the last months we have seen moves to reintroduce its use
there. Most recently, this past October 20, a United States Court of
Appeal decision ordered the Environmental Protection Agency to
grant Ethyl corporation registration for the use of its MMT additive
in unleaded gasoline.
Why are we banning MMT in Canada when the United States
seems to be lifting its almost 20-year old ban on MMT? After all,
part of the argument made against MMT is that we must harmonize
our emissions control approach with that of the Americans. Are we
not in danger of remaining out of step if we pass the legislation?
(1040)
MMT prospects in the United States remain cloudy. The EPA
could appeal the October 20 ruling or attempt other legal action.
Major refineries might be reluctant to adopt MMT until
uncertainties are resolved about the health effects associated with
widespread use of the additive. Furthermore, the auto industry
could launch its own challenge.
Even if none of that happens, about one-third of the U.S.
gasoline market including California requires reformulated
gasoline to meet more stringent air quality requirements. MMT is
still not allowed in reformulated gasoline, which can be expected to
claim a growing share of the U.S. market in the coming years as the
country moves toward cleaner fuel.
California has gone so far as to expressly prohibit the use of
MMT as a gasoline additive. This U.S. state is a world leader in
emission control strategies. The example it sets is widely followed
throughout North America and beyond. We should carefully
consider the approach of California. It could well become the
benchmark for tomorrow.
Another question asked is what is the rush. Why do we not wait
for the doubts to resolve themselves? Why should we intervene
now when the issue is still unclear and evolving? The answer is that
the issue will never be settled to the entire satisfaction of both the
auto and oil industries. Doubts are bound to persist, but there is
sufficient evidence now to make an informed decision. This the
two industries have been unable to do themselves, even though we
gave them plenty of time in which to do it. The voluntary approach
has failed so we must be prepared to turn to legislation to achieve a
solution.
For those who have raised doubts and questions, I have some
questions myself. In a time of budgetary constraints can we justify
spending government money to duplicate studies already carried
out by the private sector? Can we justify a delay in introducing
state of the art emission control technology in Canada? Can we
justify the extra expense consumers will bear if MMT continues to
be used as an additive in Canada? Would there be considerable cost
for industry or consumers if MMT is banned? Would there be a
notable harmful environmental impact? Is MMT likely to have a
place in the cleaner fuels of the future? After more than two years
of discussion is there any likelihood that the industries concerned
could reach agreement in the near future on MMT use? Is there any
real alternative left except legislation?
I believe that the answer to all these questions is self-evident.
Equally obvious is that the time has come for Parliament to
exercise its obligation and legislate an end to the use of manganese
based additives in gasoline. That is what Bill C-94 does. The
measure is pro-environmental, pro-consumer, pro-investment and
pro-business. It is time for the House to face the facts and pass the
legislation.
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I rise to
speak on Bill C-94.
We introduced the amendment simply to allow time for the topic
to be studied and assessed in light of what has happened in the U.S.
and to avoid embarrassment for the government and the country.
16404
(1045 )
The move to ban MMT at this time clearly has little support in
evidence. Everyone on the committee, including the government
members, raised substantive doubts on the validity of the evidence.
The presentation of the previous speech we heard was very well
done. Nevertheless it was a presentation that again accepts
unquestionably the evidence provided by the auto manufacturers in
spite of the fact that they refused to table any of those studies for us
to look at.
We are told that the minister intervened personally to try and
bring about a settlement on this issue. I would question how the
minister could intervene personally to negotiate a settlement on
this issue when she refused to meet with one of the parties
involved. In spite of several attempts by that side, that party in the
dispute, the minister refused to meet with them.
The member says she personally intervened to try and bring
about a settlement. What hogwash. A settlement cannot be brought
about by only meeting with one side. Again she says they have had
plenty of time to settle the dispute, that the government has given
ample time to do that.
In the 1993 campaign the Liberal party, before it became the
government, committed in its red book to ban MMT if an
agreement was not reached. In the dispute the motor vehicle
manufacturers lost all will to negotiate any kind of agreement
because it was there in writing: if an agreement was not reached,
the government was prepared to ban MMT.
We again hear how there is no time to let the National Research
Council or the Department of the Environment conduct
independent tests. There is this urgency because of the technology
on the 1996 cars. The 1996 cars are here. They are on the market.
They are being sold. The OBD II system is onboard. It is
functioning and has not been disconnected. Why are we in such a
terrible rush?
Yesterday we heard from the member for Davenport that if these
OBD II warning lights were disconnected and the system was
malfunctioning, it would somehow contribute greatly to more
pollution and would be a health hazard for Canadians. My response
to that is: What about the millions and millions of cars on our roads
that are pre-1996 and do not have OBD II systems and seem to be
functioning quite well? This OBD II technology is not vital to the
operation of a car. Whether or not it functions is not how we judge
the pollution that is coming from the car. They are simply warning
devices. They have no effect on the pollution produced from the
tailpipe of that car.
There is not that great a rush and we do have time to do that
testing. It is important in the interests of this country to wait.
Certainly if MMT is allowed to be used again in the United States
in the coming year, this bill and this movement by our government
will truly be embarrassing. Certainly it will be embarrassing to the
country to have the Minister of the Environment go down in history
as the minister who passed a bill to increase ground level ozone and
smog. It is truly ludicrous.
We have introduced the amendment to appeal to the common
sense of the House to let the bill rest somewhere at least for a
couple of months or a year. Let us do some independent testing to
verify the evidence. Let us wait and see what happens in the U.S. so
we can truly move toward harmonization of fuel, an objective the
Minister of Industry clearly stated in the House as being crucial.
Whatever happens in the U.S. and however small an amount of
MMT is or is not allowed in, to ban MMT in Canada is to move
away from the goal of harmonization and not toward it. It only
makes good common sense to wait until we see what happens and
to do independent testing so that we have concrete evidence one
way or the other.
(1050)
Certainly this party supports the banning of MMT if it can be
shown in independent testing that it is a problem. Ethyl corporation
and the petroleum refining industry stated in committee that they
are perfectly willing to withdraw the product from the market if
independent evidence shows that it is detrimental. That is certainly
a more reasonable position than the one presented by the
government.
Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to make some comments about the auto industry in
Canada and point out some facts about it.
In 1994, $44 billion worth of vehicles and $20 billion worth of
parts were produced in Canada. Producing $44 billion worth of
vehicles in Canada employed 58,000 Canadians. Canadians across
the country are involved in the industry. There is a Volvo plant in
Halifax, many plants in Quebec and Ontario, and truck
manufacturers in British Columbia. The vehicle parts
manufacturing industry involves over 750 companies employing
82,000 Canadians.
I am sure that Canadians employed in these companies would
like to know the hon. member and his party are supporting their
jobs. I get the feeling from what I have heard in the House that their
support is only for the oil refining industry and not for the workers
of Canada and the Canadian industry. I wonder if the hon. member
has any comments.
Mr. Chatters: Mr. Speaker, I would love to comment on that
because truly we are beginning to see the real motivation for the
legislation. It is a political motivation.
I am not responding to any lobby. I met with both sides on the
issue. I listened to the evidence from both sides. We did extensive
16405
research into that evidence. The evidence is not there to support
banning MMT. It simply is not there.
Certainly to suggest that by not banning MMT it will create a
loss of jobs in the auto industry is a red herring. Cars will certainly
continue to be built where they are being made today.
I will say one thing. If there are job losses to be incurred because
of the issue, they will not be in the auto industry; they will be in the
manufacture of MMT. That plant will close down and those jobs
will be lost in Canada. They will be gone.
The member has the facts just a little mixed up. We are accused
of being overcome by the lobby of Ethyl corporation and that there
is some kind of evil corporation from the U.S. which is not even
Canadian. Where are the head offices of every member of the
Motor Vehicles Manufacturers Association? They are no more
Canadian than Ethyl is, quite frankly. If the member is concerned
about job losses, let us be realistic and fair. They will not be in the
auto industry.
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
again the member for Athabasca is deviating from the information
we received in committee.
It was amply discussed there from the information provided by
the auto industry that the presence of manganese has a negative
effect on the functioning capacity of the oxygen sensors and
catalytic converters. The results are clearly identified. The
committee was quite keen in investigating the matter. It went into
investigating the question of the effect of manganese on
sparkplugs. The hon. member saw the pictures that when
sparkplugs operate with gasoline containing manganese, the
coating of manganese is visible on the sparkplugs.
(1055 )
In addition the MMT manufacturers are in the U.S.A. They are
keen to maintain the Canadian market as they have already in
Bulgaria, Russia, Taiwan and Argentina. We have now reached a
stage in Canada where we have to move away from MMT as the
Americans already did in 1978. The American motorist has been
using gasoline without MMT since 1978. There is no deviation
from that fact and the Reform Party must accept that fact.
The entire North American automotive technology is moving
toward an onboard diagnostic system which is intended to improve
the emission controls of the engine.
Is this a political decision? Yes, it is a political decision because
politicians have to make policy decisions. We have to keep up with
rapidly advancing technology. We cannot turn the clocks back to
before 1978 and go back to how it was in the United States before
the U.S. banned MMT.
We must apply the latest technology for the sake of the
consumer. That is why we have the issue of onboard diagnostics
which, contrary to what the hon. member for Athabasca said,
would have to be disconnected in Canada if MMT was not
removed. The disconnection would be to the disadvantage of the
warranty holder, namely the car owner.
These facts emerged from committee. Does the member for
Athabasca agree with those observations?
Mr. Chatters: Madam Speaker, for some reason the member for
Davenport does not seem to remember what went on in committee.
The evidence was very suspect. The pictures of the sparkplugs
which he referred to were two different types of sparkplugs. The
witnesses told us they were exactly the same sparkplugs run in the
same engine and all the rest of it. On the tailpipe emission issue, a
government member was clearly confused and had some real doubt
as to the authenticity of the data before him and what they were
suggested to mean.
Without any question, the evidence is suspect at best and
certainly is not enough on which to base the decision to ban MMT.
The evidence simply is not there. The bill is an embarrassment to
the country and the minister.
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton-Middlesex, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I am especially pleased to have the opportunity to take
part in the third reading debate on Bill C-94, an act to regulate
interprovincial trade in and the importation for commercial
purposes of certain manganese based substances.
The primary purpose of the bill which is to be known as the
manganese based fuel additives act is to ban the use of MMT, a
manganese based compound used as an octane enhancer in
Canadian gasolines.
MMT is widely recognized as having an adverse effect on the
operation of vehicle emission control components, including
sophisticated onboard diagnostic systems, commonly known as
OBDS. OBDS are slated to be introduced in virtually all 1996
vehicle models. They will help to control vehicle pollution by
monitoring emission system performance and alerting drivers to a
malfunction. Several car manufacturers around the world including
Ford, Chrysler, General Motors and Toyota have all come to the
conclusion after extensive scientific testing that MMT adversely
affects onboard diagnostic systems. Many of these corporations
have billions of dollars invested in Canada and directly employ
tens of thousands of Canadians in manufacturing plants.
(1100)
To continue using MMT in Canadian gasoline would
compromise the ability of Canada's auto industry to design cars
that achieve important pollution reductions. Surely it goes without
saying that Canada's environment and Canadian consumers have
the right to the best emission control technology available.
Presently Canada is one of the last countries in the world in which
MMT is
16406
used in unleaded gasoline. That is a distinction we should not be
particularly proud of.
While MMT has been in use in Canada since 1977 as a
replacement for lead in unleaded gasoline, it has been banned in the
United States since 1977 because of concerns over health effects. I
find it ironical that one country, ours, adopted a product at the
precisely the same time its neighbour bans it.
Environment Canada, the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency and virtually every single automobile company around the
world all agree that MMT impairs the performance of pollution
control equipment found in today's cars and trucks. Study after
study shows that MMT adversely affects the onboard diagnostic
systems where the pollution control equipment is found. These
systems are extremely important for the environment because they
ensure the cleaner burning engines of today and tomorrow operate
as designed.
Understandably the vehicle industry has indicated it will not
accept the risk of increased warranty repair costs associated with
MMT in gasoline and would take preventive actions, including
disconnecting the OBD systems in whole or in part and possibly
reducing vehicle warranty coverage with 1996 vehicles if MMT
continues to be used.
The passage of Bill C-94 into law will bring about a successful
resolution of the MMT issue in Canada and will ensure that vehicle
emission standards remain harmonized in the North American
automotive market.
I will now speak on the health hazards associated with
manganese based compounds like MMT. AT 1990 hearings of the
U.S. environmental protection agency into a waiver application
submitted by Ethyl Corporation to reallow MMT in unleaded
gasoline, a number of experts testified on the toxic effects of
manganese compounds.
Ms. Ellen Silbergeld of the environmental defense fund testified
at the EPA hearings: ``Manganese, like lead, is a toxin in that both
its absorption and retention as well as its toxicity increase with
time. At present there are insufficient data on the low level chronic
effects of the manganese exposure similar to the case that was
made for lead in 1925''.
The environmental defense fund in its written submission to the
EPA states: ``We know that manganese at high dose is a
demonstrated human neurotoxin with persistent and irreversible
pathological effects on brain structure and resulting severe
impairments in movement and mental state. We do not know what
the long term chronic low dose consequences of human exposure to
manganese are. We do not know a safe level of manganese
exposure, particularly for those subgroups that may be at increased
risk for neurotoxity, the young and the aged''.
Dr. John Donaldson is one of Canada's top neurotoxologists. He
has conducted ground breaking research in this area. Dr. Donaldson
told the EPA in Washington: ``One of the major theories in leading
edge neuroscience which relate to the environment today is that
there are agents, neurotoxins, insidious neurotoxins like
manganese, which are age accelerating neurotoxins. I believe that
manganese is such an age accelerating neurotoxin and I believe this
is the answer to manganese's ability to produce biochemically,
pathologically and clinically the picture which is very similar, very
similar but not identical, to Parkinson's disease''.
On May 1, 1994 Dr. Donaldson wrote to me with an overview of
more recent scientific studies that should give us all pause. I put on
the record the following examples of recent research provided to
me by Dr. Donaldson:
An increasing body of evidence from Sweden, the centre of excellence and
occupational health and safety, has demonstrated that chronic exposure to
manganese at very low levels can produce impairment of mental function. The
evidence suggesting that low levels over a prolonged period can impair memory
has strong implications not only for occupational health but perhaps more
especially to child mental health, and firmly places manganese in the category
of behavioural psychotoxin as well as neurotoxin.
This newly emerging recognition of the low dose effects of manganese is a
most effective club with which to stifle industrial critics which argue that
manganese is only toxic at enormous levels rarely attained.
Recent evidence by Dr. Donald Calne of the University of British Columbia, a
distinguished and internationally acclaimed researcher in Parkinson's disease,
considers that manganese in humans is progressive and even a short exposure
can lead ultimately to brain damage. Of especial importance was his
observations that even a short exposure was as effective as a prolonged one in
causing irreparable brain damage. This should dispel claims by critics that at
moderate doses manganese has no health risk.
Dr. Calne has also noted that the initial toxicity of manganese can remain masked
for several decades following exposure although causing brain cell death at an
increased rate which is only detectable by brain imaging techniques. The disease
may not appear for periods as long as four decades. A silent killer indeed.
(1105)
There are a number of options to replace the octane provided by
MMT. Available substances include MTBE, ETBE, methanol and
ethanol. Ethanol, which is produced from Canadian grains, is an
ideal octane enhancer for unleaded gasoline. Since it is
manufactured from renewal feedstock it is especially valuable as a
non-petroleum fuel component in times of restricted supply.
Ethanol and its derivative, ETBE, are the only gasoline additives
which are renewable and offer the further security of reducing
dependence on foreign energy supplies.
16407
The primary environmental benefit of ethanol is its high content
of oxygen. Gasoline contains no oxygen. Adding oxygen has the
effect of creating a more favourable air-fuel ratio, which results
in a cleaner combustion of the fuel, thereby reducing such harmful
emissions as carbon dioxide.
On December 21, 1994 the government announced a new
program to encourage the development of biomass derived fuels. It
is obvious that the banning of MMT as contained in Bill C-94
dovetails perfectly with this program. In addition to helping
improve the environment, the government's support of ethanol
investment will benefit agricultural producers and create industrial
development. There is no doubt in my mind that the banning of
MMT will boost demand for ethanol and help to create new long
term markets for corn and grain as feedstock to the ethanol process.
I heartily support Bill C-94 and I strongly encourage all
members to do likewise.
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I have
a number of questions.
I cannot remember when I have heard such a gross distortion of
facts as we have just heard. Perhaps it is as a result of overexposure
to manganese.
Does the member not believe that officials and experts in the
Department of Health are competent and reliable? Has she read the
blues from when Health Canada appeared as a witness before the
committee and on several different occasions clearly stated
manganese in fuels does not present any health hazard to
Canadians? That is clear. It is written down and there for her to see.
(1110 )
The other comment I have is a return to the red herring of
ethanol. The member should check the evidence presented by
witnesses. Every manufacturing and refining witness that appeared
before us said ethanol is not an alternative, it will not replace
MMT.
Mrs. Ur: Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.
Perhaps his judgment is that ethanol is not the only alternative. In
my speech I offered other alternatives. It is one of the alternatives
that can be offered to this program.
Health is not the issue at the present time. We are looking at the
air pollution issue as well. He says we do not take studies into
consideration. In the United States they filed with the EPA four
times as to qualifications for MMT. Three times they filed under
section 211(c) and were denied. This section deals with matters
concerning public health in relation to MMT as well the effect of
MMT on the performance of emission control devices. They were
turned down.
In their good wisdom they looked at section 211(f)(1) within the
clean air act. The application was denied because it only related to
the health aspects. We must consider what section they applied and
when it was accepted or turned down.
There have been other studies conducted. I believe some Reform
Party members said NOx emissions would be reduced by 20 per
cent. However, these data were collected by Ethyl corporation.
Environment Canada has said NOx would be reduced by 5 per cent.
We must get our data straight on the issue.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I listened to the hon. member's comments quite closely. I
am a little concerned she is still putting forth the idea that ethanol is
an alternative to MMT. As my hon. colleague from Athabasca
stated, clear evidence was presented to the committee which
contradicts what she is trying to say.
Once again in her comments she has said ethanol is one of the
alternatives, which is simply not correct. I would like her to retract
that statement because ethanol is not an alternative to MMT.
Mrs. Ur: Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague. In the past
few days or weeks General Motors acknowledged that its cars
would be able to use ethanol gas.
In addition I am very proud to say that gas stations have included
ethanol pumps in London, Ontario, within the last week or two.
They have been in touch with the car manufacturers. Obviously
they know there is a requirement for such an option. I am very
pleased to say ethanol is making strides in southwestern Ontario,
my area.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, as I have listened to the debate over the past few days one
thing has become abundantly obvious. We need to do more
research. The evidence, as the hon. member said, reflects people on
one side saying one thing and people on the other side saying
another thing.
I appeal to the government to support the amendment my
colleague from Athabasca has made. We should give some time to
it. The Americans are studying it. We need to look at it some more.
It would be a great disservice to Canadians to quickly rush the bill
through the House. There is nothing wrong with accepting the
amendment and looking at this matter a little more.
If we look at the evidence presented in committee it becomes
quite clear we need to look at this a lot more. I hope the
government will listen to reason and support the amendment.
(1115 )
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton-Middlesex, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.
I reassure the member that the government is not rushing
through this issue. The minister gave notice in 1993, two years ago.
In my view that is not rushing.
16408
Further, I believe the House has been working on it since 1985
to broker a solution. Senior departmental officials from
environment, transport, industry and natural resources have all
been working with senior representatives from the petroleum
companies and the automotive industry. This has not come by
night; it has been looked at for several years with one option or
another.
With all due respect, I believe there has been sufficient data put
together and we have to move forward. We cannot constantly be
looking and looking and looking. We have a party in the House that
tells us we are wasting money continually. This costs money. I do
not say it is wasting money when we do studies, but it costs money.
We have adequate information. Let us move forward on the issue. It
is time to move. We have to respect the information we have
collected.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is the House ready for the
question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): The question is on the
amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
amendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): All those in favour of the
amendment will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): In my opinion the nays
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Pursuant to Standing
Order 45(7), a division on the question now before the House
stands deferred until Monday, November 20, at 6 p.m., at which
time the bells to call in the members will be sounded for not more
than 15 minutes.
* * *
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.) moved 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.
He said: Madam Speaker, I am very pleased, along with my
colleague from Portage-Interlake, to move second reading of the
bill that provides for the formal foundation of the Department of
Human Resources. This is the last of the 10 reorganization bills and
with its passage the major reorganization of departments that began
in 1993 will be complete.
(1120 )
The bill primarily deals with administrative reorganization. As
members know, the new department brought together portions of
several other departments: the former departments of employment
and immigration, health and welfare, secretary of state, and
Labour.
At the outset I say the bill makes no significant changes to the
statutory elements of the legislation that established these founding
departments.
[Translation]
The bill does not change the powers of the federal government or
the provinces. It gives no new powers. The mandate conferred in
the bill is clearly limited to the matters over which Parliament has
jurisdiction. That is literally what it says in clause 6.
In other words, the programs and structures included in existing
legislation have simply been put together in this new bill.
The Bloc objects to clause 20 because it allows the minister to
sign contracts with agencies and institutions other than the
provinces. But this is not new. This has not changed.
For instance, the bill includes agreements on older workers with
the government of Quebec and the other provinces. Under this
agreement, the government purchases annuities from financial
institutions.
[English]
All the legislation does is allow us to continue to provide
assistance for older workers by buying a series of annuities from
financial institutions in full co-operation with the provinces.
Frankly, the attempt to raise fears and create the impression that
this is some form of new intrusion is simply another example of
blowing smoke, which we have seen so rampant over the past
several weeks.
Why then is the legislation important? Why bring together four
or five departments into a singular instrument of government? I
think the vision that underlies the reorganization of the department
is captured in the name itself, Human Resources Development. It
tries to bring together all the different elements, instruments,
programs and policies of the federal government into one coherent
16409
approach to the fundamental issue dealing with individual
Canadians. In a sense it is a single drawer out of which a number of
tools can be brought to try to tackle and focus on the concerns and
issues of many Canadians as they go through difficult times of
personal, family and community adjustment at a time of incredible
changes in society.
This is not a defence of the status quo or what used to be. It is an
attempt to try to provide a new, innovative way of doing
government. One of the great singular difficulties we have, as we
well know, is to get people to begin to think differently about how
government can relate to individuals, communities and the country.
The old ways simply are not relevant to the kinds of conditions we
now face. That is one reason the government has undertaken to
provide a new set of instruments, brought together with a single
focus of policy. It really gives us a foundation on which the role
and participation of the Canadian government can tackle the real
deficit problem in the country, which is not just the fiscal deficit
but also the human deficit, a deficit as corrosive and undermining
to the well-being of individuals as anything we face on the fiscal
side.
The singular challenge we face, regardless of political opinion or
jurisdiction, is how to give Canadians the ability, the resources and
the support they need to manage sometimes very painful and
difficult transitions as the economy changes into a globally
integrated economy, as we try to cope with the major impacts of
new technology and the impacts on the workplace, where job
requirements and qualifications change in an instant. This almost
revolutionary transitional sweep is affecting not only Canada but
every country in the world.
(1125 )
The time has come for all levels of government-federal,
provincial, and municipal-not to engage in the old fashioned
warfare of whose turf we own, but to find ways of working
together, find ways of bringing together our combined resources.
The attempts to try to stake out what one jurisdiction should do
versus the other oftentimes leave out one major problem. We are
still talking about the same people who are interested in their
family, their job and their community and simply want government
to help, not hinder or in the way but provide the resources they
need.
The real fear and the real uncertainty gripping the lives of people
is how to cope with unprecedented change and how to make
something of it that can be positive and constructive. There are
those in our society and I suppose there are people in the chamber
who would like to roll back that change. Like King Canute, they
would like to stop the waves from coming in. That is bound to
frustration.
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville): Madam Speaker, I did
not want to interrupt my colleague, but I have just consulted with
the official opposition and we have contravened one of the rules in
the House.
According to Standing Order 45(6)(a), a division deferred on
Thursday is not held on Friday but is instead deferred to the next
sitting day at the ordinary hour of adjournment.
The government whip did not consult with or get the consent of
our party. Nor did he get the consent of the official opposition in
deferring the vote.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I will take that under
advisement and get back to the member.
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre): Madam Speaker, the
fundamental purpose and rationale for reorganizing the department
is to put us in a position where we can take a holistic view of this
transformation, try to put a finder on it that enables us to see the
linkages and the crossovers.
We know full well that the problem of child poverty stems
oftentimes from relationships in the workplace. We know that poor
children also end up with children who have illnesses. Therefore
we have to find some way of cross-linking the responses and in so
doing be more effective and more efficient both within and
between governments and provide the best possible answer in that
respect. This means not abandoning basic values but finding new
ways of doing things.
We have to recognize, a fundamental and critical issue, is that
the old top down centralized hierarchies of governmental
organization, which have been really a product of the old industrial
age, no longer work effectively. The kind of management that is
driven from a command point of view no longer works very
effectively. We now must find a much different way of working in a
society with individuals and communities, much more in a lateral
and horizontal way than in a vertical way. The old manuals that
governed inputs and outputs and measured results according to
fiscal accounts no longer apply when it comes down to values.
I would like to point out one of the interesting initiatives we
were able to co-sponsor with the OECD last spring. The secretary
of labor in the United States and I made a motion that rather than
have the OECD issue purely economic indicators every year it
should begin to also look at social indicators, the impacts on
investments in education, investments in welfare and what it tells
us in terms of the resulting capacity and competence of individuals
to make progress in dealing with the problems.
I am really talking about getting the best use of taxpayers'
dollars at a time when we face real restraint and providing a much
more effective way of enabling people to respond and make
choices themselves and not have choices made for them.
Let me give one small example of how a saving can be made that
has an impact both for the individual and for society at large. If we
could get the 400,000 people who are almost permanently
unemployed through the unemployment insurance ranks and who
16410
receive benefits by changing that benefit to a form of employment
benefit so they could get one more week of work, we would save
the entire system $50 million, just by that one act alone, an
additional week of work.
(1130 )
Think of what it does for the individual who knows that for the
first time he or she has an opportunity to springboard back into the
workforce as opposed to simply planning a life which is a constant
round of getting from one benefit program to another. That is the
key element in trying to shift the role of government and the way
government operates.
This is not critical of what was done in the past. It was a product
of its time. In the 1940s, 1950s and even the 1960s there was a view
about how government should work in terms of providing a form of
security through welfare payments and social benefits. During
those times we were not facing the kind of economic
transformation which is going on today. We were not facing the
disruption which is now taking place.
People now have a much higher level of skills requirements. We
have seen all the reports; I do not have to repeat them. The reports
show that those who have some kind of post-secondary education
have an 85 per cent to 90 per cent chance of getting a job. Those
who have less than high school have about a 30 per cent chance of
getting a job.
One cannot simply say it is the individual who has to survive and
swim in that sea. I reject that philosophy. Government after all is
nothing more than the combined collective representation of all
those individuals recognizing there are certain things that have to
be done together and not individually. We have to combine
resources across the country so that when one area is facing higher
unemployment, other areas help support it. That is the fundamental
concept of sharing.
The more we fragment the country, the more we divide it,
separate it and turn it into a series of fiefdoms, the less capable we
are of helping individuals to respond when they have needs because
we no longer have the benefit of that sharing. That is why the
federal government must continue to play an important role in this
area. Those who are the apostles of provincialism, which is to say
turn everything over and make all the decisions, will recognize
what can happen.
One example is a discussion we are having with the province of
British Columbia. It is feeling the pressure from people who are
moving in from other provinces. Those in B.C. forget that in the
1980s people from British Columbia were moving to other
provinces which were picking up the responsibility. They forget
that it was a very important time for there to be a balanced wheel to
make sure there was a proper adjudication and sharing of resources.
That is why it is important to help redefine, select and work out
how we in the new department of human resources can play that
role clearly in a system of partnership. We must also make sure
there is a very active and useful delivery of service to individual
Canadians nationally.
In the last year in the department of human resources in its
combined form, we provided in one way or another a transaction
service to one million Canadians. We are the largest service
delivery organization in the country. We deal with more Canadians
than McDonald's, Air Canada and Sears, Roebuck combined. That
is why the question of service becomes so important.
One of the most important elements of the reforms we are
introducing is trying to understand how we can provide a much
better service related to where the individual is and to get away
from the top down command system. I used to say that the
departments we brought together had a General Motors or IBM
philosophy. I wanted to turn that into a Canadian Tire philosophy
where it was based in the local communities with tools and
instruments customized and tailored to the needs of those
communities.
We are pioneering in this approach. We have made enormous
progress in the past year by being able to fundamentally rethink
and redo the way in which the department of human resources
works. It is an attempt to find the most relevant kind of
governmental organization to fit the job system and social system
we are going to need as we approach the new century.
As an example, last August we announced a fundamental change
in the way in which the service delivery operation of the
department would operate. We are going from 450 points of service
in the country to 700 points of service. We are providing a much
broader network.
(1135 )
Some of my colleagues have been very concerned about how the
federal government ensures adequate and effective services in rural
areas. This means a much broader extension of the services of the
department into areas that did not have services before. People can
now access services without having to travel 50 miles or 70 miles
to visit an old CEC.
I will give the example of a person in Elgin county where I
visited about a month or so ago. In terms of testing out new models,
one of our young officers in St. Thomas worked out a system where
through the Internet he was able to provide the same access to
information and services we used to provide by having somebody
come into the St. Thomas office. In a period of three months with
that simple change alone he was able to provide service to 4,000
new clients.
If we had had to do it the old way, people would have been in line
ups five miles long every single day at that St. Thomas office
trying to find information on pensions or employment. One of the
16411
end results is that people can access the job bank in the local
grocery stores, high schools, libraries, places where people go,
where they carry out their normal business. We can work
partnerships at those local levels so people get that same level of
service.
We are also working with the disabled community to establish a
new job bank for disabled Canadians which is tied in with a large
number of corporations. Again the access is provided at the local
level and is designed by the users themselves working with the
business community. All of a sudden a number of disabled
Canadians can put their resumes on the system. Businesses can
recognize what those resumes are and they can do the transaction
together. It frees up our own officers to do the really important and
intense work of counselling and mentoring and providing good
advice as to where one can go and how to get there.
One of the major advantages as well is that what used to be the
old job centres are now becoming in a sense human resource
centres where there is an integration of all the services of the
department. Seniors, students and workers under the
unemployment insurance system can all come to the same place.
As a result, seniors will have four times as many offices in which
they can be serviced than previously. The new technology means
that processing UI claims can be reduced to two days when it used
to take sometimes 10 days to two weeks. Claims for old age
security can be processed in half a day instead of eight days. That
means a lot. We can put that in cold statistical terms but for a senior
who has been waiting for an application for old age security, to
have it within a half a day as opposed to eight or 10 days makes a
big difference when they do not have a lot of money to deal with.
We are substantially broadening that network to a variety of
points of service. We are using the new technology. We are not
afraid of it, like some members are saying, like the Luddites of old
who say that we cannot use new information systems. There is not a
business, not an organization in the country which is not asking
itself questions about how to improve efficiency, productivity and
access by using the new systems. That is what we are now doing
and implementing. It is a fundamental part of trying to provide
better service for those nine million Canadians who use our
services.
Not only are we integrating within the programs we offer, we are
also undertaking a wide variety of experiments and projects
throughout Canada in terms of a guichet unique. We are providing
ways in which all three levels of government can work together to
provide a common one stop shopping service.
For example, in Alberta there are a series of youth centres. Both
the federal and provincial governments now combine to provide a
very direct ability to deal with long term unemployed youth in
three of those centres. In early evaluations and in talking to Alberta
officials, we are finding a much higher success rate because we
combined services and young people can come to one place and get
that same kind of service.
Another interesting example is in the province of Quebec, in
Alma, the hometown of the Leader of the Opposition. My
department, the SQDM, the local municipalities and local clubs are
now combined in a single service delivery system.
It is exceedingly strange that we are being attacked by those who
say we are intruding but in fact we have a wide variety of those
co-operative projects going on in the province of Quebec with the
Government of Quebec. The reason we are doing that is because
they work better that way. This is at the working level. It is not at
the level of the top bureaucrats or politicians who love to talk about
the grand design. It is at the working community level. We are
dealing directly with the service in towns like Alma, Jonquière, and
other places where there are these combined services.
(1140)
The key to success is that people find it much more effective,
much more helpful and much more productive for them as
individuals. Is that not what it is about? Is that not what
government is about? Those are the kinds of changes we are
undertaking.
It also means we will go back and look at many of the old
programs which were developed 20 or 30 years ago, some of which
I helped to develop when I was a minister back in the early eighties,
for example the national training act. We must ask if they work any
more.
During this past year we have undertaken very extensive
evaluations testing what does and does not work. We have
produced a series of 24 different evaluation reports which are
publicly available. They provide a very good assessment as to what
kind of involvement or participation makes sense in the areas of
benefits, youth, et cetera. Based upon those evaluations, which we
have already highlighted, we are providing a substantial distillation
of our programs from 39 or 40 programs down to five programs,
five basic tools.
I will take a moment to articulate this most clearly. These five
tools will provide the opportunity for decisions to be made at the
local employment centre level instead of having to respond to some
program designed and manufactured in Ottawa or the regional
office. Decisions can be made right at the community level with the
local partners, the provinces, municipalities, businesses and social
agencies. They can tailor how those tools can be most effectively
used to deal with the unemployment problem in a specific locale.
It is decentralization of a very different kind. There has been a
lot of talk and we have read much in the paper about
decentralization. So far it has been a somewhat restricted debate as
it talks only
16412
about decentralization in terms of transferring from the federal
government to 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? Should
we not be looking at how governments become partners and
facilitators in the local community context? Not only do we find a
much more effective way to deal with the unemployment problem
in a specific community, but we can also begin to help strengthen
and enhance those communities themselves.
Social analysts have made a very good and profound
contribution by recognizing that with all the pressures of the global
economy and new technologies, one of the consequences has been
the unravelling of what they call a civic society. Those intermediate
organizations, trade unions, social agencies, community based
organizations no longer have the same capacity to respond.
I will give a personal working example. When I was in school,
just a few years ago-
Mr. McCormick: Very few, yes.
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre): You don't have to
snicker.
One of my summer jobs was working on recreation programs for
a boy's club, which was associated with the local United Church in
inner city Winnipeg. We brought in 40 or 50 volunteers per night to
provide student recreation programs at the local level in an area
where children did not have much opportunity.
A month or so ago I was talking to a woman who was a
contemporary of mine. She had been involved in the program and
had become heavily involved in the work of the United Church in
offering this program. I asked her whether she still did those
programs and she replied: ``No, we spend money lobbying people
like you''. That is an interesting change. Rather than investing their
dollars in terms of providing a rooted, community based activity
directly designed to meet those problems, they were mobilizing to
lobby the government.
(1145)
Is there a way we can make government a partner in that area? Is
there a way government can help the local boys' club or church
organization? That is why I want to decentralize the department. It
will give far more discretion, far more autonomy and far more
accountability at the local level so it can make decisions and work
out its business plans. I believe this is a very exciting opportunity.
The other night in Winnipeg there was a major conference put on
by the Institute for Advanced Research on children's problems. The
institute brought together from across Canada about 20 different
agencies which were pioneers in bringing together community
based responses to the problems of children and youth at risk. It
was a heart warming and encouraging experience. We saw how
schools, agencies, local police, local municipalities, the provinces
and our department all came together at the same time to provide a
range of services. They could make use of the resources. Rather
than having single silos or pyramids built all over town, they were
now bringing them together.
Their request to us was to have an information network which
would link them across Canada so they can share experiences and
resources, so they can get common procurement and look at
common training for their workers. That is a simple way of
hooking them up to the information network.
Look at the connection. One of the reforms we are introducing in
our department is the new labour market information system across
Canada. Individuals can tap into that system to find jobs whether
they are in Gander or in Prince Rupert. If we can provide the same
information network to those child centres, all of a sudden we have
substantially enhanced their resource with very little cost to us and
we have made them much more effective in their local
communities. That is the vision the department is trying to put
forward.
How do we take this very large department, which has 27,000
employees and a budget of $60 billion, and really make it an active,
involved participant at the community level along with its other
partners?
At times I show some frustration at the old debate about which
level of bureaucracy will control the money. I am saying the real
problem is at the community level. That is where it really counts.
It gives us the opportunity to help to clarify the roles between
levels of government. Contrary to the charge that there is a big
intrusion, one of the direct results of the department will be to give
far more space for provincial governments to begin to make
decisions at their level of responsibility and jurisdiction. I firmly
believe that. The time has come for us to take a much closer look at
the respective roles and to build bridges to bring us together.
That is why we have formally invited the provinces to work with
the Government of Canada on the decentralization of the delivery
of services so we can tailor them to local labour market needs. That
is the key. We cannot do it unilaterally, as some provinces want; we
must do it together.
[Translation]
As the federal government simplifies its programs and further
defines their scope, the roles of both levels of government will be
clarified, and major sectors of the labour market will be open to the
provinces.
16413
(1150)
[English]
That is a very major task we have set for ourselves. We have
already started a number of discussions with many provinces about
how we can do exactly that. One of the most important results of
the new legislation we are preparing which will be introduced very
shortly will give us the ability to make a much better, more
effective clarification of the respective roles and to create far more
space for provinces to make their decisions.
Rather than getting into the bare knuckle federalism that some
people in the House have advocated, in which they seem to enjoy
confrontation, it is time to start building a partnership of
federalism. In that wonderful world of Judith Maxwell, one of our
important social and economic confreres, said: ``Is it it not time
governments look at the potential of federalism, not its problems,
not its disputes, but the potential of federalism?'' That is what we
are trying to discover and search out as we deal with the new issues,
the potential of federalism, the potential we can bring together.
As I said earlier, we have already succeeded in building that in a
number of new delivery systems. Let me give an example of the
things in the past year we have been able to do working with the
provinces in those areas.
One good example is from Newfoundland dealing with a serious
problem, as my colleague from St. John's knows well. We
established a collaborative approach to deal with youth
unemployment. As a result of the student work and service
program, 2,700 young people including 1,000 on social assistance
were given an opportunity to work for a period of 16 weeks in
either the private sector or community agencies. Upon completion
of that work they were given a voucher and could then choose to go
back to school or use it for self-employment.
A full 97 per cent of those young people on social assistance
have used or intend to use those vouchers to go back to school.
They worked, they earned it, they have the voucher and now they
understand the importance of education. That was done with full
collaboration between two levels of government working with
youth agencies, schools and colleges in that area.
Does that kind of thing not indicate exactly how collaboration is
better than confrontation, division and separation? That is the way
to get things done, by working at that level of opportunity.
Let me give another example from British Columbia where
certain ministers are claiming we do nothing. There is a major child
care project going on, almost $30 million invested through our
strategic initiative. Again, we sat down and worked it out. We
asked how we could provide a better service in child car. The
province took the lead in the design and implementation and we
provided the resource through which it could establish community
based child care centres that provide a series of services for 30 or
40 child care activities. They provide a common procurement,
common training, respite care for parents who need it.
The evaluations I shared with a minister in British Columbia
again demonstrating we have saved the child care system money
because there is a common based service. Those individual child
care units can provide a better range of services because there are
special remedial programs for disabled children which can be
shared among a number of units. That collaboration has resulted in
better planning within the community level about how children can
be looked after at the community level.
This makes sense, rather than getting into the bare knuckles. It is
better to realize the real issue is children and how we can work
together to provide that kind of service.
Another good example in Quebec is the APPORT program which
the province pioneered with the previous government. It has
provided a form of assistance and testing those on social assistance
so they can go back to school or to work with the use of an income
supplement. While the debate about separation was raging, we
were negotiating with the Government of Quebec about how we
could combine and collaborate jointly fund the APPORT program
and extend it to new kinds of clients so that we could find a way of
enabling people, rather than staying on social assistance, to find
self-sufficiency and independence in their lives and find a job. This
is again an example that while the great political battles are waging
over here, at the community level we can do something very useful,
very effective and very helpful.
(1155)
That is one level of the kind of partnership we see as the abiding
philosophy we want to put forward. Another very important
problem all members of the House are concerned about, because
we see it every day in our constituencies, is our young people. They
have a much tougher time than our generation had. They have far
fewer opportunities because of the higher demands for skill and
education. They have far less certainty about what the future holds
because the future is so much in turbulence and turmoil.
However there are ways we can work together in partnership.
One of the areas we are exploring most actively is how to work
with the private sector in this area. The most crucial area and where
there have been serious problems is when young people finish their
formal education. How do they open the door to new kinds of work
experiences? How do they make that transition, build that bridge?
Our department has been working on the establishment of a
series of human resource sector councils. We now have 19 in place.
These bring together employees and employers, unions and
management to work out a human resource plan for their own
industry: electronics, software, tourism, horticulture, culture. They
recognize, again through experience, is by bringing workers and
management together they can do much better than having them
separated. They also recognize they have very serious gaps in skills
in those sectors and they are working to improve them.
16414
We have just signed an agreement with the Grocery Products
Manufacturers Council two weeks ago, the second largest
manufacturing group in Canada with about 300,000 employees.
Half its employees do not have the level of education required to
meet the new kinds of technologies now coming into that business.
Therefore they will start with basic on the job literacy programs.
The private sector helps to support this program and the provincial
governments provide support for the private sector which is taking
the responsibility to manage the program.
Councils could provide very important conclusions in youth
internships in which we could provide the opportunity, managed
and driven by the private sector, to take responsibility for our
young people to make that transition. It means that in schools in all
provinces there are young people who work half days through a
private sector opportunity and go to school half days. The
curriculum and standards have been designed jointly by the private
sector council and the local school or provincial agency.
This year 25,000 young Canadians will have the opportunity to
be involved in that kind of youth internship program. Again, it is a
partnership: government with the private sector; government with
the local 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 the department is about, finding what works based
on dealing with the real individual needs of Canadians and getting
better services to them, but also developing a real set of
partnerships that will enable us to reach out and cross over to find
the linkages, bridges and connections throughout the country with
our fellow governments, the private sector and community style
agencies to combine resources and focus our efforts specifically on
enabling individual Canadians to make a difference and to make a
change.
Therefore I strongly recommend to the House the legislation we
have before us. I hope members will see it for what it really is, not
based on the old prisms and optics of the past, which is to say this is
federal or that is provincial, but on the prisms and optics of the
future, which is to say let us redefine government as partners with
individuals, partners with communities and as partners with each
other. That is the real philosophy that underlies the new
Department of Human Resources Development.
(1200)
With the accord and support of the House, we can get this
legislation in place. It would give us the authority to bring together
the powers of the old department and provide a coherent, concise
focus on helping Canadians meet the challenges of a new century.
Mr. Boudria: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. A little
earlier today there was a question raised in the House about
whether or not the vote that was deferred until Monday at 6 p.m. by
the deputy government whip was appropriately deferred.
I want to confirm to the House that consultations were held by
the whips. Pursuant to Standing Order 45(7), the vote was properly
deferred pursuant to the consultations which had taken place as
early as Tuesday of this week.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): In response to the point of
order by the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville, since we appear
to have agreement of the whips of all recognized parties, under
Standing Order 45(7), the vote on the amendment for the third
reading of Bill C-94 will take place at 6 p.m., Monday, November
20.
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville): Madam Speaker, we
have no objection to the vote being held at 6 p.m. rather than 6.30
p.m. It should have been clearly stated when it was presented to the
House that consent had been reached by all the whips.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I am sorry, that is not a
point of order.
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Madam Speaker, the
minister who tabled the bill implies that his bill is a model of
flexibility, co-ordination, decentralization, and letting the average
citizen decide. Unfortunately, that is not the case, since it all
depends on whether the minister is prepared to say yes or no to a
project, any project.
In the final analysis, the minister will decide what will be
decentralized, who will get a grant, who may co-ordinate, because
ultimately, the decision will always be his. This bill is the exact
opposite of flexible. This bill is unbending, and its author did not
listen to Quebec.
Coming ten days after a referendum in which the people of
Quebec spoke loud and clear, while giving Canada a brief respite to
shape up, this bill is an insult. It is easy for the minister to say: Let
us set prerogatives and jurisdictions aside and co-operate, when in
this legislation he assumes powers he never had under the
constitution, powers he had the colossal nerve to extrapolate from
his spending powers and which he today wants to legalize in a bill.
(1205)
With complete disregard for efficiency in the use of shrinking
resources and for the constitution, this bill for the first time clearly
gives the federal Minister of Human Resources Development the
power to replace the provinces in many of their jurisdictions, since,
and we will see this later on, it literally allows the minister, as it
16415
says in the clause, to make decisions on all matters relating to
human resources development in Canada, no less.
Far from withdrawing from provincial jurisdictions, the federal
government is in fact assuming general responsibility for human
resources development. The federal government is assuming the
powers it needs, whether the provinces like it or not, although some
do, but that is another matter and we will get back to that, but
Quebec was not consulted, and when it was, it said in no uncertain
terms what it wanted. The federal government is getting ready to
change the social safety net, with no regard for the impact this will
have on the provinces and especially on the individuals concerned.
This is a new phase, a qualitative leap in the development of
Canadian federalism which tries to provide a legislative basis for
this invasion by the federal government's spending power. The
government has decided unilaterally to provide a legal, specific and
positive basis for its spending power, which it often used to spend
its way into debt. Today, the debt is being decentralized to the
provinces, but the power has been recentralized to Ottawa.
This confirms our worst fears, and we discussed this during the
referendum campaign. For instance, instead of announcing a
withdrawal of the federal presence from manpower, this bill
accentuates that presence by giving the federal government the
requisite powers to negotiate and make deals directly with local
agencies, without prior consent from the provinces. That is what
the minister calls being flexible. Even municipalities may be
approached and offered responsibilities under contracts to be
concluded directly with the Department of Human Resources
Development.
A good example is what happened during the so-called battle of
the employment centres. We have yet to hear the epilogue to this
story. Bill C-96 throws wide open the door to the delegation of the
powers entrusted to the minister or the new employment and
insurance commission-I will get back to this-to entities other
than provincial governments and public administrations.
In other words, this bill, without any consultations, also opens
the door to privatization and contracting out. Again, this is to be
done on the minister's say so; if this bill is passed, he will be in a
position to adopt any standards he wants and to define expected
results. All those involved-including provinces, if he feels like it,
organizations, people and financial institutions-will have to be
totally flexible in complying with his decisions. This will remain
true even though he says he wants to make employment centres
responsible for some programs, since these centres will also be
accountable to the minister.
(1210)
If Bill C-96 is passed, it will also put in place the legislative
framework allowing the Minister of Human Resources
Development to go ahead with his UI reform according to the
policy outlines revealed in the past few days. This policy is fully
consistent with the bill.
I would like to stress a disturbing fact. This bill, whose only
purpose, according to the minister, is to join together previously
separate departments or programs, is Kim Campbell's legacy to the
Liberals.
It is important to remember that, during her short-lived
government, she gathered under the same roof all departments
dealing with unemployment insurance, income security for both
seniors and young people, literacy, student loans, employment
training, and family policies. She did this as part of a major reform
of social programs, as she said during the election campaign. Over
50 per cent of the federal government's budget spending is done,
decided, directed, and controlled by this new Department of
Human Resources Development.
The Tories did not hide the fact that they wanted to carry out a
comprehensive reform. Let us not forget that, during the following
election campaign, Liberal candidate Chrétien hounded the
minister for saying, and we remember this, that this issue was too
complex to be debated during an election campaign.
When questioned, the Liberals never suggested that they were
only waiting to be elected before doing what Kim Campbell wanted
to do. It is important to keep this in mind. It is important to show
that when the Liberals came to power, instead of putting the
departments back the way they were, they took advantage of the
major upheaval ordered by senior officials who are still there. This
clearly shows that the Liberal policy is the same as the old Tory
policy, which is the same as that proposed in 1985 by the
Macdonald Commission set up, as we know, by Mr. Trudeau's
Liberal government.
Let us have a look-and I will quote the minister himself-at the
new department's jurisdiction. In his budget plan tabled on
February 27, 1995, he said that Human Resources Development
Canada was in charge of the UI program, the income security
program for children and seniors, a major part of family policy,
existing federal programs of assistance to the provinces for
post-secondary education and social assistance, labour market
adjustment, social development and student loans. This accounts
for more than 50 per cent of federal expenditures.
The federal government is playing a major role in the daily lives
of Canadians without having to consult anyone, when it is literally
altering the social and economic picture in Canada. But Quebec
should be left to get organized to look after the people let down by
the federal government.
16416
(1215)
Quebec is expected to live with the consequences of this
government's actions, that is to say, at a time when, as we know,
deficits are high, let the middle class bear the brunt of the tax load,
target assistance to the most disadvantaged, eventually creating a
rather difficult situation, all this without being required in any way
to consult the Quebec government, which is the only government
representing the people and nation of Quebec.
Must we remind members that a people that is different from
others sets up its own social, economic, cultural and political
structure that is not necessarily better but different, based on its
priorities and its needs. Merely ten days after the October 30 vote,
what Bill C-96 is saying is that the central government, through the
Minister of Human Resources Development, will go ahead with its
plans for reform and keep making decisions affecting the social
fabric of Quebec without having to consult anyone.
No wonder it is telling us: ``Forget jurisdictions. It does not
matter any more''. It is taking over, making an unprecedented
power grab in areas of responsibility that are not its own, by
misusing its spending power to provide direction, decide, take
charge.
Let us take a look at some clauses. The people have the right to
know. The bill reads, in part: ``The powers, duties and functions of
the Minister extend to-they can say that again-and include all
matters over which Parliament has jurisdiction relating to the
development of the human resources of Canada-that is an even
wider area than the specific ones I mentioned-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 federal government is trying to take over from the
Government of Quebec a very wide and ill defined area of
responsibility, human resources development.
It never had that power. True, unemployment insurance
legislation was put in place, but that required a constitutional
amendment. Unemployment insurance and UI benefits are one
thing, but we know that the government never had the power to
decide and to provide direction it is now claiming over manpower
training. Quite the contrary.
And what about family policy, poverty, literacy, dropouts? The
government first used its spending power to interfere, and now it is
making this intrusion legal.
Let us move to clause 7.
7. In exercising the powers or performing the duties or functions assigned to
the Minister under this or any other Act of Parliament, the Minister may-
(b) cooperate with provincial authorities with a view to the coordination of
efforts-
There is no requirement to do so.
(1220)
Indeed, if you look at clause 20, it reads:
For the purpose of facilitating the formulation, coordination and
implementation of any program or policy-the Minister may enter into
agreements with a province-agencies of provinces, financial institutions and
such other persons or bodies as the Minister considers appropriate.
The minister decides whether or not he wants to hold
consultations. He can delegate any power to the Minister of
Labour, the commission or any other person or body he chooses.
This is important, because the desire to take over the provinces'
responsibility for their own fields of jurisdiction has, as we know, a
different impact on Quebec than it does on the other provinces. A
debate seems to be taking place outside Quebec concerning the
social program reform, or a reform of federalism. Some want to
maintain centralization, while others are in favour of
decentralization.
We understand that, but we want to say this: those who think that
there is a will on this government's part to decentralize should open
their eyes and their ears, and they should read these provisions.
They will realize that what is in the making is not decentralization
but, on the contrary, what one might call recentralization. Indeed,
the central government is giving itself the means to directly decide
what will happen at the local level.
It is easy for the minister to say: ``Yes, citizen A or citizen B will
be able to decide to-'' That is not the case. The minister is the one
who will really make the decision. He is the one who will decide
and it will not be possible for a province wishing to integrate its
programs to do so. We will let the debate proceed, but we had to
make this point.
As for Quebec, it has been fighting Ottawa's centralizing views
for a long time, because it conflicts with its own desire to have a
well-adjusted or co-ordinated, as René Lévesque used to say, social
and economic policy. Let me just mention that, before the Second
World War, the Rowell-Sirois commission began preparing the
ground-and would later complete the process-to ensure that, in
Canada, major budgetary social and economic decisions would all
be taken by Ottawa, with the provinces becoming mere flexible
subcontractors.
The bill introduced by the human resources development
minister is not new but is certainly in line with the
recommendations of the Rowell-Sirois commission. However,
succeeding governments in Quebec have always fought hard to
maintain control over the
16417
province's social and economic development. The war helped the
central government, by allowing it to centralize all taxes. Once it
had a foot in the door, Ottawa would not back out.
In Quebec, the public, co-operative organizations, as well as
grass-roots movements, created a coalition, somewhat like the one
which we witnessed during the referendum campaign, and told then
premier Duplessis: ``Quebec needs its own taxes''.
(1225)
That tax is what allowed the then exuberant Quiet Revolution to
be channelled into specific projects.
At the federal-provincial conference on poverty in 1965, René
Lévesque, who was to become the first sovereignist premier of
Quebec and was then a federalist minister in a Liberal government,
gave a very clear explanation of what the position of his federalist
Liberal government was at the time.
I quoted him in relation to Bill C-95 but, if you will allow me, I
shall repeat the quotes here for the benefit of our audience and for
argument's sake. I do so for the simple reason that they show that
Quebec has made no progress between 1965 and 1995 in
controlling its own future. It has regressed. Quebecers have seen
their situation worsen. Concretely-applying it to manpower-the
people find themselves face to face with two levels of
decision-making, to their disadvantage.
René Lévesque said that it had become imperative to establish a
genuine economic and social policy. This policy needed to be
integrated, flexible in its mechanisms, include a social security
system centred on the family and be based on the right to assistance
on the basis of need. Secondly, he said, for the sake of efficiency
and on constitutional grounds, the Quebec government alone could
and should, within its own territory, design and implement such a
policy. I repeat, for the sake of efficiency first, and on
constitutional grounds.
Thirdly, Lévesque said, the social and economic development
policy they had formulated would create an integrated social
policy-I would interject here that the foregoing is the key
phrase-regional development policy, manpower policy, health
policy, housing policy and job training policy.
Finally, he said that, as a federalist, the general policy, while he
did not necessarily condemn it, did not necessarily correspond, in
terms of its spirit and terms of application, to one the Government
of Canada might opt for. The people of Quebec would enjoy at least
as many if not more benefits than other Canadians might.
For the sake of efficiency, for the sake of determining economic
and social policy as a function of needs and priorities, at a time
when money is scarce, it is urgent for Quebec's economic and
social policy to be integrated. Nothing, however, could be further
from integration than this Bill C-96, which makes the Minister of
Human Resources Development the key figure in that organization,
as he has so aptly said himself.
In the manpower field in particular, there is unanimity in
Quebec, and this has been expressed by another resolution by the
Société québécoise de développement de la main-d'oeuvre, which
comprises banking co-operatives, school boards, the Conseil du
patronat, along with municipal institutions, co-operative
businesses-just about everybody, you might say.
The Société québécoise de développement de la main-d'oeuvre,
on the proposal of Mr. Béland and with the support of Ghislain
Dufour, made a unanimous decision to ask the government-the
federal government to be precise-not to put in place a parallel
partnership structure or try to interfere with Quebec's jurisdiction
over manpower development.
(1230)
The board also indicated that the Société québécoise de
développement de la main-d'oeuvre is and must remain the
favoured partnership structure regarding Quebec manpower issues.
Must I remind the House that this organization is not a government
organization, but one whose members represent private groups.
This is the organization through which the manpower policy is
implemented. It stresses, almost imploringly, that the federal
government is set to put in place another network, adding an extra
level of consultation, decision and assessment.
This is not a reflection of the central government's will to
eliminate duplication and overlap, but of its will to take over
everywhere, pushing the provinces aside and sidelining Quebec.
Because it must be borne in mind that the cutbacks announced in
relation to the Canada social transfer will result, in 1997-98, in a
$1.9 billion shortfall on top of all the other cuts.
Quebec is going to go through some rough times. Meanwhile,
the central government and its HRD minister are letting UI fund
surpluses accumulate, so that they can play Santa Claus by going
over the Quebec government's head and spend this money in
provincial areas of jurisdiction. But contributions to the UI fund
come directly from employers and workers.
The minister of employment and consultation herself vigorously
denounced his bill. She says that: ``Like its labour market partners,
the Quebec government denounces Ottawa's intentions to set up its
own parallel manpower structures in Quebec. This federal initiative
amounts to a flat rejection of the unanimous Quebec consensus,
repeatedly expressed, both under the previous administration and
under the current one, on the need for Quebec to regain control over
all labour adjustment measures, including the related budgets''.
16418
Lise Bissonnette referred, in several editorials, to this increased
desire to interfere, the term is not strong enough because the
federal really wants to assume Quebec's power to make its own
political and economic decisions. This is not the first attempt by
the central government to bypass the Quebec government and
manpower corporation.
Former minister Valcourt tried to do the same. Remember who
told him off? None other than Liberal minister Bourbeau, also a
federalist, who said: ``Your commission does offer grants to what it
calls co-ordination groups for all sorts of projects, directly or
indirectly related to manpower training. These groups include all
kinds of associations. Such projects seem relatively pertinent, but
others are more questionable''.
He then said: ``Obviously, this is a new structure used by the
federal government to spend money which comes primarily from
the UI fund''.
He also added: ``What is unacceptable with this approach is that
it is totally improvised, this at a time when, more than ever,
government intervention in the manpower development sector
must be planned according to priorities, so as to deal efficiently
with issues such as manpower shortage, retraining in growing
economic sectors, as well as improvement of skills, and thus
benefit from market globalization''.
(1235)
Minister Bourbeau continued by saying: ``I find it hard to
believe that the federal government would wilfully do things
which, under the pretence of initiating a rapprochement with the
private sector, would result in the establishment of a network of
intermediaries, given that it pledged it would not do such a thing''.
I only alluded to manpower training because it is a very sensitive
issue at a time when Quebec is, sadly, the champion of poverty,
with an unemployment rate still at 11.2 per cent, and with Montreal
in 23rd place, out of 26 Canadian cities, in terms of income level.
We, Bloc Quebecois members, will do everything possible to
ensure that Quebec does not remain in that situation. Less than 10
days after the referendum, instead of listening to us, they impose
with an iron hand diktats that do not meet Quebec's economic and
social needs and priorities.
Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for La
Prairie:
That all words following the word ``That'' be deleted and replaced with the
following:
``this House declines to give second reading to Bill C-96, An Act to establish the
Department of Human Resources Development and to amend and repeal
certain related Acts, because the principle of the Bill includes no provision
requiring the Minister, as part of that person's powers, to award full and entire
financial compensation to any province wishing to exercise, fully and alone,
jurisdiction over human resources development.''
If the government would only give a sign that it has heard
Quebecers' majority vote calling unanimously for major changes,
especially with respect to manpower. It could have given a sign. By
moving second reading of this utterly offensive bill, the
government shows no concern for efficiency and integration, for
Quebec's need to co-ordinate all its resources at a difficult time, for
the Constitution, for the wishes expressed once again by 100 per
cent of Quebecers.
Consideration of this bill will allow us to say that this dialogue
of the deaf, which has been going on for so long and which hurts
both Quebec and probably Canada, must end. Should Canada,
however, end the dialogue by refusing to listen, Quebecers know
which way they must go to take control of their own destiny. In the
interests of the whole population of Quebec, of the whole Quebec
nation, Quebecers have shown the way that they will have no
choice but to follow.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): The amendment is in
order.
The debate is now on the amendment.
(1240)
[English]
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
am pleased to speak to Bill C-96 today.
At first glance one might think that a creation bill such as this is
little reason to engage in debate, but there is indeed much we need
to discuss. It is not so much what the bill says but the issues that
underlie the bill that merit a resounding rejection.
Before I begin I would like to examine a recent event that speaks
to why I stand before the House to express my rejection of Bill
C-96.
As members of the House know, our country is submerged in
troubling times. The referendum in Quebec has paralysed the
House, the Liberal government and in particular the Minister of
Human Resources Development. Promises made in the red book
have fallen by the wayside as the government has chosen to do
nothing, fearing the consequences of decisive action.
My party stated clearly at the outset of the referendum that we
favoured a strong and united Canada. To this end, we made positive
contributions to the debate. We outlined a very clear position for a
new confederation. Our plan would change Canada for the better
and bring our country into the next century healthy, vibrant and
able to cope with its new challenges. Unfortunately for Canada, the
no campaign launched a strategy based on a do nothing approach. It
believed the status quo would work. In short order, however, it
became obvious that this strategy was a complete and utter failure.
16419
Our Prime Minister had a 10-point lead in the polls and lost
it all. In a move motivated by panic and fear he committed a huge
virage. After having categorically rejected constitutional changes,
after having categorically rejected administrative changes, the
Prime Minister capitulated at the last minute and offered up
constitutional changes and distinct society. As we all know, this
tired rhetoric was soundly rejected by Canadians, not once but
twice.
Let me remind the Liberals that one of their titans, Mr. Trudeau,
thoroughly and publicly denounced this strategy on Monday of this
week.
In light of the Prime Minister's virage, Canadians are expecting
great changes from the government. However, in the week that has
just passed, do we have any indication of change? I think not.
Instead of change, the Minister of Human Resources Development
is attempting to sell us this flawed bill, which not only grabs more
powers for the federal government but also fails to introduce one
single noteworthy measure of administrative change.
I will speak on a number of areas the substance of Bill C-96
eliminates. My comments will touch briefly on these areas:
specific concern with some of the bill's provisions; the
government's trivial attempt at post-secondary education reforms;
the government's non-existent approach to decentralization; the
government's brazen attempt at accountability; and the
government's invisible strategy for reform of the Canada pension
plan. All these issues will show beyond a reasonable doubt that the
House has only one option: it must clearly and soundly reject the
bill.
In the bill the minister is accorded the power to deal directly with
groups and municipalities for the delivery of social programs. This
power circumvents the provinces directly and attempts to keep
them out of the decision making process. This is disconcerting, as
it is the provinces that have constitutional authority for social
program delivery. This power contained in clauses 20 and 21 of the
bill further demonstrates the government's penchant for power
grabbing and invasive behaviour.
(1245 )
The bill also allows for the appointment of a minister for labour.
If the government feels the need to increase the size of its cabinet
then it should admit so publicly, rather than doing it through the
back door like this. The government has an obligation to be
forthright in its reasoning. If I were a cynic I might suggest this
change amounted to nothing more than the creation of a position at
the cabinet table for the no campaign strategist, the hon. member
for Saint-Henri-Westmount. I will not imply motive as I am an
optimist. Instead I will leave it to Canadians to judge this for
themselves.
I would like to steer the discussion toward education. There can
be no doubt that education forms the bedrock of a successful
nation. Bill C-96 represents the creation of a department which
oversees the federal role in education policy. The bill is a stark
reminder that the government has no vision for an education policy
which will meet the needs of Canada's students into the 21st
century. The bill also reminds us that the government has failed in
its attempts to create changes to revitalize post-secondary
education.
By looking at the trends of globalization and retrenchment, we
see not only where the government has failed but, more important,
where the Reform Party offers a substantially stronger vision in this
regard.
Herman Melville once said that we are not a nation so much as a
world. This statement is as incisive as it is intimidating.
Unwittingly it speaks volumes of the major shifts taking place
today in all aspects of our world. For just as the business world is
confronting the pressures of globalization to be more productive
and competitive, so too are universities encountering the necessity
to provide students with better tools to help Canada remain
competitive.
There is at present a growing concern among educators in
Canada that students are entering the world market without the
requisite education and training to help them meet the needs of
their chosen vocation. The skills mismatch. The global job crisis.
Reinventing education. All of these are familiar battle cries of
observers writing in North American journals warning of this
disturbing trend.
Schools need to be relevant to reflect the realities of the modern
world and to help train present and future workers who are capable
of helping their employers, in whatever field, achieve higher levels
of performance and productivity. For example, the challenge facing
schools is to prepare future leaders to think critically about the
forces and requirements that shape business operations in global
markets and in different cross-cultural contexts.
What leadership do we have from the government in the area of
internationalization and education? Little to none. The Canadian
Bureau of International Education has reported that Canada's
performance in this area is the lowest among all G-7 countries. In
fact, the bureau found that the United States spends somewhat in
the order of 20 times what Canada spends in this regard. We are not
talking about increasing aggregate spending, but rather
reconfiguring current spending to reflect our strategic needs.
The federal government simply has to be a player in the area of
international education. In the short term a Reform government
would work to do the following. Strengthen the policy dialogue
with provincial governments and higher education institutions
through regular and systematic consultation and information
exchange at all levels. Increase networking and reinforce
collaborative ventures among higher education institutions in
priority regions and in priority areas of research. Foster the
development of stronger partnerships among higher education
institutions, professional associations and public authorities,
business and other organizations which have a stake in the quality
of higher education and research. Facilitate and encourage key
stakeholders, such as the provinces and territories, national
standards bodies and associations representing the learning
community, industry, business and
16420
labour to develop competency based skill tests which are matched
to learning outcomes developed by learning organizations.
I want to examine a second trend, namely that of fiscal
retrenchment. We are all agreed that the dismal state of public
finances in Canada places a tremendous burden on the capacity of
government to address any issue. This is particularly true in the
case of education. Having said that, we must not let education be
circumvented by, as the Smith commission noted in 1991, short
term, make shift responses that have postponed temporarily the day
of reckoning. I do not propose that we ignore the realities of
retrenchment, but that we address our fiscal plight with a strategic
mind set.
(1250)
We must re-examine the way we fund our post-secondary
institutions. Specifically we need to re-examine student loans and
transfers to provinces for education.
The Department of Human Resources Development, which the
bill will create, has done virtually nothing to take a lead role in
promoting a new vision for education financing in Canada. Instead
it has discussed, tinkered and carelessly cut.
Let us review this disappointing history. The 1994 discussion
paper on reforming social security talked vaguely about life long
learning. The document was long on rhetoric and short on details. It
talked in generalities, as most discussion papers do. We do not need
discussion. We need action. We need fresh and creative approaches
to confront the plight of our education financing mechanism.
Bill C-28, passed in June 1994, made some modest
improvements to the Canada student loans program. It removed
financial liability from the government, which is good. However, it
represents a stopgap measure for a program that requires
fundamental redesign.
Some serious questions need to be answered by the government.
For example, while the act made provisions to develop pilot
program testing, new financing schemes, such as income
contingent loans, it is not likely that anything will happen before
1997. That is four years that Canadians will have waited for the
government to act, four years that the government has neglected
the need to address questions of access and sustainability.
Another fundamental question that lingers is one of strategic
intent. When loan eligibility is controlled by the government,
loans do not provide an incentive for students to enter areas of
study where there is good occupational demand. Competitiveness
and productivity must be linked to education. We must determine
where there is need and focus our energies to promote education in
those areas.
The 1995-96 budget announced changes to the fiscal transfer
regime by creating the Canada health and social transfer, known as
CHST. Through the CHST the government carelessly cut transfers
which support education financing and made it increasingly
difficult for taxpayers to measure whether provinces are spending
the appropriate amounts of money on specific programs.
The government decided that it is better to give education dollars
to the provinces with no strings attached than it is to give education
dollars to individuals, where it can be ensured that tax dollars are
going to support their intended purpose. The logic in this is
spectacularly flawed.
Bill C-96 will create a department that for two years has done
nothing to make the fundamental changes required of our
post-secondary education system. Why should we create a
department, when we already know that it has no capacity to act on
this issue?
Let us move to decentralization, an issue that has garnered
significant attention of late and, in particular, when the Minister of
Human Resources Development presented his remarks earlier this
morning. Bill C-96 is a centralizing piece of legislation, make no
mistake, despite what the hon. minister said in the House today.
Clause 6 of the bill reinforces the existing federal powers for
social programs. In fact, it may even create new powers for the
federal government. Even if this new power never manifests itself,
the bill at a minimum entrenches the status quo of federal
intervention into provincial areas of social policy jurisdiction.
I find it cathartic, though I suppose not entirely uncharacteristic,
that the government should try to enact legislation which engenders
and champions the notion of centralization and of status quo. To do
so amidst the decentralization forces pressuring the country to
change is profoundly absurd.
(1255)
Recent events have shown to all that fundamental change is
required in our federation. There is almost universal agreement that
the federal government needs to rethink its current role as a
provider of services and programs. In areas of social policy, we
cannot continue to support a system which separates the revenue
raising capacity from the expenditure function. In other areas too
there is strong evidence to support devolution to the most logical
level of government.
In October of this year the Reform Party released its vision for a
new confederation. Reform believes that decentralization will
16421
permit future governments to respond more effectively to the needs
of ordinary Canadians. It also addresses many of the historic
concerns of individuals from all provinces.
Reform's plan includes the following: giving provinces
exclusive control over natural resources, job training, municipal
affairs, housing, tourism, sports and recreation; giving provinces
control over setting their own interprovincial standards for health,
welfare and education and replacing federal cash transfers with tax
points, allowing provinces to raise their own taxes to finance social
programs. This decentralization will lead to a more balanced
federation, one in which Ottawa will play a co-operative role rather
than a dominating role.
The proposals outlined in the new Confederation speak to the
long term. They furnish Canada with a vision. They put flesh on the
conceptual bones of a new federalism. This is the kind of
leadership that has been conspicuously absent in the federal
Liberals.
How can one govern without coherent direction? It is
incomprehensible. I am not talking about prescience but about the
courage to say, these are my ideas, this is my vision. We have seen
none of that from the government. The traditional response to fiscal
crisis has been centralization, consolidation and concentration.
This instinct increasingly leads to failure. Centralized control and
consolidated agencies create more waste, not less.
There are many reasons why Reform speaks for this vision of
decentralization. Decentralization will engender greater flexibility,
allowing institutions to respond more quickly to changing
circumstances and client needs.
Decentralization will create more effective programs and service
delivery as the deliverers and providers of government assistance
are closer to those whom they serve, which is whom we serve.
Decentralization will reduce wasteful overlap and duplication
created by concurrent jurisdiction and poorly co-ordinated
government programs and services. Decentralization will engender
greater fiscal responsibility. For a government that spends the
money it raises will inherently be more accountable than the one
that spends the money someone else collects. Decentralization in
regard to the tax system is most compatible with the tenet of
federalism. The essence of a federal form of government is local
autonomy. In its designated spheres each unit is free, free to
exercise its policy discretion unemcumbered.
It is important to remember in this debate on Bill C-96 that
decentralization is neither a celebrated buzzword nor a passing
political fad. It is a policy movement that has been vigorously
championed in Canada since the 1960s. It represents reconfiguring
the locus of attention in the federation. As former B.C. Liberal
Party leader Gordon Gibson writes in his new book: ``Canadians
ultimately want less control by Ottawa and more local management
of their affairs-The basic concept here is `government closer to
home'. Now home is where the heart is in our private lives
perhaps, but in government terms home is where the folk have the
knowledge and resources to do the job. That single thought takes us
a long way''.
Adhering to the rule of thumb that the responsibility for
addressing problems should lie with the lowest level of government
possible does not require that we disavow the notion of federal
leadership.
(1300 )
A federal government with fewer employees, fewer departments,
and smaller budgets can still have a steering role in Canadian
society. There would still be a policy framework setting functions
in certain areas, even if it delivered no services. These would
include policy areas that transcend the capacities of state and local
governments such as international trade, macroeconomic policy
and much environmental and regulatory policy; social insurance
programs like employment compensation, where paying equal
benefits to all citizens requires that rich and poor share
differentiated burdens; and investments that are so costly that they
require tax increases which might discourage business from
locating or staying in a city or province.
Even in these cases Reform believes that programs can be
designed to allow for significant flexibility at a provincial or
municipal level. The federal government can and must work with
provincial governments to define jointly the missions and the
outcome. But in so doing it must free lower government to achieve
those outcomes as they see fit.
What has been the Liberal response to decentralization? The
government has resisted the natural ebb and flow of this federation
by operating completely oblivious to its surroundings. We saw this
in the recent referendum. The government grossly miscalculated by
adhering to a status quo position. Only when it became obvious to
the government that its policy was indeed a complete failure did it
move to make insincere promises of change. Where is this change
now, this vision of a new federalism? Where is its blueprint for a
renewed Canada? Where is the leadership to bring forward such a
plan?
Given the government's previous attempts at major change, I
suggest that we will be waiting a long time before we see
substantive and meaningful change.
Let me give one example of how the government is failing to
deliver on its promise to reform and decentralize social programs.
Consider the current welfare issue in British Columbia. When the
province made changes to its own programs by stipulating a
residency requirement for welfare qualifications, the federal
government stepped in and threatened the province with punitive
actions. That is certainly no stranger to Albertans.
16422
There is no question that the B.C. government should be
permitted to administer its affairs without federal interference. The
minister, rather than threatening the province, should back off and
leave it free to run its own programs. It is absurd for this minister,
who has radically reduced transfers to the provinces, to turn
around and intervene in provincial jurisdiction.
The minister continues to refuse to meet with the provinces over
the Canada health and social transfer. Now, when the provinces try
to move forward, he stands in their way. This, it would seem, is the
Liberal position on co-operative federalism. How terribly
predictable and how truly unfortunate.
I want to discuss accountability for a moment. Bill C-96 reminds
us once again that the government has embraced a policy that will
bring an end to departments submitting annual reports to
Parliament. This ignoble policy speaks volumes of the
government's attitude toward accountability, despite the sniping
from the other side of the House.
Most observers who study Parliament lament the gap that exists
between the relatively rudimentary theory of parliamentary
accountability and its practice. The theory suggests that there are
strong linkages between the representative system that created the
elected House of Commons and the executive system of
departments headed and controlled by ministers.
Parliamentary control is considered in two key phases: first, the
assigning of responsibility and authority through statutes and
appropriations; and, second, accountability through scrutiny in the
House and in its committees. I can accept that the reality of modern
government is not as neatly ordained as this theory might suggest.
But I cannot accept any actions such as those provided for in Bill
C-96, which weaken accountability through scrutiny in the House.
Reform supports in principle the current attempt to improve the
accessibility of information in the budget estimates. However, by
moving to end the annual reporting function before the estimates
reform is in place, we are left with an incomplete picture regarding
annual departmental activities and expenditures. How can this be?
When the bill and others like it are enacted we will have poor
estimates and no annual report. This is a disgrace.
(1305)
At a conference hosted by the Canadian study of parliament
group this past weekend the Auditor General of Canada stated that
it was time for the government to go beyond rhetoric and embrace
true accountability. The government would do well to listen to its
own auditor general, because Canadians want information about
their government. Canadians deserve to have access to good quality
information about their government. For a department that spends
some $70 billion annually, I think the relatively minor investment
that an annual report could engender is a worthwhile expenditure.
In broader accountability terms the government does not have a
solid track record. It is for this reason that I make specific reference
to accountability in my remarks today. The red book outlined the
seemingly ambitious agenda to restore integrity to the institution of
Parliament. What has been accomplished since 1993? Not very
much. Where are those free votes? Where is the independent ethics
counsellor who was supposedly reporting to Parliament directly?
Where is our code of conduct? Where is our real MP pension
reform? Where is the promise of increasing the role of committees
in drafting legislation? How can there be so many unanswered
questions?
The Liberal government has made a mockery of parliamentary
accountability by showing such brazen disdain and contempt
toward its election commitments. It has talked incessantly about
transparency, about integrity and about commitment to the
Canadian people. In truth, the question is not really how many
commitments have already been broken, but when next will the
government break another one.
Because of this shameful lack of action the institution of
Parliament has suffered. Members from all parties have suffered.
Most significantly, the Canadian people have suffered.
Mr. Richardson: The only party that suffers in the House is the
Reform Party.
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast): The government has
articulated the precepts of integrity but has failed to deliver the
substance of its bravado. Canadians are right to be disappointed.
We were promised a new approach to accountability and ethics.
Instead, we have received well rehearsed rhetoric and woeful
policy from that side of the House.
I would like to turn my attention now to the issue of pensions.
Bill C-96 will create the department responsible for administering
the Canada pension plan. Given the importance of the program to
all Canadians, it is only fair that we spend some time reviewing
what the department has been doing. My review will be brief
because in truth the department has done virtually nothing to
address what the government has deemed unsustainable.
The government, in refusing to confront the issue, has said to
Canadians that it is not concerned about their futures. There is
widespread consensus that the Canada pension plan is in trouble. In
October of this year the chief actuary for the Office of the
Superintendent of Financial Institutions stated: ``The CPP's
projected costs are considerably higher than previously expected. If
the existing schedule of contribution rates is not increased and
benefits continue as now legislated, the CPP fund is expected to be
exhausted by the year 2015''.
16423
Other evidence suggests that prevalent fear and concern exists
among Canadians regarding CPP. A Bank of Nova Scotia poll
released last month stated that 75 per cent of Canadians distrust
the security and sustainability of the Canada pension plan. The
survey also showed that of those people aged 30 to 49, fully 81
per cent reported that they are not confident about the ability of
CPP to provide them with income when they retire. When so many
are in agreement that changes are overdue it is incomprehensible
why the government has failed to make changes in its promise
in 1993 to do just that.
Not long ago the Minister of Human Resources Development
responded to my question in the House of Commons by stating:
``The best way in which the hon. member can make a contribution
is to start putting forward her own proposals on behalf of her
party''. If the department that Bill C-96 creates will not put forward
its ideas to address our enfeebled Canada pension plan, it is only
fair that I present Reform's vision for renewing CPP.
(1310)
Reform believes that the Canada pension plan is under
considerable financial strain, a strain which if not addressed will
jeopardize the pension benefits of today's seniors, those baby
boomers edging toward retirement and our children who are
beginning or who will soon enter the workforce. This evaluation of
the Canada pension plan is not fearmongering or partisan
politicking. It represents the opinions of the governments and of
ordinary Canadians.
Through access to information I obtained a briefing note
prepared for the Minister of Human Resources Development
written by one of his senior policy analysts. She writes of CPP that
``the costs of the Canada pension plan are rising faster than the
actuarial assumptions predicted''. She continued in the note to say
that ``amendments may be required to Canada pension plan
benefits or to restrict the cost of the benefits''. The senior policy
analyst recommends therefore that the government increase
contribution rates for CPP or implement cost cutting measures in
the Canada pension plan.
The only proposals for changing CPP the government is
considering are cutting seniors' pensions or raising taxes for CPP
contributions. We already have evidence that the government
prefers the easy yet reckless tax grab option. On November 2 the
government announced a payroll tax increase to support a faltering
pension system. The Liberal penchant for tax increases, which is
already legendary, once again rears its ugly head.
Unlike the government, Reform believes we can renew the
Canada pension plan without cutting seniors' pensions and without
relying on contribution rate increases. Our plan would gradually
convert CPP into individualized, privately invested accounts
similar to RRSPs. The total investment income in these millions of
accounts will greatly exceed the total income that is possible under
CPP's current restrictive investment parameters. This increase in
total investment wealth is key to our plan for making possible a
renewed CPP that is generous to all age and income groups.
The first point of our four-point plan to renew the Canada
pension plan is a guarantee to seniors. The first step in CPP reform
must be to provide a protected status for all benefits being paid to
the current generation of seniors. Reform believes that when there
are any changes to CPP, no matter what they may be, no matter who
proposes them, those changes must never touch any benefits that
we as a society have promised our seniors.
If the Liberals implement cuts to seniors' pensions, as suggested
in the briefing note to which I referred earlier, we can expect a
seniors' uprising like no one has ever seen. Reform will help in
every way possible to take that uprising to the House of Commons
and even to the front doors of 24 Sussex Drive. We will not allow
anyone to tamper with promises we have made to our seniors.
The second point provides for recognition bonds. Because
people over a certain age, say around 40, will not be able to build
up enough savings in their super RRSPs to compensate fully for the
loss of their Canada pension plan benefits, special bonds will be
issued guaranteeing the redemption upon retirement of all
previously made contributions to CPP. Once we have guaranteed
seniors' benefits in point one, this point guarantees benefits for
those who are quickly edging toward their retirement but will not
be able to fully benefit from their new super RRSPs.
This brings me to my third point, the creation of super RRSPs.
Who should Canadians trust to manage their retirement savings,
themselves or a government saddled with a $560 billion debt?
Instead of contributing to the Canada pension plan to provide for
their retirement, individuals would contribute into what we call
super RRSPs. The conversion process from CPP to super RRSPs
would gradually reduce the financial demands on the CPP system
while keeping payroll deductions at reasonable levels. The excess
revenues would be diverted into each worker's RRSP.
(1315)
The fourth point of our plan for renewing the Canada pension
plan is to improve benefits for elderly widows. The avaricious
benefits given to elderly widows of deceased CPP contributors
would gradually be replaced by a system under which full
ownership of the spouse's super RRSP would be transferred to the
widow without tax implications.
Here are constructive ideas for addressing an issue about which
most Canadians feel deeply. We have initiated the debate. Reform
is prepared to discuss real options and is open to innovative ideas.
16424
Reform has a vision. Where is the Liberal vision? Where are
the Liberals as we navigate the rough waters of complex policy?
An hon. member: Right in front of you.
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast): It is clear they have missed
the boat. They have no ideas, no vision and no stomach for white
water. At a time when Canadians need leadership the most, the
government has failed to deliver. How truly sad. We should give
the hon. member on the other side of the House a bull horn.
I have spoken at length about my concerns regarding Bill C-96.
In light of what I have said my conclusions are self-evident. I
cannot and will not support the bill.
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (Parliamentary Secretary to
President of the Treasury Board, Lib.): Madam Speaker, there is
considerable mischievousness going on here today. I want to
correct a couple of flagrant errors.
The Prime Minister said in the House on a number of occasions
that the pensions of seniors, those who have them now, would not
be cut. He did indicate it may be necessary to look at the amount
being contributed at this time for future pensioners.
For the Reform to suggest that is what the Liberals are doing,
that is what the Prime Minister is doing, shows it has not been
listening. It is unfortunate it would stoop to that. Reform members
are trying to put their party and their leader in front of Canadians.
That is what that kind of remark does. That is what it suggests.
It is not unlike the remarks made during the referendum
campaign. I have here over 30 some quotes from newspapers
throughout the country condemning their behaviour, indicating
quite clearly they were playing politics. They were putting their
party, their leader in front of Canada. I would be delighted to share
those comments with them if necessary.
For that member to suggest pensioners will trust Reformers,
Reform policy to protect them is really dreaming in technicolour. I
doubt it very much.
With respect to the official opposition I shall try to prove the bill
is an administrative bill. It is putting the pieces together so that the
job can be done. It is the kind of bill that will still require
co-operation and partnership, those very elements required in order
to make Canada work.
There are no new powers in the bill. My colleagues in the official
opposition know it.
[Translation]
Clause 20 of Bill C-96 raises concerns for the Government of
Quebec as well as for certain members of this House. It is the one
authorizing the minister to enter into agreements with provinces
and financial or other institutions.
Some members are concerned more specifically that this clause
gives the minister too broad a discretionary power for entering into
agreements with local organizations, which might lead to
encroachment on provincial areas of jurisdiction.
To clarify the situation, it might be worthwhile to examine the
exact wording of clause 20. This clause states very clearly that
these agreements are expressly intended to facilitate the carrying
out of programs, and I quote, ``-relating to the powers, duties and
functions referred to in section 6-''
This clause sets out the mandate of the department and, let me
repeat, without introducing new elements and without creating new
powers. This is, obviously, what limits the discretionary powers
which could be conferred upon the minister.
(1320)
These powers are restricted by the very mandate of the
department, which the bill clearly defines as restricted to all
matters over which Parliament has jurisdiction. Moreover, it has
been repeated on numerous occasions in this House that Bill C-96
assigns no new powers to the minister. The bill makes no change in
federal areas of jurisdiction, no change whatsoever, nor in those of
provincial governments. In this connection, the bill makes no
change whatsoever in the present situation. Clause 20 does not,
therefore, in any way authorize the minister to encroach upon areas
of provincial jurisdiction. Is that clear, now?
The purpose of clause 20 is very simple. It allows the department
to sign contracts with other organizations, which is normal. The
department could not continue to function without that power.
HRDC has signed hundreds of contracts and agreements with a
broad range of Quebec groups, I might add, including agreements
with the Government of Quebec, which are important to Quebec
workers seeking to obtain training and get back into the work force.
The existing legislation already allows this, the bill merely picks
these agreements up again. Nothing is changed. In 1994-95 alone,
HRDC signed more than 50,000 contracts relating to manpower in
Quebec, representing in all $695 million in program financing and
income support.
These contracts break down as follows: 9,600 contracts with
non-profit organizations; 9,300 contracts with businesses in the
private sector; 2,800 contracts with public sector institutions such
as municipalities; 3,200 contracts with the Government of Quebec
and 25,000 contracts under the program for independent students,
which provides income support for unemployed workers while they
are receiving training.
I am sure that, all things considered, no one would suggest
cancelling the agreements made possible under clause 20. Think of
the consequences. It would mean the end of shared-cost
agreements to help welfare recipients back on their feet. It would
mean the end of funding for groups like the world famous Cirque
du Soleil in Quebec City, which has carried out HRDC training and
16425
job creation programs since 1987, programs that really make a
difference in the lives of people who need help.
It would mean the end of our partnership with two Quebec
government departments which support youth training and job
search programs through the Relais des jeunes adultes du sud-ouest
de Montréal. It would mean the end of our partnership with the
Société québécoise de développement de la main-d'oeuvre, which
helps new businesses get established through the Société d'aide au
développement des collectivités de Sorel-Tracy Inc.
It would mean the end of our agreement with the SQDM to help
workers affected by the closing of the Hyundai Plant in Bromont,
last March. It would mean the end of our agreement with the local
Human Resources Canada Centre and the Société de
développement économique in Jonquière on the collection and
exchange of labour market information. It would mean the end of
agreements on one-stop services, like the agreement involving
HRDC, the industrial commissioner and the Office de tourisme de
Témiscamingue on providing services to promote industrial, rural
and tourism development.
It would mean the end of the partnership in Gaspé between
HRDC, the SQDM, the Fédération québécoise des rivières à
saumon du Québec and other groups that are working on upgrading
the skills of salmon fishing guides. It would mean the end of the
Older Workers Adjustment Program, a federal-provincial
agreement that provides $54 million in assistance to displaced
workers in Quebec.
In fact, the Older Workers Adjustment Program is a prime
example of why it is so important for the minister to be able to
enter into agreements, not just with other governments but also
with financial institutions, for instance.
(1325)
Thanks to the Older Workers Adjustment Program, the federal
government purchases annuities on behalf of older workers. During
the past three years and up to now, we have spent more than $111
million on purchasing these annuities and have helped nearly 5,000
older workers to face the future with a measure of security.
We would not be able to continue this practice without clause 20,
which simply gives us the power to keep helping these workers.
These agreements and thousands like them in communities in all
Canadian provinces are what clause 20 is all about. We have no
intention of using clause 20 to bypass the provinces or get involved
in areas of provincial jurisdiction. No intention at all.
For example, clause 20 gives us the power to enter into
agreements with financial institutions providing student loans
under the Canada student loans program, which is bigger and more
flexible. As it is clearly entitled to, the Quebec government chose
to withdraw from this program in favour of block funding.
Clause 20 will preserve this kind of flexibility, which fully
respects each province's powers and priorities.
The department's ability to conclude this kind of agreement will
become even more important as the department continues to
streamline operations and decentralize programs.
For example, the minister is testing various ways of ensuring
local integration by establishing decision making and service
development at the local level. We must move away from the
highly centralized and compartmentalized programs imposed by
the central administration and give local authorities a much greater
latitude in making decisions. It is then easier to develop an
integrated range of programs and services meeting the needs of the
various communities.
This will be impossible if we cannot enter into agreements with
the people and organizations with whom we must work.
Impossible.
It would be impossible to build on the real progress we are
making in integrating more effectively the federal government's
resources with those of our partners. Local CRHCs are already
learning to form more effective partnerships with schools, colleges,
businesses, unions, and community organizations.
In fact, many programs are now designed to integrate public and
private sector resources. For example, the department has created
16 sectoral councils to co-ordinate the management of human
resources needs in the private sector. These councils now affect
nearly 36 per cent of Canada's labour force, and many other
councils are being created.
In each of these councils, both labour and management in a
given industrial sector work together to develop a master plan with
respect to their human resources needs. This co-operation
constitutes the basis for some truly innovative partnerships. Under
the internship program for example, sectorial councils developed
training courses to allow young people to gain experience in areas
as varied as electronics, horticulture, tourism and knowledge based
industries.
In this partnership, businesses and unions set criteria and
develop curricula together. Then, they make arrangements with
local high school, community colleges and cégeps. In fact, they
themselves give the hands-on portion so that the young people get
an adequate mix of academic and practical training.
16426
By integrating governmental and private sector resources this
way, we end up with a more effective and efficient program. In
fact, not only do our private sector partners manage the program,
they also invest in it.
This kind of forward-looking initiative attracts a great deal of
interest. Other countries are looking into possible scenarios to
involve the private sector and local communities in developing
internship programs.
Without clause 20 of Bill C-96, all these innovative initiatives
would simply boil down to nothing because there would be no
mechanism to govern all the administrative arrangements involved.
(1330)
There is nothing catastrophic about clause 20. There is no need
to read between the lines. Clause 20 is straightforward.
I know that some believe that it goes further, that it will give the
minister the power to dismiss concerns expressed by provincial
governments. The minister has already given these people the
assurance that provincial governments will continue to be
consulted, as they were in the past, about the kinds of agreements
that HRDC will be making.
He even went as far as stating that he would not enter into any
agreement without the prior consent of the appropriate provincial
government, if that is what the province wants.
I do not know what more those who oppose clause 20 could ask
for. Instead of trying to find in Bill C-96 examples of usurpation of
power which simply do not exist, we should get on with the real
tasks of creating partnerships, co-operating, and providing jobs to
Canadians. This is indeed the purpose of Bill C-96 and clause 20.
We all know that co-operation between the federal and
provincial governments could be improved in matters of labour, as
well as in any other sector.
Federal-provincial agreements and partnerships would help find
better ways to fulfil our respective mandates. There is no doubt
about that. The issue must be carefully examined, and this is why
the minister sent a direct invitation to the provinces to start
discussing it.
However, if we really want these discussions to be productive,
we must pass this bill now, in order to continue shaping a new
department and a new era of flexible federalism.
We must pass Bill C-96 to continue providing effective services
to all Canadians.
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have listened
attentively to the remarks by the hon. member for St. Boniface, and
note that sometimes the more we talk, the less we understand each
other.
The hon. member suggests that this clause 20 will lend much
more flexibility and better harmony between levels of government.
The clause must be read; it states ``-the Minister may enter into
agreements with a province''-may, not must-``or group of
provinces, agencies of provinces, financial institutions and such
other persons or bodies as the Minister considers appropriate''.
In order to keep it short, I would just like to ask my hon.
colleague from St. Boniface if he recalls that post-secondary
education, for example, as well as social assistance, are exclusively
provincial jurisdictions? If he does recall that, is he aware of
everything the federal government has done to date, not just this
one, but all those before it over the past twenty years, to intervene
via their financial powers in these two areas, in areas over which
provinces have exclusive jurisdiction? Is he aware of this?
Mr. Duhamel: Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his
question.
Yes, I am very much aware. I understand that, in the past, the
situation was less than perfect, and I believe that we have tried to
improve the situation, and have improved it. I believe that this bill
is exactly what it claims to be, that is to say an administrative bill,
one which confers no additional powers upon the minister or the
department or the provinces or anyone else.
I believe that there is a guarantee, not only in the bill but also by
the minister himself, that he has no intention whatsoever of
encroaching upon provincial responsibilities or trying to interfere
in their areas of jurisdiction. I believe that this is a firm
commitment, an honest one, an honourable one, and one that will
be respected.
(1335)
I understand that there may be differences of opinion, but I
would like to start by inviting my colleagues to make concrete
proposals so that we may work together better to improve the
condition of all Canadians, including of course the men and women
of Quebec, where employment is concerned.
We all know what human beings want above all is a job, a
challenging job, one that pays enough to keep them and their
families. The challenge is to make concrete suggestions; we could
sit down together. Let us make sure that the government of Quebec
comes to meet with us, or we could go to meet with them if that
suited better, if it were easier, in order to reach agreement.
Secondly, apart from what I have just proposed, if there are
questions-and obviously there are-which are bothering us,
raising doubts about certain possibilities, if you like, if we might
just put them aside and discuss them in the appropriate forum. For
example, there are issues on federal-provincial affairs, links,
reports, agreements between the two levels of government. There
are mechanisms for discussion. I would invite my colleague to
encourage his colleagues to do everything possible to allow us to
16427
work for the people, whether they live in Quebec or elsewhere.
That is my wish.
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Madam Speaker, I could not
resist asking the hon. member for St. Boniface whether,
considering his comments and the tone of his reply, he himself
would support the resolution adopted unanimously by the Quebec
National Assembly under Liberal Premier Daniel Johnson, who
this year was the president of the No committee during the
referendum campaign?
This resolution is similar in every respect to another resolution
adopted by the Société québécoise de la main-d'oeuvre, whose
membership includes the Conseil du patronat du Québec and
various institutions and labour federations. The Conseil du patronat
is headed by Mr. Dufour, another supporter of the No side, who
demanded the patriation of tax points for occupational training.
The resolution asked the federal government to agree to relinquish
these tax points and let Quebec act as it saw fit, as the people-he
used the word people-as the vast majority of the people of Quebec
want. Would the hon. member support this demand?
Mr. Duhamel: Madam Speaker, personally I am prepared to
consider any option. I am not the minister responsible for this
particular matter or for the department, so I will not get into an area
with which I am not sufficiently familiar. I think the hon. member
will understand my position.
However, I do feel it is essential to put these matters on the table,
to discuss them and to come up with flexible solutions that respond
to the needs of the people, not only those of Quebec but of all the
other provinces and territories of Canada. That would be my
approach.
Theoretically, there is nothing that cannot be put on the table or
discussed in a frank and forthright way. We should look for flexible
solutions that respond to the needs of all Canadians. That is about
all I have to say. It would hardly be fair to expect us to do
otherwise, and I am not particularly keen on taking a position on
certain issues when I am not sufficiently familiar with the subject
to suggest a solution.
Mr. John Richardson (Perth-Wellington-Waterloo, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, I would have a question for the hon. member for
St. Boniface.
During the recent referendum in Quebec, a certain regional party
at the federal level did not get involved. Yet, it did not lose any
chance to try to score political points. What does the hon. member
think of that?
Mr. Duhamel: Madam Speaker, I can understand. I am a
federalist obviously and I was on the no side. Naturally, I would
have done my very best to keep Quebec within Canada.
(1340)
I have great respect for Quebec and Quebecers. Of course, as a
representative of a francophone minority outside Quebec, I am
biased, I am prejudiced, so to speak. Quebec is an important
reference point. As far as I am concerned, Quebec is an inspiration
for francophones outside Quebec. It provides a certain
infrastructure that is very useful.
I wanted my colleagues to know that. I have a deep-rooted
attachment to Quebec.
Regarding the involvement of political parties, I appreciated
what mine did, but I did not like at all what the Reform Party did. I
found this form of involvement to be dishonest and excessive. It
seemed to me that what came first for the Reformers was their
party and their leader, and not the country. This observation is not
mine alone; thirty or so editorial writers said so.
On the other hand, I appreciated Mr. Charest's involvement.
Pardon me, I should not mention members by name. I should say
the involvement of the Leader of the Progressive Conservative
Party.
As for the other parties, all I have to say is that many people
were playing politics with our country. I often wondered if the
public interest, that of our fellow citizens, really came first for
them. I came to the conclusion that it did not always come first.
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Madam Speaker, as the official
opposition's critic on training and youth, I am pleased to take part
in the debate at second reading on Bill C-96, an act to establish the
Department of Human Resources Development and to amend and
repeal certain related acts.
This is an extremely important bill because it amends several
acts, codes and regulations, in addition to repealing four important
acts, namely the Employment and Immigration Department and
Commission Act, the Department of Labour Act, the Department
of National Health and Welfare Act, and the Department of State
Act.
If its only purpose was to make these changes, which, according
to the Minister of Human Resources Development, simply make
official the structures in place since the Liberals returned to power
in 1993, we would be entitled to ask why it took so long to make
official something that is already in place. It took two years,
Madam Speaker.
Later we will see that the impact of Bill C-96 is more significant
than what the minister and even the hon. member for St. Boniface
who just spoke first suggested. In fact, it changes the balance of
power between the provinces and the federal government in favour
of the latter, as this government is wont to do.
The most surprising thing in all this is that the government
waited until after the referendum to move for second reading of
this bill in the House, which involves a debate. As we know, there
16428
is no real debate at the first reading stage when a minister
introduces a bill in the House.
Why did they wait two years and why was there no debate in the
House between June and now? If it was good for both Canada and
Quebec, I think it would have been in the government's political
interest to debate this bill even during the referendum campaign.
This could have helped Quebecers better understand the
government's intentions in some important areas.
I simply want to remind you that, if we forget about debt
servicing, the Department of Human Resources Development will
manage over 40 per cent of federal budget spending. This is
considerable; it is by far the most important federal department.
Under these circumstances, one wonders why this is the case. I
happen to think, and so do many Quebecers, that it is because there
was a lot at stake, including the cuts affecting social programs. But
the issue is not merely related to cuts: there is also a question of
power involved.
(1345)
Contrary to what the member for St. Boniface just said, our
understanding of Bill C-96 is that, with this measure, the Minister
of Human Resources Development is giving himself new powers
which he did not have before. These are powers which he tried to
exercise in an illegal context, through the spending power of the
federal government.
We must constantly remind some people of that, because they do
not always understand what we mean. This spending power is
provided in the constitution and, surely, the federal government can
use it on certain occasions, such as during a major conflict or crisis.
However, it is contrary to the constitution to use that spending
power on a permanent basis. It should only be used on an ad hoc
basis. The bill before us is an attempt by the government to legalize
its action, by using the spending power as a model.
Let me read the press release of the Quebec minister of state for
joint action and employment minister. This will give you an idea of
the Quebec government's reaction when it found out about this
morning's debate.
It reads as follows: ``While Quebec accepted the invitation sent
by the Minister of Human Resources Development to participate in
a meeting on human resources management, the federal Minister of
Human Resources Development nevertheless intends to proceed,
this very day, with second reading of Bill C-96. That decision sends
quite a message to Quebec, considering the unanimous opposition
to a bill which confirms the federal government's intentions to
systematically bypass Quebec's jurisdiction and institutions to
maintain, and even increase, duplication regarding manpower
related measures in our province''. This is the reaction ofMrs. Louise Harel, Quebec minister of state for joint action,
Minister of Employment, and Minister of Immigration and
Cultural Communities.
``Bill C-96 amounts to a flat rejection of the unanimous Quebec
consensus to the effect that the federal government must
completely withdraw from the manpower sector and give related
budgets back to the province''. The minister added that ``Ottawa's
tactic was formally denounced by all labour market partners
represented on the board of directors of the Société québécoise de
développement de la main-d'oeuvre by way of a resolution passed
on October 2''.
``By initiating second reading of Bill C-96, Ottawa has
confirmed that it intends to pursue its centralist manpower policy
and ignore the specific needs of the Quebec labour market, thus
dismissing the consensus in Quebec on manpower issues which
stresses the need to fight unemployment effectively by allowing for
the differences in the various labour markets across Quebec and
promoting the involvement of the socio-economic players in every
region and community''.
``Only a proactive labour market policy that is consistent,
integrated and adapted to our situation can help us fight
unemployment effectively, with durable results''.
``Ottawa wields Bill C-96 like a sword of Damocles.
Opportunities to implement such a policy are essential to the
development of employment in Quebec'', concluded Ms. Harel.
Since I am reading, I might as well quote the attached document.
This document was not drafted by the Parti Quebecois government
but by the board of directors of the Société québécoise de la
main-d'oeuvre. It reads as follows:
``Whereas Bill C-96, an act to establish the Department of
Human Resources Development, which in clauses 6 and 20 gives
the Minister of Human Resources Development the power to 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, with the objective of enhancing
employment, encouraging equality and promoting social security,
moved by Gérald Larose, seconded by Claude Béland, president of
the Mouvement Desjardins, and resolved unanimously: That the
board of directors of the Société québécoise du développement de
la main-d'oeuvre take the position adopted at the Conférence
permanente sur l'adaptation de la main-d'oeuvre in November
1990;''
``That Quebec must have sole responsibility for manpower
adjustment and manpower training policies within its territory and
patriate, as appropriate, the moneys allocated by the federal
government to these programs in Quebec''.
16429
(1350)
``Under the Constitution as it stands today and to improve client
services, Quebec will control and administer all services connected
with employment and manpower development and all related
programs funded by unemployment insurance contributions within
Quebec's territory and will consequently receive the budgets
commensurate with this responsibility''.
``The board of directors asks the federal government, pending
finalization of negotiations on the patriation of budgets, to refrain
from setting up parallel partnership structures or taking steps to
encroach on areas under Quebec's jurisdiction, since the Société
québécoise de développement de la main-d'oeuvre is the dedicated
structure for joint manpower programs in Quebec''.
Nevertheless-and I could also quote a resolution adopted
unanimously under Daniel Johnson's Liberal government which
was along the same lines, in other words, patriation of tax points
for manpower training in Quebec-nevertheless, in spite of a very
close vote in the referendum and following promises for change,
not by just anyone, by the Prime Minister of Canada, they said:
``We will consider your desire for change''. Nevertheless, ten days
later, the Minister of Human Resources Development is embarking
on phase two, namely the second reading of Bill C-96, which,
according to Quebec political observers, is the most centralizing
ever.
This morning, we listened to the minister and the member for St.
Boniface talking about decentralization; they said that
decentralization no longer necessarily meant cooperating with
provinces in areas which are nonetheless under exclusive
provincial jurisdiction; it no longer means this, it means that the
federal minister has the authority to negotiate agreements with any
organization, even municipal governments, and individual
stakeholders. Does this take into account a people's desire for
change as expressed to the federal government? Does this heed the
results of the referendum? To the contrary. Nothing has changed.
The government keeps on going as if nothing had happened,
following the same logic, using the same rhetoric, the same words
as the green book-I am not allowed to show it-the same green
book the minister tabled a year and a half ago after extensive
consultations. Wherever he went in Quebec, he was told, not only
by the Société québécoise de la main-d'oeuvre, but also by a
multitude of stakeholders, and this is the consensus in Quebec:
``Mister Minister of Human Resources Development, listen to us,
please''. In Quebec, we want to control education. We want our
government, the Quebec government, to be in charge of manpower
training, as provided by the constitution, by the way.
We want to run our own affairs. What is the minister doing? Like
a steamroller, he keeps on going, making a mockery of
decentralization, saying that there will be further decentralization.
The federal government will deal directly with local communities,
individuals and local stakeholders. He mentioned a club in his
parish, in his Winnipeg riding, and said that the federal government
will be able to help.
I have no problem with that. It may work for the other provinces,
the member for St. Boniface may not see anything wrong with it,
but all Quebec stakeholders are against it. They want no part of it.
We have said it time and time again, especially since the
Bélanger-Campeau Commission, in 1990. Nevertheless, the
minister is sticking to his gun. For him, decentralization means
keeping all the powers for himself, and hogging 40 per cent of the
federal budget, excluding the debt, to deal with unemployment
problems. Of course, people who hear that and are not familiar with
government operation, may say: ``Here is a man who is genuinely
interested in creating jobs, here is a man who wants to train
individuals''. Of course, these are good intentions, but this is not
his jurisdiction. This is not his field.
(1355)
This government keeps repeating that we must cut spending, but
continues to spend in areas outside of its jurisdiction and cuts
transfer payments to provinces, so much so that they, in turn, have
to cut services such as hospital care. We know about that in
Quebec. We have to cut because the federal government reduced
transfer payments.
It seems like the Minister of Human Resources Development
and government members have not grasped the meaning of the
referendum results.
I was listening this morning as the minister boasted about a
youth program he implemented as a pilot project in Newfoundland.
He was explaining that finally, after quitting school to go looking
for work, 97 per cent of the young people had decided to come back
to school. According to him that was quite an accomplishment. It is
easy to understand that if young people cannot find jobs, they will
go back to school but in fact, what they wanted was to find jobs.
They maintain the training programs, but they are carried out
directly from Ottawa and entrusted to civil servants. I have some
experience in that area; let me tell you about a specific incident.
In my riding, two or three organizations asked me to help them
get some federal funds, since we are still part of that system, by
finding or creating some employment programs. The minister said
that if we supported the no, he would be happy to give a positive
reply to those requests. He said it and then the parliamentary
secretary had to come to his rescue.
When I saw, on Tuesday this week, only one week after the
referendum, that the independent member for Beauce had
announced in his riding a special project for an employment center,
so that training could be provided directly by businesses, and that
he was boasting to have been successful at that, I remind the House
that the independent member for Beauce was the chairman of the
no committee in that riding. Is this the federal government's new
way of decentralizing management: giving things to people who
are on the right side or support federalists? Is this the way of
governing that they want to show Quebecers? If Quebecers had
known this is how things work, a lot more would have said yes.
16430
In the end, when you hear so much double talk- That reminds
me, for instance, of the Minister of Human Development
Resources, a disciple of Mr. Trudeau, who was saying this morning
that he was flexible. That reminds me of Prime Minister Trudeau
who said in a message that he sent recently: ``Considering my
legendary flexibility''. If this kind of bill, of attitude had been
debated before the referendum, the result-
Mr. Speaker, I see that you are inviting me to sit down because
question period is coming soon, so I will conclude, and if I have a
few minutes left, I will complete my statement later.
I am simply saying that if Quebecers had known that, perhaps we
would be talking about something else today.
[English]
The Speaker: It being 2 p.m. we will now proceed to Statements
by Members.
_____________________________________________
16430
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Florence Christie of Vancouver has just been given the Canada
Volunteer Award Certificate of Merit for her work for Canadians
suffering from lupus.
She was diagnosed with the disease in 1980. Despite great
sacrifice to her own health she has maintained constant contact and
support with 50 support groups in British Columbia. In the past
year she has answered over 600 telephone calls from lupus patients
and has compiled and mailed some 1,300 information packages for
the B.C. Lupus Society.
Her message is one of hope and inspiration that despite a severe
debilitating illness one can continue to work effectively and live in
dignity. The award to Mrs. Christie is one in which British
Columbians and all Canadians can take pride.
* * *
Ms. Val Meredith (Surrey-White Rock-South Langley,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, one of the cornerstones of renewed federalism
must be giving the people of Canada a greater say in the running of
the country. Although the Liberals are not too interested in this
concept, we in the Reform Party have been trying on our own to
truly represent our constituents.
The best means we have available at this time are our
householders. In each of my first six householders I have asked 10
questions covering a wide variety of subjects. For the past two
weeks I have been collecting results from my latest survey. To date
I have over 3,800 responses with hundreds coming in daily.
Liberal members might be interested to learn that their
employment equity bill did not fair too well. Only 16 per cent of
respondents are in favour of Bill C-64. By comparison, 31 per cent
favour the legalization of marijuana and 54 per cent favour the
legalization of prostitution.
It is amazing what MPs can learn when they actually listen to
their constituents.
* * *
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, over the past
several days, mailboxes in my city of Saint John have received a
flyer from a Quebec company which was distributed by Canada
Post.
The flyer is a mail order form advertising explicit pornographic
videos. Included in the flyer is a detailed description and name of
each of the 20 films. I will not repeat these words and descriptions
as they are very explicit and deeply offensive.
I have had many calls to my riding office from people who are
totally outraged by having this kind of filth arrive at their front
door by Canada Post. People feel that it is an invasion of their
privacy and they want something done about it.
What is the government's policy on delivering such material?
Whatever the policy is, it should be revisited. I strongly urge the
minister responsible for Canada Post to put an end to delivering
pornography.
* * *
Mr. John English (Kitchener, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Very
Reverend Laszlo Tokes, moderator of the Hungarian Presbyterian
Church in Transylvania, is visiting Canada from November 7 to 15.
The Romanian revolution in December 1989 was sparked by
Reverend Tokes. He is a champion of human rights for minorities.
He will address in general the human rights problems facing all
Romanian minorities, especially those of the nearly three million
Hungarians in Transylvania: the loss of Hungarian language
schools and universities, the prohibition of the use of the language
itself and the eradication of fundamental Hungarian culture.
16431
The Very Reverend Laszlo Tokes is a man of God. He is a man
of peace who stood unarmed against the brutal Ceausescu regime
and sparked a revolution. His continued battle in fighting for
human rights and minority rights is one which we all encourage
and support.
* * *
Mrs. Georgette Sheridan (Saskatoon-Humboldt, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it has been 25 years since the Royal Commission on the
Status of Women tabled its report in this House, making numerous
recommendations to improve the educational levels for women.
Since then we have made significant progress. For example, 25
years ago less than 3 per cent of women held university degrees.
Today 10 per cent of Canadian women are university graduates and
52 per cent of full time university students are women.
The need for education is gender neutral. Education for women
and for men is fundamental to economic advancement, to personal
fulfilment and to the opportunity to participate to their full
potential in Canadian society.
Federal and provincial initiatives have improved the educational
status of women. Our goal is to ensure equality in education and
training for Canadian women and girls, thus paving the road to a
truly equitable society.
* * *
Mr. John Richardson (Perth-Wellington-Waterloo, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to speak about a little known
area called Drayton.
Terms such as sold out season and financial success are not
usually used when referring to a relatively new performing arts
theatre. However, after five successful seasons the Drayton festival
is accustomed to breaking the rules.
Nestled in the picturesque village of Drayton, Ontario, the
festival has fast become a Canadian success story. During the
1993-94 season the festival made Canadian theatrical history by
selling out every available seat before opening night. This year
some 60,000 theatre goers enjoyed an evening at this fine theatre.
Under the direction and guidance of artistic director Alex
Mustakas, the talented cast and crew create a theatrical experience
which is second to none.
I invite all Canadians to visit Drayton and take in a performance.
However, I warn them to be prepared to be dazzled by an evening
of music and laughter.
Mr. John Solomon (Regina-Lumsden, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
the federal Liberal government claims that it wants standards for
health care, education and social programs, but federal standards
are meaningless without adequate core funding. The federal
Liberals have cut back over $7 billion or 25 per cent of the budgets
for health care, education and social services, yet they have cut
back only 8 per cent on other government programs.
(1405)
The implications on provincial governments are devastating,
particularly Saskatchewan. The province of Saskatchewan will lose
$200 million in federal transfer payments in 1996.
The impact of these cutbacks means savage reductions in social
programs in some provinces, forcing Canadians to relocate. They
go to where better jobs and better social programs exist, putting
extreme pressure on those very provinces.
Weak national standards and the absence of adequate core
funding means that provinces like Ontario and Alberta can punish
those that need the help most. Pitting one province against another
is wrong. So is a lack of funding for national standards.
* * *
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
prisoners week is an affront to all victims of crime. Yesterday I
received by mail a pamphlet produced and paid for by Correctional
Services Canada. The pamphlet urges us all to celebrate and pray
for the plight of prisoners, to give them special recognition
between November 19 and 26.
Talk about your priorities. Why should I recognize a rapist and a
murderer? The solicitor general should be appalled that Canadian
taxpayers are asked to pay for this glorification of murderers,
thieves and rapists. The solicitor general should think about the
security of Canadians as he sets aside a whole week glorifying
those who would go so far as even to threaten the life of our Prime
Minister.
Maybe the solicitor general has forgotten just who we have in
our prisons. He is asking us to dedicate a week to people like
Robert Paul Thompson, a killer of his wife; Clifford Olson, a killer
of our children; and Paul Bernardo, a killer and rapist of our
daughters.
This is outrageous, unacceptable and disgraceful. I challenge
this government to scrap this week and let us get our priorities right
for a change.
16432
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
members of the Bloc Quebecois wish to point out that today is the
50th anniversary of the ratification of the UN Charter.
Fifty years ago, delegates from many countries gathered in San
Francisco to rebuild international relations on a new foundation.
This was no easy task, as all the countries involved had to redefine
their approach to issues such as health, the environment, human
rights, refugee assistance, and peacekeeping.
On this anniversary, we all feel honoured by the presence in our
gallery of peacekeepers who, in recent years, have acted with
courage, selflessness and compassion to promote human rights and
democracy around the world. Today more than ever, they are
playing a crucial role in dealing with the social and political
tension and upheaval that prevail in several countries.
On behalf of all members of the Bloc Quebecois, I thank them
for their outstanding commitment, that all the people in Quebec
and Canada can be proud of.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Ian Murray (Lanark-Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this
Saturday, in the 11th month, on the 11th day, at the 11th hour,
Canadians will pay tribute to the million and a half men and women
who went to war to fight for this great country we live in. We come
together on November 11 to pay a special tribute to those who
courageously lost their lives in the first world war, the second
world war and the Korean war.
This year we mark the 50th anniversary of the end of the second
world war and the return of peace.
We should also recognize the new challenges faced by the
Canadian Armed Forces in the post war period as peacekeepers and
pay a special tribute to those who have lost their lives in this role.
We are what we are today, we have what we have because of the
people we honour on Remembrance Day. November 11 must be for
Canadians a day not only of remembrance and recognition, but of
dedication to the hard and patient work of keeping peace.
I thank all veterans and peacekeepers for protecting Canada and
its citizens and for allowing us to live in a country of peace and
prosperity.
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Oakville-Milton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on
Saturday morning our Canadian astronaut, Major Chris Hadfield,
who is a crew member of the space shuttle Atlantis, will launch into
space for an eight day mission. This graduate of White Oaks
Secondary School in Oakville will become the fourth Canadian to
go into space.
Watching him there will be 13 excited White Oaks Secondary
School students, six students from the Milton District High School
and 28 air cadets from the Blue Thunder Squadron in Milton. They
are travelling to NASA to witness in person this special shuttle
launch.
Major Hadfield will be the first Canadian to fly aboard the
shuttle and will be the first Canadian to use the Canadarm.
On behalf of all Canadians, please join me in wishing Major
Hadfield a safe and successful mission.
* * *
(1410)
[Translation]
Mr. Maurice Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead,
BQ): Mr. Speaker, in its latest issue, the prestigious magazine
The
Economist gives its interpretation of the results of the October 30
referendum in Quebec. Looking at the sociopolitical situation and
the relations between Quebec and the rest of Canada,
The
Economist readily predicts a victory for the independentists next
time.
Even foreign observers are not fooled by the stalling tactics
tearing English Canada apart. The Economist also said that the
referendum, far from representing an affirmation of Canadian
unity, does not resolve anything. The real issues undermining the
current federal system remain unanswered. That is why The
Economist, like the members of the Bloc, predict that English
Canada will be unable to accommodate Quebec's aspirations.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
voters of Nanaimo-Cowichan will have a more meaningful say in
how they are governed thanks to a recently installed televoting
system in my riding.
Rather than insult my voters by only asking them what they think
once every four or five years, this ongoing project in participatory
democracy will register voters in my riding enabling them to vote
electronically on various issues.
16433
From November 27 to December 10, voters in my riding will
be asked whether a binding national referendum on capital
punishment should be held.
Members opposite appear to shun direct democracy in favour of
top down party directed policy. We in Reform want to listen to what
the public has to say.
We believe that the average voter wants to have a say more often
than every four or five years. With the televoting system, the
people of Nanaimo-Cowichan will be helping to lead the way into
the future.
* * *
Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand-Norfolk, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
this week, Veterans Week, we stop to remember our fellow
Canadians who so bravely fought and those who died to protect our
freedom.
I participated in a remembrance ceremony a few Sundays ago, a
day before the Quebec referendum. I thought of those Canadians
who fought and died for our freedom and of what they might be
thinking of Canada today, how they would still be very proud to be
Canadians and how distressed they would feel at the plight of our
unity given all that they had fought and died for.
Our contributions around the world have been highly
commended, yet the cost of protecting democracy and peace has
been very high.
Each of us has our own reasons for remembering. Only by
remembering can we give meaning to the sacrifices that have been
made. Only by remembering can we strive to maintain peace. Only
by working together as a nation can we preserve the Canada that so
many have fought and died to protect, a Canada that is envied the
world over.
Let us not forget.
* * *
Mr. John Harvard (Winnipeg St. James, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
77 years ago this weekend the first world war came to an end and
Canadian veterans were able to come home.
Fifty years ago this summer, the second world war ended.
Forty-one years ago, Canadians began to return from the Korean
war. For the past 38 years, Canadians have served in UN
peacekeeping missions from which they have returned to a grateful
nation.
The week of November 4 to 12 has been proclaimed Veterans
Week. This is an occasion for all Canadians to pay tribute to the
courage and sacrifice of those who served their country.
It is time for us to listen to the stories of our veterans which they
have to tell and to learn from their experiences. It is time for us to
rededicate ourselves to the values of freedom and democracy our
veterans fought to preserve.
Above all, it is an occasion to honour some very remarkable
Canadians.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil-Papineau, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, Quebec and Canada are living through hard times and face
a growing problem of poverty. When the number of people on
welfare is increasing to record highs, the population is entitled to
expect energetic employment measures from the government.
The Canadian economy is faced with a major structural problem,
one which requires immediate action from the government. Elected
as it was on promises of job creation-job, jobs, jobs-this
government has not shown any imaginative solutions except to
centralize power in Ottawa and attack those who are already the
worst off. The sole response the government offers is an empty
legislative menu. Nothing for employment, nothing for social
problems, nothing for the economy. Enough of this. The population
demands that the government finally start governing.
_____________________________________________
16433
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
(1415)
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, last
Tuesday, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs referred to the
cabinet's phoney committee as being essential to the survival of
Canada. Yesterday, he was corrected by his colleague at the
Department of Justice, who said: ``We do not expect to find a
formula to save the country''.
Would the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs agree that what
his colleague at the Department of Justice said confirms that the
sole purpose of the government's phoney committee is to play for
time and that Quebecers, and Canadians as well, for that matter,
have nothing to gain from this committee?
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, perhaps I may start by correcting the hon. member for
Roberval. A phoney committee is like the regional political
commissions set up by the Parti Quebecois, where the members all
belonged to the
16434
same party and the money of Quebecers was used to make partisan
propaganda. They were definitely phoney.
We have set up a committee that will try to deal or suggest how
to deal with the problems that exist in our country today. We all
need this kind of committee.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs just scored in his own goal,
as they say. A committee whose members all belong to the same
political party, funded with taxpayers money and likely to
accomplish nothing. That is the kind of committee he chairs.
But seriously, this morning in New Zealand, the Prime Minister
said that his government's first priority was not to make changes
for Quebecers but to create jobs. At the same time he said the
cabinet committee did not intend to reopen the debate on the
constitution.
Would the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, who yesterday
said repeatedly during Question Period that the committee's
mission was to save the country, agree that in the light of the
correction made by his Prime Minister, Quebecers and Canadians
should expect nothing either from him or his committee?
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, the official opposition is spouting nonsense about a
committee that was set up to deal with the problems we have now
in this country.
Prime Minister Chrétien made it quite clear that the important
problems in this country today are economic problems, and he also
said that the Parti Quebecois was wasting its time, after it lost the
referendum, on reopening constitutional issues and refused to deal
with the real problems, which are job creation and unemployment.
More than 60 per cent of Quebecers said in a recent poll that they
wanted the Parti Quebecois and the Bloc Quebecois to take care of
the economy and job creation and stop wasting their time, their
money and their future on discussing a problem that has already
been settled.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in addition
to being a poor hockey player, the minister does not know how to
skate. Let me explain.
Yesterday, the minister said that the committee would be used to
save the country from the separatists who wanted to break it up.
That is what he said yesterday. Today, after the Prime Minister's
correction, he tells us that his committee will look into creating
jobs and promoting economic development.
Is the minister telling us that this government, which for more
than two years has said it will deal with the country's real
problems, is he telling us that they have no recipe and that it takes
a committee to suggest how the Prime Minister can get the country
out of this mess?
(1420)
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, to continue in hockey parlance, the hon. member for
Roberval lost by default because they decided to leave the game.
They lost the referendum and, instead of tackling the real
problems, they decided their only objective is to destroy Canada.
All their energy is spent not on dealing with the economic and other
problems of this country but on destroying the country. That is why
they have nothing to offer in the way of real solutions we should be
developing for the future of Quebec and Canada.
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.
You will notice that it is after the Liberals were called to order by
Pierre Elliott Trudeau that this panic-stricken government began to
dilute its already vague promises of change to Quebecers and
quickly set up a phoney committee which will prove useless.
Considering that the Minister of Justice said yesterday that the
cabinet committee would not save Canada, and given that the
Prime Minister said this morning that the committee does not
intend to reopen the 1982 constitution, does the minister not realize
that he will preside a phoney committee which will be useless in
terms fulfilling the promises made by the Prime Minister regarding
the constitution?
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, I will repeat for the tenth time that the Prime Minister
clearly indicated in his speeches that he was going to look after the
issues of distinct society and right of veto. He asked a number of
ministers to develop strategies, get a better understanding of the
referendum results, and make appropriate changes for Quebec and
Canada. This is what we are doing.
As regards Mr. Trudeau's comments, the hon. member should
also remember that he clearly said that the Leader of the
Opposition had make a mockery of the truth, to use a diplomatic
expression. This is exactly what he said in his press conference.
The Speaker: Dear colleagues, we are now on thin ice.
Therefore, I would ask hon. members to choose their words
carefully.
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, given
that his phoney committee was set up in a mad rush, that the names
of its members were released only 24 hours later, and that each of
its members seems to have a different opinion as to its mandate,
will the minister admit that his phoney committee was only set up
to buy time until Christmas, when the House will recess and the
16435
Prime Minister will no longer have to answer embarrassing
questions on the commitments he made during the referendum
campaign?
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, I see that the official opposition has now adopted the term
``phoney''. Its members are asking phoney questions.
They are obviously much more concerned about what goes on
outside, than about the important issues discussed in this House.
The important issue now is clearly to try to solve the problems as
they exist. We are trying to do that by constitutional and others
means.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the cabinet's national unity dream team is becoming a
nightmare. Nobody knows who they are going to consult with,
nobody knows when they are supposed to report, and worst of all,
nobody has a clue what the committee is supposed to be doing.
The labour minister thinks they are going to be discussing
constitutional change. The justice minister says they will be
looking at Mulroney type constitutional talks, and the Prime
Minister said the cabinet committee will not be delving into
constitutional matters.
I ask the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, if he can hear
me, does this committee have clear terms of reference from the
Prime Minister and, if it does, will he table them in this House?
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, this committee has clear terms of reference. They will not
be produced in the House because this is a task force which consists
of ministers. Ad hoc committees normally have mandates and
memberships that are kept confidential. They are kept confidential
for one good reason: they are the means by which advice and
recommendations are given to the Prime Minister. That has been
the custom of cabinets throughout history.
The mandate of this committee is clear. We are going to look at
the promises of the Prime Minister and how they can be
implemented. That is clear. They were in the speech given by the
Prime Minister. We know what they are. We are looking at
non-constitutional means of improving the way in which the
government operates. We have already done it through program
review last year. A lot of measures were indicated in the budget.
The leader of the third party should acknowledge that the terms
of reference and objectives are clear. The membership is known.
We are trying at present to establish a proper diagnostic and to find
the right means of solving the problems.
The Speaker: We seem to be having a small problem with the
sound. We are going to interrupt question period. We will return
after we find out what the problem is. We will still have 35 minutes
of this question period.
(The sitting of the House was suspended at 2.27 p.m.)
_______________
The House resumed at 2.45 p.m.
The Speaker: We are ready to continue. Question period will
continue until 3.21 p.m.
Because of the noise we could not hear too well, so I am going to
permit the leader of the Reform Party to restate the question,
hopefully without too much of a preamble, and we will take up
from there.
* * *
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, before we were so rudely interrupted we were asking the
Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs for the terms of reference of
this cabinet unity committee.
It is simply unacceptable for the minister to plead cabinet
secrecy or solidarity on releasing the terms of reference of a
committee that is dealing with the whole subject of national unity.
I would ask him again. Does this committee have clear terms of
reference, and could he table those terms of reference in the House?
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, the answer to the first question is yes and to the second
question is no.
The Speaker: We ought to have this kind of break every day.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I need to warm up.
Maybe we could look at the membership of this committee. The
intergovernmental affairs minister has said that this committee has
regional balance to ensure the views of all Canadians will be
16436
represented. How is that possible when seven out of the nine
committee members are from central Canada, when the west's only
representative is a junior minister who won her seat by 11 votes and
when British Columbia, the third most populous province in the
country, is not even represented on the committee?
About the only positive thing that can be said about this
committee is that the Deputy Prime Minister is not a member.
If this committee is supposed to effectively represent every
region of the country, why does the west have only one seat and
British Columbia no seat at all?
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 not the custom to comment on the membership of
committees. In this case there is clearly a regional balance. Unless
we split people in two we unfortunately cannot have a balance that
corresponds exactly to the percentage of the population.
Also, when the member unfairly talks about the number of votes,
we should all remember the Parti Quebecois was elected by barely
three-quarters of one per cent of the popular vote. That means
nothing. To repeat, in a democracy the people who have the most
votes get the prize.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, could I put one simple question.
British Columbia is the most populous province in western
Canada and the third most populous province in the country. It has
a crucial role to play on this issue of national unity and it has a
different perspective from many other provinces in the country.
Will the minister tell us why the province of British Columbia
does not have representation on the cabinet national unity
committee?
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, I am afraid the question reveals a wrong understanding of
the country and a wrong understanding of the parliamentary
system.
(1450 )
In our parliamentary system, with representative democracy,
people are elected to express their views and their feelings about
national interests in the federal Parliament. This is exactly what
exists.
The country is not homogeneous. People who come from Alberta
are quite able to represent people who come from other areas of the
country. They are not tied down to their part of the country.
It is quite improper for the leader of the third party to assume
that members of the House are only representative of a small part
of the country. No. They represent national interests.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Justice candidly admitted that
constitutional problems and Quebec's place in Canada constituted
new concerns for the government, after the Prime Minister had
promised changes to Quebecers just days before the referendum.
In light of the Minister of Justice's statement yesterday, will the
Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs admit that the federal
strategy, which has consisted for two years now in denying the
existence of a constitutional problem in the country, has failed
miserably?
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, if in fact one looks at the past two years, it will be seen
that the amount of popular support for the Liberal government in
the first two years of our mandate has been higher than for any
government since confederation.
So, clearly, we have had a level of popular support based on our
accomplishments, because we have begun to address Canada's
economic problems, while the Parti Quebecois and its little brother
the Bloc Quebecois have not focussed their concerns on this in the
least. That is what must be done.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, as usual, the Minister selects his examples and neglects to
mention that if there is one place where the government has a fairly
high unpopularity rating it is Quebec, totally the opposite of the
other provinces.
By choosing the present member for St. Maurice as leader of
their party in 1990, the Liberals thought they had solved the
Quebec situation for once and for all.
Is the fact that this government convinced Canadians that there
was no longer any constitutional problem not obvious proof that
the Liberal government, before deceiving Quebec, deceived the
rest of Canada?
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, what Canadians, Quebecers included, want and what they
have reaffirmed for Quebec in a recent survey, is that government
focus on their economic problems.
16437
The Liberal government, the government of Canada, has
addressed these problems and cleaned its house in the last budget. I
would strongly suggest to the opposition that it ensure that its big
brother, the Parti Quebecois, does the same in Quebec because, like
Canadians, Quebecers want their economic problems to be
addressed, and the unemployment and employment problems in
their province solved.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I was shocked to
learn that the Belgian government wants to interview Canadian
peacekeeping hero, Romeo D'Allaire, for his involvement in the
death of 10 Belgian peacekeepers he was in charge of during the
UN mission in Rwanda. UN Ambassador Bob Fowler has known
about this for a week, yet Canadians have heard nothing.
My question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Why has the
Canadian government not said something about this and told the
Canadian public about this very serious event?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I think everyone
in the House will agree with me when I say that Major General
D'Allaire served the country with great distinction at a very
difficult time in Rwanda.
As we saw with the events in Somalia a few years ago, it is quite
possible for certain allegations to be made about an individual's
conduct from time to time. In this case, as with that case, I think it
is best that we look at the facts and see exactly what those charges
are before we jump to any conclusions.
(1455 )
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, that is a very
difficult answer to accept, considering the seriousness of the event.
Let us remember that former prime minister Kim Campbell has
said that Mr. Fowler tended to downplay events during the Somalia
affair. Is it possible that the government was not fully briefed by
the UN ambassador about the seriousness of these charges?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member talks about charges as if these were matters that were laid
in some court.
I understand there were certain allegations made in some
quarters by one of our allies as a result of certain activities in
Rwanda. We are looking into those allegations.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the defence minister.
Yesterday, the Liberal government announced that a new
contract for the purchase of new search and rescue helicopters will
soon be awarded, to replace part of the previous EH-101 contract
that the Liberal Party cancelled as soon as it took office.
Since the government has yet to reach an agreement over the
penalties following the cancellation of the EH-101 helicopters
contract with the Agusta, why has it not excluded this company
from the bidding process?
[English]
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the discussions
with respect to compensation are being conducted by my colleague,
the minister of government services. He may wish to comment
further if the hon. gentleman wishes any information on that score.
I announced yesterday that we were to send out a solicitation of
interest and then call for proposals from private industry to acquire
up to 15 search and rescue helicopters. That process is not
incompatible with the process now being conducted by my
colleague, the minister of government services.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford, BQ): Mr. Speaker, since the
Liberals condemned Agusta when the first contract was signed and
requested an inquiry into this whole matter, how can the minister of
defence explain that he has not deemed it appropriate to completely
exclude Agusta from the new bidding process?
[English]
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is another
attempt at revisionism in history.
In the 1993 election campaign the Liberal Party campaigned
against the acquisition of the EH-101 helicopter because we felt
that deal was too rich for the pocketbooks of Canadian taxpayers.
Upon a subsequent examination once we came into office we had
those original feelings confirmed. It is for that reason that we have
decided to proceed with the search and rescue helicopters.
We have decided to have an open competition, which will allow
any bidder who has the particular equipment and can meet the
specifications to have an opportunity to take part in this initiative.
* * *
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, yesterday I raised two incidents of alleged
misconduct and cover-up by the senior management team
surrounding the Minister of National Defence.
16438
Today I want to ask the minister about his policy on significant
incident reports. I have learned from the information
commissioner that these reports are now only retained for six
months and then they are destroyed. Significant incident reports
are the documents the Somalia inquiry is based on.
Why has the minister changed the policy in order to have these
reports destroyed after only six months?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, once again there
is a distortion of the facts.
We have been working with the information commissioner with
respect to providing the documents that have been requested under
access to information. It is very onerous for us right now because of
the Somalia inquiry and all the attendant curiosity that has gone on.
We are working with the information commissioner. I believe the
information commissioner will agree that we are certainly trying to
meet the expectations he has and conform to the law.
With respect to the matter the hon. member raised referring to
allegations he made yesterday against two top general officers, I
wish to tell him that Lieutenant-General Boyle, who he named on
the floor of the House, has served notice in writing to the Canadian
Broadcasting Corporation of his intent to seek legal opinion and
perhaps proceed in action against the CBC if there is no retraction
on that story.
(1500 )
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, again the minister did not answer the question I
posed.
Does the minister realize the destruction of significant incident
reports after six months could prevent situations like the Somali
affair from ever becoming public?
What will the minister do to the correct the problem?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, once again the
hon. member is attacking procedures in the Department of National
Defence. In many cases the attacks are without much information.
He attacks members of the armed forces of various ranks. He
attacks the military police and their ability to do their jobs. He
attacks general officers as he did in the House yesterday.
I would like to know from his leader, the hon. member for
Calgary Southwest, how the member from the Reform Party, the
opposition critic, can go outside the House and malign 87 general
officers by calling them bandits, which means they have committed
criminal offences, and sit in the House as a critic for the Reform
Party.
[Translation]
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the defence minister.
Despite serious accusations of corruption made against the
Agusta company in Europe and despite several requests for an
inquiry made by the Minister of Human Resources Development
when he was in opposition, the government continues to negotiate
with the Italian firm the settlement of penalties totalling hundreds
of millions of dollars for breach of contract with respect to the
EH-101.
Could the fact that the government refuses to dismiss Agusta
mean that it intends to award the contract for 15 new helicopters to
this company instead of paying these penalties totalling hundreds
of millions of dollars? Is the defence minister preparing a sweet
deal?
[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 is
making reference to a contract the Government of Canada
cancelled shortly after taking office.
I remind the hon. member as well as others that we successfully
concluded the termination costs with Loral, thereby resolving that
matter with that contractor.
Negotiations have proceeded with the EH-101. I am happy to
report that after some very diligent, vigorous work by my deputy
minister and senior assistant deputy minister an agreement in
principle has been reached. I would like to provide all details to the
House, which I will in several months. At that time members of the
House, in particular the critics, will then have an opportunity to see
whether the Government of Canada has done its job effectively in
meeting the termination costs with that company.
[Translation]
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, as a
supplementary, I would like to ask the minister if he intends to
make public this agreement in principle as soon as possible.
Knowing that the former NATO secretary general, Willy Claes,
was forced to resign from his position after being accused of
accepting bribes from the Italian firm Agusta when Belgium
purchased EH-101s, how can the government insist on dealing with
a company whose selling methods are suspicious to say the least?
In talking to the media yesterday, the minister himself mentioned
Boeing, Bell, Sikorsky, Eurocopter and Agusta-Westland as
possible suppliers for this contract.
16439
[English]
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services and Minister for the Atlantic Canada
Opportunities Agency, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the similarities
between the Minister of National Defence and me are rather
apparent.
The hon. member must realize there is such a thing as
confidentiality between the contractor, who has a variety of
subcontractors, and the government of Canada.
(1505 )
Negotiations have been ongoing for close to two years. They
have been vigorous, they have been enthusiastic and at times they
have been extremely difficult. We have now reached an agreement
in principle. I will be happy to provide all of the details to the
House at the most opportune time.
On the grounds of confidentiality, until certain matters have
come to a final conclusion, I am precluded by law, by the contract
and the agreement in principle to provide that information today.
However, I hope I can provide it as soon as humanly possible.
* * *
Mr. Glen McKinnon (Brandon-Souris, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
last spring many communities in western Manitoba received a
significant amount of damage due to flooding. People are
concerned about receiving and recovering the appropriate costs
resulting from the damage.
Could the minister responsible for emergency preparedness
please explain how the disaster assistance agreement between the
federal and provincial governments will help these people?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the disaster and
financial assistance agreements were established so that provincial
and territorial governments could receive assistance in the case of
natural disasters.
In the case of the Manitoba flooding this spring, the normal rules
were put in place and the procedures followed. Similar things have
happened in Saskatchewan recently.
I understand the minister responsible in the Manitoba
government has been saying that for some reason the federal
government has been changing the rules and regulations and that
somehow the people of Manitoba have been deprived of their
rightful share under these programs. That is totally and absolutely
false.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the Quebec
health minister today made an ominous announcement: seven
hospitals in Montreal will be closing.
While our Minister of Health fools around with her pet national
forum on health, thousands of Canadians will suffer. Will the
minister admit health care reform in Canada is long overdue?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
it is acknowledged the health care system must change. All
provinces are bringing about a number of changes because the way
we practise health care has changed. There are new technologies.
The hon. member knows that.
The minister of health for Quebec is doing the same things
others have done across the country; that is, ensuring that the
dollars spent on health care go to the new technologies, to the new
ways of doing things.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the federal
minister has solutions. There is a very innovative neuromuscular
clinic in the riding of York Centre, the Magee clinic. The minister
will shut it down. Has she warned her colleagues from the Toronto
area to expect the irate phone calls from their constituents?
As she penalizes, punishes and pushes out innovation, will she
explain that to her colleagues?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would think that after two years in the House the hon. member
would understand the jurisdictions within health and that the actual
management of the health care system is at the provincial level.
That is part of the flexibility of the Canada Health Act. The
provinces manage the health care system.
The federal government has the Canada Health Act, which
imposes the five principles which are tied to the transfer of
moneys. That is what is happening.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence.
The persistent refusal of the minister to exclude Agusta from the
bidding process for new helicopters is particularly hard to
understand, because the man sitting on the minister's left, the
current Minister of Human Resources Development, asked for a
judicial inquiry when the Conservative government signed the first
contract with that firm.
16440
(1510)
Can the minister tell the House whether his unacceptable refusal
to exclude Agusta from the bidding process is linked to pressures
brought to bear on the government by Agusta's lobbyists, namely
Daniel Despins, a former director of communications for the
Liberal Party of Canada, and James Pacey, a former special adviser
to Pierre Elliott Trudeau?
The Speaker: Colleagues, sometimes, questions as worded are
not too-I would like to ask you, when you put questions like
that-
[English]
-you cannot impute motive in any way. I caution the hon. member
for Berthier-Montcalm. I will permit the hon. minister of public
works to answer the question.
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services and Minister for the Atlantic Canada
Opportunities Agency, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do not agree with the
preamble of the hon. member's questions. His allegations
contained in the body of his questions are absolutely false.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): I did
not think mentioning Pierre Elliott Trudeau was a crime, Mr.
Speaker.
Here is my supplementary. In view of the cloud of suspicion
hanging over Agusta and the charges of bribery that have been laid
against that firm in Belgium, would it not be wise for the minister,
before going any further, to set up the inquiry requested by his
colleague the Minister of Human Resources Development on April
13, 1993?
[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 just
does not get it. The contract he refers to was cancelled by the
government upon coming into office.
As a result, we have entered negotiations with the two main
contractors for termination costs. We have been successful with the
first one. We have come to an agreement in principle with regard to
the second one. I hope to be able to provide all of the details so the
hon. member once and for all will be able to understand that these
kinds of allegations and this kind of mud he has been playing in for
quite some time are utterly false, just like the allegations he makes
here again today.
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
worst environmental disaster in Canada still festers in the backyard
of the minister of public works in Sydney, Nova Scotia.
In February the environment minister mimicked her boss by
saying don't worry, be happy, the Sydney tar ponds PCB clean-up
is proceeding. It is not; it is broke.
Will the environment minister commit to a federal inquiry to
determine why $55 million was wasted over 10 years with no
results, who was responsible, how long the people of Sydney have
to live near this sewer and who got rich during the deal?
The Speaker: Usually we have a question and we may tack on a
partial question, but four is going a bit out of the way. Would the
hon. minister address the first two questions.
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I do not accept in any way the premises, insinuations or innuendoes
of any part of the hon. member's questions.
On behalf of the Minister of the Environment, I will take those
parts of the question that are in order as notice and endeavour to get
the hon. member an answer as quickly as possible.
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
that is sort of what we heard last February. They are not misleading
premises, they are fact.
The environment minister has done absolutely nothing for the
environment in the two years since she has been in the portfolio.
What we have here is yet another dredging scandal, only this time it
is in Sydney, Nova Scotia, not in Hamilton harbour, and we have a
city with the highest cancer rate in the North America.
I would like to ask the Minister of the Environment will there be
any further federal involvement into this disaster, or will the people
of Sydney, Nova Scotia be involved in future discussions related to
the clean-up of the tar ponds?
This is not about patronage, so I ask the Minister of the
Environment, not the minister of public works.
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member from time to time has shown that the link between
himself and facts is sometimes tenuous.
(1515 )
Having said that, I realize the concerns of people in that
community about a safe environment are important. They are
important to the government and to the members of Parliament
16441
from that area. Therefore, I will take the question as notice and
provide a full answer as quickly as possible.
* * *
Ms. Judy Bethel (Edmonton East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Health.
Albertans are increasingly anxious about the erosion of
medicare, resulting from the proliferation of private clinics in
Alberta charging facility fees for medically insured services.
Can the minister assure Albertans that medicare will be
protected from attempts to create a two-tier system where access
and quality of service are based on the amount of cash in one's
wallet?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am sure members of the House, on both sides, will be happy to
know that I met with the minister of health for Alberta on Monday
in Winnipeg in order to discuss ways to eliminate facility fees that
were being charged for medically necessary services in private
clinics.
The minister of health for Alberta gave me her personal
assurances that Alberta would be eliminating facility fees in private
clinics. I applaud the minister of health for her initiative.
Until that time, we will be deducting approximately $420,000 a
month from transfers to the province of Alberta.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the minister of defence.
Yesterday, the federal government announced a competition for
the acquisition of 15 rescue helicopters, with no Canadian content
requirement in the specifications. Considering that the Canadian
aerospace industry is concentrated in the Montreal area, how can
the minister justify this change of heart on the part of the federal
government, given that, two months ago, he awarded without
tender a $2 billion contract for armoured personnel carriers to
Ontario but that he is now taking a different approach for the
helicopter contract?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I find it quite
interesting that Bloc members condemn the government for
yesterday's announcement to buy search and rescue helicopters,
while many critics, analysts and others in Quebec actually
congratulated us for it.
Just this morning, I read the following in Le Devoir:
``Yesterday's announcement is good news. As for the price of the
helicopters, it should not exceed $40 million per aircraft, three
times less than the EH-101''.
[English]
That is on the one hand. On the second point that the hon.
member raised with respect to why there was a sole source contract
for the armoured personnel carriers and a competition on this
equipment, we have in Canada, with General Motors' diesel
division in London, the only Canadian manufacturer. It is well
known. It has a worldwide product mandate for the making of
armoured vehicles. It was quite logical to have the contract
awarded and negotiated with that company. Many companies in
Quebec will benefit because many of the suppliers are located in
the province of Quebec.
When it comes to the helicopters, we do not have that same kind
of capability, although there may be some offshoots for various
companies that may compete. Therefore, it makes sense to get the
best deal by having an open competition and invite people from
around the world to bid.
* * *
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
recent welfare war between British Columbia and the federal
government suggests that the minister and the government have no
vision for federalism, certainly not a new one.
The issue is not whether B.C. or the government is right but that
provinces should have the authority to make their own decisions in
areas of provincial jurisdiction.
When will the government get off B.C.'s back and begin
co-operative work with all provinces to give them exclusive
powers in jurisdictions that are constitutionally theirs?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is evident that the hon.
member has not been following in a careful way what has been
developing over the last several months.
As a consequence of the announcement of a new transfer
program to the provinces, which will give them far more flexibility,
the provincial premiers last summer set up the Council of Social
Service Ministers to begin developing a common provincial
approach. Once that was completed they would then sit down with
us and undertake the negotiations. We welcomed that initiative. We
thought it was a very positive way to proceed.
(1520)
Unfortunately the British Columbia government sort of skipped
out on that process, short-circuited it and decided unilaterally to do
16442
something different without consulting their provincial colleagues,
without staying within the process and therefore has created a
problem.
As I said before, the law is the law. I find it exceedingly strange
that when members of the Reform Party are constantly demanding
in this House that we ensure that individuals live up to the spirit
and the letter of the law, they do not want a province to live up to
the spirit and letter of the law.
* * *
Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources
Development.
StatsCanada has recently confirmed that young Canadians with
lower educational qualifications have suffered very badly in the job
market over the last five years. The statistics confirm that without a
post-secondary education the doors for employment have been
slammed shut for young Canadians. We know that education is the
pathway to the future for young people, yet the government has
been cutting billions of dollars from transfers to post-secondary
education to the provinces.
How can the minister justify these cuts to the tens of thousands
of young Canadians who are seeing their opportunities choked off
by the government's actions?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to answer in two
specific ways.
First, this summer we introduced a brand new student financial
assistance program that substantially refinanced the ability of
young people to go back to school. For the first time ever we
introduced a major grant program that would allow young people
with high income needs, such as disabled students and women
going to graduate school, to get specific direct grants. It is the first
time the federal government has ever offered that kind of
assistance.
Second, this year we introduced a youth internship program. By
working with the private sector, it allows young people to work half
time in the business workplace environment and half time to go to
school. We have signed agreements with a number of human
resource sector councils in the private sector.
This year alone up to 25,000 young people will be enrolled in
that program, showing how successful it is to be able to get the
private sector to work with us in partnership in helping young
people.
The Speaker: My colleagues, this is a rather special day for the
House because we have special guests in not only the Speaker's
gallery but also in the opposition gallery.
[Translation]
Fifty years ago today, Canada became a member of the United
Nations. On this occasion, I would like to salute the Canadian men
and women who personify our commitment to the UN.
[English]
Seated in the gallery today are peacekeepers of the Canadian
Armed Forces and Mounted Police who have served in Cyprus,
Egypt, El Salvador, Haiti, the Golan Heights, Kuwait,
Mozambique, Namibia, Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia.
These men and women represent the 100,000 Canadians who
have served in peacekeeping missions since Parliament ratified the
United Nations charter. They are in our galleries to my left and they
are joined today with their spouses.
Today this House, the representatives of the people of Canada,
salute our peacekeepers, nos Casques bleus, past and present on
behalf of all Canadians.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: My colleagues, I hope you will take a few minutes
to receive the members of our peacekeeping forces, all three forces
and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, at a very small reception
which will be held in room 216-N immediately after question
period.
* * *
(1525)
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): As you might suspect,
Mr. Speaker, as we usually do on Thursday, I want to ask my hon.
colleague, the Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, to give us the agenda for the next few days.
[English]
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to provide the weekly business statement.
We will continue today, tomorrow and on November 20 with the
second reading debate of Bill C-96, on the human resources
development departmental reorganization. This will be followed by
report stage and third reading of Bill C-83, respecting the
environmental auditor general.
16443
The business of the House would then be called in the following
order: Bill C-78, Bill C-52 and Bill C-58.
Finally, I would like to designate November 21 and November
22 as opposition days.
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I have two
questions for the House leader of the government.
First, could the hon. House leader indicate whether the
government intends to introduce any substantial legislation into the
House between now and December 15, if the House continues in
operation?
Second, could the hon. House leader indicate whether the very
important reports that have been promised regarding old age
assistance, Canada pension plan, unemployment insurance are
going to be tabled in the House? Will the paper on aging come to
the House? Will a position be presented on the GST? That was
promised at least two years ago.
Finally, would the hon.-
Mr. Robichaud: Order.
The Speaker: We allow these interventions if they are short
questions. I would appeal to all hon. members, should there be any
more interventions like this, that the questions be very precise and
as short as possible.
I will permit the hon. House leader to answer.
Mr. Gray: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the second part of the
hon. member's question, the material on the subjects he has
mentioned will be brought forward in due course in a way that is
consistent with the red book, the throne speech and the budgets of
the government.
With respect to the first part of the hon. member's question, the
answer is definitely yes.
The Speaker: I would encourage the hon. House leader of the
Reform Party to perhaps have a meeting with the hon. House leader
of the government.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It was our
understanding there was to be a statement made at this time in
reference to Armistice Day. I believe if you were to seek it you
would find that was the agreement of the House.
If such is the case perhaps we could proceed with that prior to
going to Government Orders.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): As I understand it, the chief
government whip is correct. We will proceed beginning with the
hon. Minister of Veterans Affairs.
* * *
(1530 )
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (Secretary of State (Veterans),
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to those Canadians
who gave their lives for freedom and democracy in serving their
country in two world wars, the Korean war and in peacekeeping
missions.
On Saturday in ceremonies across the country and in cemeteries
around the world where soldiers rest in peace, Canadians will pay
tribute to our war dead. This has been a cherished tradition on
November 11 ever since the end of the first world war on that date
in 1918.
Through the course of this century Canadians have responded to
the call of duty again and again. They have shown their strength,
courage and conviction in defence of democracy and in the interest
of peace. As the years pass and the veterans of these earlier wars
age and pass away, it is up to each new generation of Canadians to
continue the memory of their sacrifice and courage.
It is up to each new generation of young Canadians to reflect that
the men and women who gave their lives were young themselves.
They fought for liberty with the strength and idealism of their
youth. Many others sacrificed their youth in the terrible ordeal of
war.
The Prime Minister has declared November 4 to 12 veterans
week. We have used this week as an occasion to honour those who
made the ultimate sacrifice and those men and women who came
back from the war and kept on contributing to Canada.
These veterans come from all regions of Canada. They serve
their country with pride and distinction. They left behind in the
cemeteries of Europe, Southeast Asia, North Africa and the Pacific
comrades who died for their country without a thought of whether
they come from the east or the west or whether they fought for this
province or that. They fought and died for Canadians. All
Canadians in every province share the legacy of peace and freedom
they left for us.
On Saturday the country will unite to remember her war dead.
Let every Canadian remember and cherish the memories of those
who have sacrificed so much. Let us put aside our partisan
differences and our conflicting visions of tomorrow. Let us pay
tribute to those who gave us the freedom we have to choose our
destiny, the freedom we share with Canadians.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford, BQ): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of
the Bloc Quebecois, which forms the official opposition in this
House, I am pleased to rise this afternoon in honour of
Remembrance Day. Tradition dictates that, every November 11, we
take a few moments to remember those who have served in the two
world wars and in the Korean war.
Of course, we must also remember those who served in the
numerous UN peacekeeping missions. Remembrance Day is
especially significant this year since last spring marked the 50th
anniversary of the end of World War II. Today, we want to thank all
those who served at the front, the sailors and airmen and women
from all regions of Canada, the members of the merchant navy, the
16444
nurses, and all the men and women who risked or gave their lives to
overcome tyranny.
We must never forget that over 100,000 young Canadians and
Quebecers lost their lives in the two major global conflicts, while
hundreds of others died in Korea and in various peacekeeping
missions. Unfortunately, many bloody conflicts are still raging
throughout the world. Let us think about all those who are
responsible for keeping the peace in the world, in particular the
Canadian peacekeepers.
(1535)
One of the main roles of the Canadian Forces at the international
level is to participate in peacekeeping operations. This is an
invaluable asset and international achievement for Canada.
On behalf of all Bloc members, I wish to congratulate all
members of the various Legion branches. We sincerely thank them
for honouring the memory of the young Canadians and Quebecers
who left everything behind and went overseas to fight for peace and
freedom.
Today we remember the selfless sacrifices made by those to
whom we owe this legacy of freedom and democracy.
The heavy human casualties and the great suffering of all those
affected by these endless wars are beyond comprehension.
As the Leader of the Official Opposition said in marking the 50th
anniversary of the end of the second world war, who can describe
the terrible pain of the mothers and fathers whose son was killed in
the prime of his life? And what about the widows and orphans, the
brothers and sisters forever deprived of a loved one who left one
day for a faraway country to meet his destiny as a sacrificed hero?
Like those who gave their lives, all these brave people also
fought so that there would be no more wars and that future
generations would be spared the attendant atrocities, suffering and
upheaval.
This was, however, the price we had to pay for our commitment
to peace and democracy. It is precisely because our young soldiers
shared these values that they felt compelled to defend them
overseas.
We must therefore sincerely thank again all those who died and,
of course, all those who survived these tragedies.
Let us pay them a vibrant tribute and honour their memory.
[English]
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise to remember and pay tribute to those brave
Canadians who served their country and those who lost their lives
or suffered injuries or loss in the terrible wars of this century. On
behalf of our party, our constituencies, our constituents and all
Canadians who remember, we offer our profound respect and
deepest thanks.
[Translation]
That reminds me that there are no French Canadians or English
Canadians in cemeteries in Europe, only Canadians. I pray that this
fact unites us in peacetime as in wartime.
[English]
At the same time we remember and pay tribute to the current
members of our armed forces, many of whom have served or are
serving as peacekeepers in the troubled places of the world. Again
on behalf of our constituents and on behalf of all Canadians who
cherish peace, we offer our profound respect and our deepest
thanks.
November 11 is called Remembrance Day. Our children rightly
ask what precisely it is we are asked to remember. If we ask the
living, the loved ones and friends of those who served and fell in
the wars, they will say we remember our loved ones and friends
who gave their lives for freedom and democracy, and they will be
right. However, if we could ask those who served and fell what they
would like us to remember, I believe they would tell us to
remember the great lesson their loss teaches us: the lesson that
freedom and democracy cannot be preserved without self-sacrifice.
If each of us every day, year after year, makes the small
sacrifices of time, energy and self-interest necessary to preserve
our freedoms, that is enough. But if we neglect to make those small
daily sacrifices then someday, somewhere down the road, a vast
multitude of people like those we honour on Remembrance Day
must make the ultimate sacrifice on our behalf.
(1540)
Today I say let us make our tributes and on November 11 let us
lay our wreaths. But, above all, each day after that let us practise
the great lesson: that freedom and democracy cannot be preserved
without self-sacrifice on our part. Such practice would be the
highest tribute we could pay to those who fought and fell as well as
to those who stand on guard for Canada today.
Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina-Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, it is an honour for me to join my colleagues on behalf of
the New Democratic Party in remembering those who died and
suffered during the past great wars. This year marks the 50th
anniversary of the end of the last great war, both in Europe and
Southeast Asia.
It is also a personal gratitude that I have the great honour to
express today in the House to the Parliament of Canada. Coming
from Holland, where many of my relatives had part in the
16445
resistance against the fascism that swept through Europe, on their
behalf and on behalf of my former countrymen in the Netherlands I
wish to express our great gratitude and appreciation to those young
Canadian men and women who liberated us from the shadow of
fascism.
Having been born in the Dutch East Indies and a few months
after my birth being incarcerated in a Japanese prisoner of war
camp with my mother and my older brother, and my father
eventually being taken a prisoner of war and incarcerated in a
prisoner of war camp in Japan, I wish to express my personal
gratitude to those men and women of the allied forces who
liberated us. If it were not for them I would not be alive today. It is
a very personal matter for me to stand in the House and express our
deepest gratitude to those men and women who sacrificed their
lives to save others.
As we remember them, let us also remember why the young
Canadian men and women went forward in their great act of
sacrifice. It was to preserve democracy and freedom as we know
them. It was to fight against the intolerance that had swept through
Europe and Asia at the time. As we remember their deeds, it is
important for us to also reaffirm ourselves to the ideals of
democracy, freedom and tolerance. Without tolerance, democracy
and freedom cannot exist.
As we live through today's age of rapid social and technological
changes, which create psychological insecurities, the ugly head of
intolerance rises now and then. As we remember the dead, let us
also remember the great purpose of freedom, democracy and
tolerance.
On behalf of my colleagues, myself, my family and the people of
the Netherlands, I thank those great Canadian men and women who
did so much.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, I rise today
to pay tribute to the many Canadians who sacrificed so much for
the peace and freedom we all enjoy today.
The first world war ended at 11 a.m. on November 11, 1918. We
reflect each Remembrance Day on that time and on that date.
World War I left close to 70,000 Canadians dead and almost twice
as many wounded. The second world war took the lives of 45,000
Canadians. Canadians also gave their lives during the Korean war
and our armed forces answered when the United Nations called for
action to put an end to Iraq's aggression against Kuwait. Canadians
have never backed down or run away in the face of such aggression.
Our troops have put their lives on the line when international peace
and security has been at risk.
(1545)
I, like my colleague of the New Democratic Party, am personally
aware of World War II because I had two brothers who served in
Holland.
As a child at that time I remember how we used to work and save
our pennies to buy Canadian stamps, how we used to take our
toothpaste tubes to school. Some of the boys used to bring their
little metal toys and turn them in. All of us have memories, but I
have happy memories because my brothers returned home safe and
sound.
Canadians know that to ensure world peace the laws that govern
relationships among nations must be respected and enforced. That
is why we have almost 2,000 members of the Canadian military
serving throughout the world in peace and humanitarian
operations.
This year we commemorate the fiftieth anniversary of the end of
the second world war and on Remembrance Day and this Veterans'
Week let us commit, each and every one of us, to honouring those
who risked so much on our behalf through concrete action. In
Holland during VE Day celebrations Canadian veterans were
treated like royalty for their role in the liberation of that country.
Here at home we must continue to remember and show our
gratitude to those who risked everything so that we would have the
country we have today with our rights and freedoms. That is why
we have to protect the programs vital to the well-being of so many
veterans.
Today I say thank you to those who fought for the freedoms we
enjoy. I say thank you to those who continue to wear the uniform of
Canada for their extraordinary service to all of us.
Let us not forget the price that has been paid so that we could live
in peace, individually and collectively. Let us be vigilant about
maintaining that peace.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): We now resume debate on
Bill C-96. The hon. member for Lévis still has four minutes in his
statement, which will be followed by a period of questions and
comments.
Mr. Boudria: Once again, Mr. Speaker, I thought there had been
discussions among the parties so that this period of comments
would be followed by a moment of silence. I am informed, at least,
that it was the case in past years, and I had thought that these
discussions had taken place today as well.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I must admit that I am not
aware of the discussions, but I still believe that since Remembrance
Day is coming soon, on Saturday, November 11, it would be quite
appropriate to stand up and have a moment of silence.
[English]
I ask you all to rise for a minute of silence.
[Editor's Note: The House stood in silence.]
>
16446
16446
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
(1550)
[Translation]
The House resumed consideration of the motion, with
amendment.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Resuming debate on Bill
C-96.
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, as you indicated
earlier, I was not completely done with my remarks on Bill C-96. I
would like to use the three or four minutes remaining to raise two
major points.
I heard comments the minister and the hon. member for St.
Boniface made to the effect that the official opposition was
worrying for nothing, that it need not worry about clause 20
because, even though the minister was giving himself greater
powers-these are certainly not duties or functions; we are talking
mostly about powers here-he did not intend to encroach on
provincial powers or responsibilities.
My father used to say: ``To predict the future or to know how
someone will perform in the future, just look at their performance
for the past few months or years''.
The Minister of Human Resources Development has been in
office for two years now and we can clearly see two things. There
are many things, but I will focus on these two. First, we will recall
that among the many budgetary provisions contained in Bill C-17,
there was one concerning cuts to the unemployment insurance
program, which I would briefly summarize as follows: longer
qualifying period, lower amounts and shorter benefit period. Let us
bear this in mind.
The impact of these provisions was felt throughout Canada, but
since I am from Quebec, let me point out that the labour minister
mentioned again just recently how many more Quebecers were
forced on welfare as a result.
The minister, in his speech this morning, spoke about young
people, and said that, all things considered, there were not that
many more unemployed young people. That is true, but in Quebec,
at least, there are many more people on welfare, including young
people. It think that has to be pointed out.
Furthermore, as the training and youth critic for my party, I
would like to remind the House of what we heard in committee,
which was that, in Bill C-28, the minister and the parliamentary
secretary were giving themselves the right to designate the
appropriate authority, when the previous act gave that right to the
governor in council, meaning the provincial governments. Why?
Because, in the Constitution, this is an area of exclusive provincial
jurisdiction.
Moreover, in section 14(7), the minister dealt with the opting-out
privilege which the government of Quebec has always requested
and which it was able to use, but now there were some new
conditions. Now, each element of the student financial assistance
program had to meet the requirements of the federal government's
financial assistance program. The minister was giving himself the
right to determine how similar the two programs were. I just
wanted to remind the House of all of this before concluding my
remarks.
And finally, I want to thank the hon. member for Mercier, who is
sitting right behind me, for her excellent work as deputy
chairperson of the human resources development committee. As
the official opposition critic, she spoke today more specifically to
the people of Quebec, asking them to watch out, because Prime
Minister Jean Chrétien was about to make them face the music, as
he promised to do in answer to a question put to him in the House
not so long ago.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Before the question and
comment period, I would like to remind all members that they
cannot refer to hon. members by their names, but that they have to
use the name of their ridings or their title. I know it is sometimes
easy to forget, but I wanted to remind the House because this is an
important point within our parliamentary rules.
[English]
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
as always when the hon. member speaks I pay a great deal of
attention.
(1555 )
I have had the pleasure to work with the hon. member on the
human resources committee and so I clearly understand the
philosophical disposition he has toward matters related to human
resources development.
I find it quite ironic that the Bloc Quebecois would accuse the
federal government of engaging in an exercise of political power
grabbing when in this piece of legislation we are trying to empower
not only the federal government but provincial partners and local
stakeholders to give us an opportunity to better serve the people of
Canada, whether they are in la belle province de Québec or outside.
I also bring to the hon. member's attention that we as a federal
government have a role to play in matters he outlined during his
speech. One is the Unemployment Insurance Act which dates back
to 1941 and gives a role to the federal government to engage in a
process whereby we will give income support to the people of
Canada and also a set of tools so they can re-enter the workforce.
16447
I have a different view of what is going on in the relationship
between the federal government, provincial governments and local
communities. Over the years we have demonstrated that as a
federal government we engage very much in co-operative, flexible
federalism-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Bevilacqua: I hear some rumbling on the Reform Party side
which is quite obvious. It has nothing to say and so it just moans
and groans.
Despite the differences that exist, some of them political in
nature, some philosophical, we have engaged in many innovative
partnerships between Human Resources Development Canada and
Quebec agencies. HRDC, Human Resources Development
Canada-I am talking to the Reform Party so it gets its acronyms
right-in partnerships with two Quebec government departments is
supporting job search training for youth through le Relais des
jeunes adultes du Sud-Ouest de Montréal; 65 per cent of the
participants so far have found work.
In partnership with the Societé québécoise de développement de
la main-d'oeuvre HRDC provides financial assistance to help new
entrepreneurs to get into business through la Société d'aide au
développement des collectivités de Sorel-Tracy Inc.
In partnership with SQDM, HRDC helped workers affected by a
Hyundai plant closing in Bromont last March; 80 per cent of those
workers found work or took further vocational training.
The CEC and la Société du développement économique de
Jonquière have established a partnership to compile and share
labour market information.
There is a single window service joining HRDC, le commissaire
industriel and l'Office de tourisme in Témiscamingue to deliver
services in industrial, rural and tourism development. The list is
absolutely endless.
I tell the hon. member in a very clear and concise manner that
Canada works. Does it work perfectly? No. Can it use some
improvements? Of course. We can achieve positive change in
federal, provincial and community relationships as we redefine.
This is a very important exercise in the redefinition of the
relationship between the individual, the community and the state.
It is within this framework that we must continue to work
together to achieve those positive ends that will facilitate the
process of getting people off unemployment rolls and on to
payrolls.
I know the hon. member shares this vision because he, like me,
wants to get people off welfare, off unemployment and into safe,
secure jobs.
(1600)
[Translation]
Mr. Dubé: Mr. Speaker, I can see the hon. parliamentary
secretary is more skilful with comments than with questions. But
he did ask a question, and he said in his preamble that we seem to
have a different perception of the facts, and I agree.
He is quite right, his point of view and mine are quite different.
In my opinion, decentralization means that, in areas under
provincial jurisdiction, the federal government should enter into
agreements with the provinces. But they think decentralization
means that Ottawa rakes in the money through the UI plan.
Incidentally, the federal government has not put any money into the
UI fund since 1991, but it is keeping control of the fund and goes so
far as to imply that it is being generous, when in fact that money
comes from the employees and the employers of Canada, including
Quebec.
The parliamentary secretary should know that the federal
government got involved in the UI fund through a constitutional
agreement and then with the approval of the provinces. It was
aware at the time that this is an area under provincial jurisdiction.
That agreement allowed the federal government to establish the
unemployment insurance commission.
Now, because the federal government manages the UI fund, it is
using the power of money to do things, and it made a string of
announcements. There may be one he does not know. One week
after the referendum, the hon. member for Beauce made an
announcement concerning the Minister of Human Resources
Development. As you know, cuts in the employment centres had
been announced right and left. The employment centre located in
the constituency of the hon. member for Beauce was going to be
transferred to the neighbouring Frontenac constituency.
The hon. member for Beauce made representations, obviously
accepted to chair the no committee and announced, one week after
the referendum, that the Minister of Human Resources
Development had agreed to keep a number of employees in the
Beauce constituency rather than transferring them all as previously
expected. Furthermore, there would be a special project in this
constituency. Within this kind of decentralization, an independent
member-instead of a province-would be able to create a
consultation or support centre to help industries train their own
employees. We, the official opposition, are against this kind of
decentralization.
[English]
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I appreciated my hon. colleague's comments on this very
important topic.
16448
I note with interest the comments of the parliamentary secretary
that Canada works, that his government has been bringing forward
a flexible and co-operative approach and therefore he does not
understand what the problem would be. I can tell him the problem
is that his government is not flexible and has not been very
co-operative with the provinces. That is the big reason we have
the problems in Canada today.
It is interesting to note that this afternoon during question
period, the hon. Minister of Health indicated how co-operative she
is. She got up and bragged that she is going to be penalizing Alberta
to the extent of over $400,000 a month in cutbacks in the transfer
payments. That is how co-operative the government is with the
provinces. Is it any wonder we have problems with the province of
Quebec as well.
It is very interesting to note that the Reform Party on the other
hand has put forward a positive agenda for change and has
devolved manpower training to the provinces. That is what we look
to for innovative ways to make Confederation work.
Perhaps the hon. member would care to comment on what his
experience has been in how co-operative the Liberal government
has been over the past two years. Is there further merit in the
devolution of powers to the provinces if we are going to make
Confederation work?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Let me remind everyone that
the 10-minute question and comment period has almost lapsed. The
response should be in 60 seconds or less.
(1605)
[Translation]
Mr. Dubé: Mr. Speaker, I would simply like to say that I listened
with great interest to the remarks made by my colleague from the
Reform Party. It makes me realize that, even though the members
opposite, on the government side, would have us believe that they
only have problems with Quebec, they do have problems elsewhere
as well.
Now, regarding Quebec's position, it is quite clear. In a
resolution adopted unanimously by the National Assembly under
the Liberal government of Mr. Daniel Johnson, chairman of the no
committee, Quebec has stated that it wants to be given exclusive
jurisdiction over manpower, for example, as well as tax points
equivalent to what the federal government is spending in this area
at the present time in this province.
Quebec has been asking for that for a long time.
[English]
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the bill before the House has a straightforward goal. It provides the
legal mandate and structure for Human Resources Development
Canada.
As the debate has already shown, we are not simply discussing
technical legislation; we are in fact talking about a vision. That
vision is one of Canadians and communities meeting the challenges
of a new economy. It is a vision of a federal government that works
as a partner within Canadian communities. It is a vision based on
jobs, growth and results.
This is not a vision of the future; it is a reality today. At a time
when people ask how governments can get closer to the people they
serve, HRDC is showing the way. This is true in every province and
every territory. I know it is certainly true in the riding I represent in
the House of Commons, York North.
York North is one of the most dynamic areas in Canada. There
are new families, new businesses and new opportunities
everywhere in the riding. However, growth does not simply
happen. We have to build for success. This is what we are achieving
in York North.
We are doing it through the York North technology strategy. This
strategy was developed by working together with municipal
governments, businesses, community organizations and area
residents. It will prepare the people and communities in my riding
for the 21st century. It will help them make the most of today's
technology and will allow them to turn change into opportunity. It
will equip people with tools which will help them compete in the
economy we see emerging all around us.
The government has been there to help. We have been able to use
the department's flexible and effective programs to translate this
strategy into concrete, innovative projects. We have been able to
match the energy of community leaders in the York region with the
tools of Human Resources Development Canada.
One example is our new York region strategic alliance. The
Regional Municipality of York, Seneca College and local
employers have joined with the federal government to foster jobs
and growth in this region. We are pooling resources and skills. We
are sharing overhead and information. We are finding projects
which will offer a real bang for the buck in terms of job creation.
Strategic alliance's first project is taking place in the city of
Vaughan. It is a pilot survey which will develop a database on local
business opportunities and resources. This information will be
available to employers around the world via the Internet. It will
help employers who are considering Vaughan as a place to do
business. It will help those already there who are considering
expansion.
Human Resources Development Canada was approached to help
out with this initiative. Recognizing the importance of upgrading
skills and modernizing the economy, our government supported
this initiative.
16449
(1610 )
Today, current unemployment insurance recipients are acquiring
new skills that will help them return to the workforce on a more
permanent basis. They are creating the database. They are doing
the research. They are entering data and writing reports. They are
learning and acquiring marketable skills. They are achieving and
contributing to the well-being of the Canadian economy.
We see strategic alliance as a solid investment in the future of
our economy. I use the word investment with good reason. We
expect two results from this project that will continue long after the
Human Resources Development Canada funding is over.
The first is that each of these employees will have better skills to
bring to new employers. They will have received active help from
unemployment insurance, not just temporary income. They will be
back on the job, not back on the UI treadmill. The second is that the
city of Vaughan and then all of York region will have an effective
pool of resources and tools to create and attract jobs. That is only
one of the many excellent examples of how HRDC works with
communities.
Just over a month ago I announced the establishment of the
technology enterprise centre in the city of Vaughan. It was a very
important day for the city. Vaughan is a young community in many
ways. Many of my constituents are young people and parents who
are concerned about the future. They know the economy demands
more from all of us. They are prepared to meet that challenge. They
need a government that will help them and their children acquire
the skills the new economy demands.
The technology enterprise centre is one way to provide essential
skills. The project is sponsored by the Vaughan economic and
technology development department. When the project is in full
swing, 60 participants will have learned entrepreneurial skills,
skills that are important in creating jobs for themselves and also
creating jobs for other Canadians.
Those entrepreneurial skills will have a particular focus: the high
technology sector. The centre will work with unemployed residents
between the ages of 19 and 34 who have a background in
technology or research. It will help them gain the skills to start
their own high tech businesses, or work for one of the many
enterprises already established in Vaughan. This promises to be an
intensive program with a realistic basis. After all, we know that
companies such as Microsoft started in garages. Who knows where
the next leaders of this innovative technology based revolution will
come from?
Community leaders in the private sector and at the city of
Vaughan knew we have people who want to create opportunities.
They were willing to contribute computer equipment to support
this idea. They were willing to secure corporate sponsors to keep
this idea going. They needed a partner to help get this off the
ground. Once again our government was there to help.
We are deeply committed to the employment needs of youth. We
recognize the importance of entrepreneurship in our high
technology industries. Thanks to the support of our government
based targeted labour market initiative, this is a chance to test a
great idea with a great deal of potential.
The federal government earmarked funding for the technology
enterprise centre. This is one more example of this government's
commitment to listen to communities. We work with their
priorities; we focus on creating results. This is fundamental to the
new way of governing and governance in this country.
It is extremely important for us to reach out to the communities,
to reach out to individuals and to help them along. More important,
it is really about people investing in people, helping people help
themselves, creating the entrepreneurial environment where jobs
are created and to give young people the opportunity to acquire the
skills required to meet the challenges of the new economy.
(1615 )
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 our children's future. In order to face this
challenge head on, the public, private and educational sectors must
band together to give our children the tools they need to succeed.
Last fall, together with Mr. Colin Morrison of the Career
Foundation and Philipp Tafelmacher, president of Tetra-Pak, I
introduced the York Region Compact, a partnership for learning.
This unique co-operative education program focuses on matching
students with local companies based on the student's career goals,
skills, and the requirements of the organizations.
This spring I announced federal support for training young
people in the automotive repair and service sector. As a result of an
internship partnership forged between the Canadian Automotive
Repair Service Knowledge Network, CARS, whose head office is
located in Richmond Hill, and Human Resources Development
Canada, labour and the private sector working together, over 1,000
young people will receive hands on experience in this expanding
industry with one of the major automakers, whether it be Chrysler,
Ford or General Motors.
What is important is that we are in fact training young people for
jobs with a future. Why are we focusing on CARS? Why are we
focusing on environmental technology, computers and tourism? It
is because these are jobs with a future. We want to give young
16450
people the skills required to obtain a job in a very competitive
marketplace where jobs are long lasting and high paying.
This government has created over 500,000 jobs so far, and the
majority are full time, high paying jobs. It is a highly paid, highly
skilled, high value added society that we want to create so that the
quality of life for Canadians can be maintained.
I am very proud to be a partner in initiatives such as the ones I
have outlined. However, we could never have set these projects in
motion without first being a community with the foresight to
develop such a plan for the future.
The North York technology strategy is about a community that is
committed to working together. It is about people, employers,
community organizations, and governments that are prepared to
combine their efforts and work together for results that will benefit
us for a long time to come.
If I had the time I could discuss so many other examples of
similar kinds of human resource development co-operation
programs I have seen. One excellent example is the
self-employment assistance program that has helped 34,000 people
across Canada start businesses. Those businesses have created
68,000 jobs. In North York literally hundreds of people have
benefited from this program.
The same is true about our support of young people. In April
1994 our government unveiled the youth employment and learning
strategy. This strategy is a cumulative result of many years of
consultation, policy development, symposia, and town hall
meetings with Canadians from coast to coast to coast.
This Liberal government recognizes that our youth is a very
important resource, and as such should be treated with a great deal
of dignity and priority. That is why this year, during a time of fiscal
restraint, the overall budget for youth employment services was
increased by $43 million, to $236 million. We understand that
investing in young people is an excellent investment for the future
of this country.
(1620 )
An important element of the youth employment and learning
strategy is the national summer job action plan, which I announced
in the city of Vaughan this spring. This year the student summer job
action program created 44,500 jobs nationwide. When we include
the spinoffs from the Canada Employment Centres for students, we
created almost 250,000 jobs for our young people.
Youth Service Canada and the youth internship program are
viable, very interesting, and positive measures for young people.
Youth Service Canada gives young people a chance to develop
skills and confidence while serving their community. Participants
receive a $2,000 voucher to be used for tuition or to start a
business. To date, Youth Service Canada has given more than 3,500
young Canadians a head start on their career path.
The youth internship program provides a combination of training
on the job and in class, with a balance of both specific and basic
employment. Some 27,000 young people have benefited from this
program since its inception.
The government invests in results. We are committed to
innovation, co-operation and flexibility. We know that people and
communities understand their priorities. We know they are willing
to make a real commitment to meeting these priorities, and we are
willing to work with them in a way that meets their needs.
At the same time we are adapting more than the services we
provide. We are improving the way in which these services are
delivered. In order to serve our clients better we have developed an
integrated, affordable, highly flexible and decentralized service
delivery network. This network incorporates new strategies and
new tools for getting employment services and programs into the
hands of the people who need them. While it maintains a face to
face service that clients need it adds new technology features which
enhance and expand service delivery.
The use of new technology will be a key feature of the new
service delivery network. Through electronic information kiosks,
on line database and telephone access systems, the department
hopes to extend its reach to clients and all Canadians. New
technology will enhance the capacity of our staff to deliver
information and services. Through built in flexibility, our staff is
responding to what Canadians want and keeping pace with rapid
changes in the job market. These initiatives and improvements are
really the point of Bill C-96, which creates a department that will
work with Canadians.
Everywhere I go throughout the country, whether it is in the
Atlantic provinces, British Columbia, Alberta or the province of
Ontario, I find that people are responding positively to the new way
of delivering services. They are responding positively to the new
way of bringing people together. I am quite excited by the
revolution that is occurring in every single province, in every city,
in every community of this great land. People are coming together,
finding out what their priorities are. They have a federal
government that facilitates this meeting of people and bringing an
idea to fruition, facilitates the ability to be accountable and to
deliver services that make sense.
The federal government is reclaiming relevance at the
community level. Any hard working member of Parliament who
has the ability to lead their community, the ability to facilitate the
meeting of people, and who has the deep desire to bring about
positive change in their community can do so, because we have
built into
16451
this legislation the type of flexibility that will bring their dreams
and the dreams of Canadians from coast to coast to reality.
(1625 )
It is not now the time to throw up your hands and say that Canada
is not worth it. It is time to roll up your sleeves and make your
community work.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, it is rather surprising to hear such a statement only two
weeks after the referendum results.
It is true that the Yes side got 49,4 p. 100 of the vote, but if there
is one issue on which a referendum today would lead to a landslide
victory, it is the return of powers to Quebec regarding manpower
training.
Again this week, Mr. Gérald A. Ponton, chairman of the
Association des manufacturiers du Québec-not a member of the
Parti Quebecois, not a member of the Bloc Quebecois, but the
chairman of the Association des manufacturiers du
Québec-clearly stated that there is a consensus in Quebec, that it
was reiterated during the referendum campaign, that if the federal
government wants to give us clear evidence of the will for reform it
expressed during the week prior to the referendum, it should give
the Government of Quebec the responsibility for all manpower
training.
It is very surprising to hear the member state that the present
government wants to have concrete results to show how effective it
is. From September 1994 to September 1995, the number of
welfare recipients increased by 20,000, mostly because the
unemployment insurance rules were tightened up by this
government that wanted to create, in the unemployment fund, an
artificial surplus that will amount to about $5 billion for this year.
When the government makes decisions like this one that leads
people to apply for welfare, I think we see very concrete results that
do not reflect very well on the present government.
In his speech, the member used the term ``decentralize''. That
must be one of these words that does not mean the same thing in
Canada and in Quebec. In every management book I studied,
decentralization means mandating somebody to assume the whole
responsibility of some undertaking. Everything there is in the bill
presented by the Minister of Human Resources Development is to
be found in clause 6 which reads 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-
This bill does not mention provincial responsibilities, contrary to
Bill C-95 which at least, in the health area, contained clauses
ensuring that the federal government would not encroach upon
provincial jurisdiction. In this bill, nothing is said about that.
When you look at all those elements, it seems fair to ask the
government if this bill, tabled before the outcome of the
referendum, should not have died on the Order Paper, because it
shows clearly that the federal government has no intention
whatsoever of making real changes. It wants to make cosmetic
changes only. The way to show they want change would be to
amend the bill so that manpower training can become an exclusive
jurisdiction for Quebec.
[English]
Mr. Bevilacqua: Mr. Speaker, I am often quite puzzled by some
of the questions the Bloc Quebecois asks in the House of
Commons.
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River): It does not take much
to puzzle you.
Mr. Bevilacqua: I wonder if a member from British Columbia
who came to a neighbouring riding and was able to draw only six
people has the right to even express an opinion.
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River): Nobody has the right
except you. You are the only one with rights here.
Mr. Bevilacqua: I want to tell the hon. member that there was
no question, as he may recall, on the June offer the Minister of
Human Resources Development made to the provincial minister of
employment, basically asking to sit down and perhaps come up
with some different arrangements for a local economic
development strategy for the province of Quebec and indeed any
other province that would like to participate.
(1630 )
I find that quite ironic, considering that the government, in
co-operation with the people of Canada, has been able to create a
climate where there have been over 500,000 full time, high paying
jobs created since the October 1993 election.
We have made offers to the provinces on the issue of the labour
market. The hon. member knows that. As a matter of fact, we have
continually made offers and it has taken a long time for the minister
from Quebec responsible for employment to even have the decency
to respond to the offers made by the Minister of Human Resources
Development.
If the hon. member is asking if can we make some changes to the
way the federal government and the provinces relate, I submit that
changes should be made not only with the provinces but with the
way in which we deal with communities and individuals. The hon.
member knows that governing and governance is an evolving
16452
process. Changes have occurred throughout the past two years. I
cited earlier in my comments, in response to the member for Lévis,
a number of initiatives that are working quite well.
When I was in Pierrefonds, Quebec, avec ton cher collègue du
Parti québécois, le ministre de l'Éducation, Mr. Garon, we were
there working together, ensemble, to make sure that by pooling the
resources available, 1,000 young people, in co-operation with the
Sectoral Council of Cars and Chrysler Canada, would get jobs.
When you speak to young Quebecers, when you speak to young
Albertans, when you speak to young British Columbians, their
dream is to get a job, to have the type of security that the
government is providing.
Are we open to leading the way in these consultations toward
change? Of course we are. It is unfair for any member of the
opposition to say that no progress has been made because the
numbers speak for themselves.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I was
interested that the parliamentary secretary in his vision of the new
Canada said that the federal government works as a partner. Some
partner. This is a partner that just finished removing $7 billion from
the social spending envelope. What kind of a partner is that?
All the words that the government keeps coming up with are
nothing more than the platitudes of speech writers. Would he care
to enlighten us as to who wrote his speech?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I want to remind my
colleagues on all sides of the House to please make their
interventions through the Chair.
Mr. Bevilacqua: Mr. Speaker, you can rest assured it was not a
member of the Reform Party. Speeches have to make sense and I
would never go to them for any advice on that.
The hon. member knows because he has visited my community
that it is working quite well. It is doing that with a Liberal member
on the government side.
This is what Reform Party members do a lot. They sit here and
complain about cuts. When they ran in the 1993 election, they were
going to cut approximately $15 billion from social spending. Since
then, they have come up with a super RRSP for seniors that would
actually reduce benefits for our seniors.
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River): Baloney.
Mr. Bevilacqua: There you are, Reform. It takes away maternity
benefits. This is the type of cave age Reformers we have in this
House. They seem to throw numbers and figures around. You
should even check your super RSP-
(1635)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order, please. I know that
there are strongly held views in most debates, if not all of them, but
there is a proper way to conduct debates and going through the
Chair is most helpful.
Mr. Bevilacqua: Mr. Speaker, I will do that. There are correct
views and there are wrong views. I believe that the hon. member is
expressing wrong views.
When we look at the budget which Reformers proposed, in
relation to the super RSP, they have something called recognition
bonds within that framework. The unfortunate thing is that they are
reinventing the Canada pension plan, the OAS and the GIS. The
only thing they do not know about the bonds is how they are going
to pay for them. Everything else works quite well, according to
them.
I ask for a very simple thing from them. When Reform Party
members speak in the House of Commons they really should take a
bit more care, a bit more time, to analyse clearly and study the
issues and not to present to Canadians plans which simply do not
make sense. Canadians want plans that work. Canadians want plans
that result in job creation. Canadians want plans that create jobs
and economic growth. That is what the government has been able
to do in the past two years. I know that members of the Reform
Party are really not happy with that.
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, this
is getting more interesting as we go. I find it enlightening when we
are told our plans do not work. I have been here for over two years
and I have yet to hear of a plan coming from the government.
The bill we are speaking about is Bill C-96, which we oppose. I
must say, Mr. Speaker, that I am sharing my time with my
colleague from Kootenay East.
I would like to comment on the presentations which have been
made this afternoon. One of our Liberal colleagues called on us to
work together. Perhaps we could work together, reasonably closely,
if the goal that the Liberal government has and the goal which the
Reform Party has were at least close. I am going to demonstrate
why we have these emotional debates. What we hear is rhetoric.
We do not see concrete examples. We do not see anything
substantive coming from the government which fits into Canadian
society today.
I hear that the bill will empower the government-
Mr. Bevilacqua: People.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): No, it was government. That
was the word.
Since October 1993 the government has had a majority. We are
now, over two years later, talking about Bill C-96 which will
empower the government. I have to wonder what has happened in
the last two years. Has the government been thinking that maybe it
should be empowered? It already is empowered. Has it been
thinking about what it will do now that it has been elected by
surprise? Just exactly what has the government been thinking for
the last two years?
16453
This legislation will only go into that place over there, it will
sit and go through committee, and it will be into year three if not
year four before the government will say it is empowered. We
have to wonder what the logic is.
Mr. Abbott: Elect them again.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): I guess that is what they are
looking for. They can go into the next election and say: ``This is
what we wanted to do for those first five years and we are really
going to do it in the second five years''. That is unacceptable.
Well done is better than well said. The government should think
about that. All it is doing is talking. Meanwhile people are waiting.
Maybe it is just not all talk. Maybe there are some things the
government has done.
(1640)
Since being elected it has overspent in the last two years $80
billion plus. Congratulations. Add the interest on top and the figure
is close to putting $100 billion more debt on the backs of our
children. The Liberal members sit there sanctimoniously talking
about how well they are doing.
People listening to this have to be really disgusted with this kind
of talk about how they are empowered, how they have done things,
how they are doing things. What they have done is put us deeper in
debt.
When I talk about the social programs, the question has to be
asked: How is the government going to address social programs
when it is blowing the budget every year and adding more debt?
The fact is that the premiums have to go up and the benefits have to
come down. If the government keeps spending and spending into
oblivion it is going to cost big time. Government members sit there
spouting this rhetoric, like they are going to do something. They
have done something all right.
Let us talk about the member who has just finished speaking.
``Canada works. Canadians feel that Canada works''. As I recall,
during the last election campaign, I said that Canada was not
working very well. The people said: ``Yes, we agree with you.
Canada is not working very well''. Where does Canada work?
Where Liberals sit, where their Liberal ridings are, is that where
Canada works? It does not work in my riding.
Let us make a comment on this statement. The Liberals have a
straightforward goal. They are talking about a vision and a new
economy. Yes, they are creating a new economy. Congratulations.
We are back to the $80 billion over two years again. They are
creating a new economy all right. We are going down hill fast. If
they had anything serious to do with the economy they would not
set ridiculous financial targets like having a deficit which is 3 per
cent of the gross domestic product after three years.
What the Liberals are really saying is after three years we will be
overspending every year by $26 billion. What kind of logic is that
in a day and age when we have $565 billion of debt? What kind of
responsibility is that of a majority government to the young kids in
this country?
I have another comment and then I will get on to what I really
wanted to talk about. I just have to address these things sometimes.
The comment was made that 500,000 jobs have been created.
Where do we get this figure of 500,000 jobs from? Where does this
number come from? I followed up on one of these comments that
was made in Atlantic Canada where the government had said it had
created 40,000 jobs in ACOA. As it happens the challenge was put
out to prove it.
The government backed off and said: ``We say it is 40,000 jobs,
we know''. Show us how. How did the government figure that out.
With a survey of a half dozen or so companies extrapolated came
out to 40,000 people if this and this and this happened. It is
hogwash. When the government throws out numbers like 500,000
new jobs it is hogwash. It cannot prove it.
In fact the government talked about 100,000 jobs in
infrastructure. It only cost us $6 billion, and if there are 100,000
jobs, most of them are temporary. Who is going to pick up the bill
for $6 billion? Congratulations. To get their names on the stats for
the unemployed they have spent $6 billion of the taxpayers' money.
I would not pat myself on the back if I were a Liberal. I would be
ashamed.
(1645)
Now I am going to say what I really wanted to say. This bill
transfers powers from the former ministry of employment and
immigration. I guess it is necessary to transfer the powers. The
Liberals took over from the Conservatives. There is going to be a
name change, move people around and that sort of thing. However,
let us look at the job they have done.
After 30 years of big government, both Liberal and
Conservative, we have ended up with less security instead of more
because they mortgaged our future. There is less security today
than there was before in the social programs. Now the Liberals
come into the House and say they have a real novel idea. They are
going to fix it. That is novel, after 30 years of being at the trough.
Pensions by and large are unfunded today.
An hon. member: Not theirs.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): Well, except the MPs
pension. They are all on that. If they will protect and pension it is
that one. Fully 1 per cent of our population is waiting for
significant surgery. Tuition is rising and literacy is falling. These
are not negative comments; this is reality. I caution Liberal
members to
16454
stop coming into this House and putting platitudes to the Speaker
expecting people to buy them. They do not.
Is my time running out? I knew this would happen. I cannot even
give a good lesson to these people without running out of time.
Mr. Abbott: They would not learn anyway.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): Have I got a minute? Rats. I
am out of time.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my
Reform colleagues and I were elected on a platform of real change.
It was change that would revolutionize the power and prosperity of
Confederation, change that would put an end to the burden of
constitutional wrangling which has plagued this land for
generations, change that would release Canadians from the
oppressive weight of deficit spending. These sentiments were
echoed all across the country, particularly as we led up to the
referendum on October 30. Canadians are not happy with the way
their government operates and they want it fixed no matter where
they are in Canada.
Today we are addressing Bill C-96, an act to establish the
Department of Human Resources Development. One would hope
that a responsible government would listen to the wants of the
electorate and do everything in its power to accommodate them.
However, this bill perpetuates the centralized grip that Ottawa
maintains on programs which would be administered much more
effectively at the local level.
Each province and region in Canada is distinctly different from
the other. Demographically speaking, there are more differences
between the provinces than there are similarities. Each province
has identifiable characteristics which are unique to its own
situation. These differences supersede language, culture and
self-determination demanding economic prosperity through natural
resources, employment, education, training, social services and
housing. The Ottawa bureaucracy has historically implemented a
unilateral blanket of policies which falls short of fulfilling the
individual needs of the provinces.
Mr. Speaker, if you were going to purchase a helmet, would you
purchase a generic helmet or would you purchase a helmet that was
customized to your size and function? You would not purchase a
cycling helmet to play hockey. Why? Because it is not suitable.
While a cycling helmet is quite effective for cycling, it is not
effective in protecting your health and livelihood even if you are a
referee in a hockey game.
(1650)
The same can be said for human resources development
programs. It is imperative that social programs meet the
specialized needs of a given province or municipality. Who better
to determine that criterion than the province itself or the people in
the communities?
This bill pays lip service to decentralization. For example, clause
20 of the bill gives the minister the power to enter into negotiations
with groups, including provinces and municipalities, for the
administration of services under the Department of Human
Resources Development. Although in theory this practice can be
seen as a movement toward privatization, in reality it continues to
exist unchanged as a centralized body subject to the exclusive
decision making practices of the minister. It is lip service.
The parliamentary secretary for HRD earlier in debate said that
the federal government works as a partner. The minister is the
decision maker for that partner. It is that partner which has
removed $7 billion from this social envelope to which I say, with
friends like this, who needs enemies?
Since the time of Confederation the federal government scribed,
debated and implemented laws which were perceived to be in the
best interests of the nation. Over the past 128 years Canada has
emerged as a nation comprised of diverse communities to which
the archaic macro political practices of the past no longer apply.
Canada needs legislation which is flexible enough to
accommodate Canadians from Corner Brook to Cranbrook and
everywhere in between. It is time to end the centralized purse string
control which Ottawa has over the Canadian taxpayer and over the
functions that are covered by this act.
Tax dollars are squandered in order to sustain the massive
national central bureaucracy which is not in touch with the needs
and wants of Canadians in Corner Brook and Cranbrook. The
constituents in my riding, like all other ridings across this great
land, pay taxes for essential services. Let us look at this sum as
though it were just one dollar.
That dollar is sent to Ottawa where the cost of the massive
bureaucracy does little more than deplete the amount of that tax
dollar. By the time it is sent to the province through transfer
payments, that dollar probably is worth about 80 cents. A similar
vacuous process takes place at the provincial level where
duplication of bureaucratic intervention does little else than spend
tax dollars without cause or consequence, the resulting factor being
that the original tax dollar collected from Joe Public is returned to
the community as only 60 cents. This is one of the many reasons
our country is in such a sorry financial state.
There are considerable benefits to downloading the collection
and implementation of essential service taxes from the federal
level to the local level. Look at the simplification of collecting,
administering and dispensing benefits and essential services at the
16455
level at which the services are received rather than meddling at the
federal level.
The most obvious advantage is the omission of expensive and
extraneous bureaucratic intervention. The administration of taxes
at a local level would ensure the transparency and accountability
that Canadians have come to demand from their public institutions.
Closed door deals and political patronage are not welcome.
This bill proposes there is room for the commercialization or
privatization of these services by allowing the minister or his
appointed representatives to enter into negotiations with the
provinces and other parties. But surprise, surprise, the final
decision will be at the discretion of the minister, not the public.
This is a problem because the minister receives advice from the
federal bureaucracy interested in its own self-preservation.
Reform is calling for the decentralization of federal powers in
these areas. Decentralization means that the provinces, regions and
municipalities decide based on their own needs when, why and
especially how the funds are to be administered. Downloading
gives Canadians a higher return on their tax investment while
empowering them to be able to decide how their tax dollars are
going to be spent.
This concept is obviously scary to the establishment. Traditional
federal institutions will be quite opposed to relinquishing any
power. So too is the federal Liberal government whose mandate is
based on the inflexible centralized power which has existed since
Confederation.
(1655 )
Bill C-96 does nothing to remedy the problems which are
evident to everyone except this Liberal government. Canadians are
calling for real change, not minuscule housekeeping activities.
Bill C-96 as I have stated, continues centralization in spite of the
cosmetics. There is a lot of lip service in the bill to the idea of
decentralization and changing where the decisions are going to be
made.
Reform by contrast offers protection to pensioners for OAS and
for CPP which is completely unfunded and which will run out of
funds within a very specified period of time. Reform looks to
decentralization and the efficiencies that would occur from that
decentralization putting power back in the hands of Canadians
where it should be. This government continues to tell the lie that
the government will do it. Its spending habits are such that the
government can no longer be counted on to do it.
The country at this point is in a unique position to make changes.
Canadians are demanding change, but more important, Canadians
are demanding change now. Vacuous housekeeping bills like this
one do absolutely nothing to give the change Canadians are asking
for.
Canadians want a decentralized power structure which
empowers citizens, not politicians. Canadians do not want Bill
C-96 and neither does the Reform Party. We saw Canadians come
together in strength in Montreal. We saw an outpouring of healthy
Canadian nationalism. What they did not want was status quo
legislation like Bill C-96.
Canadians are looking for leadership. I say to the Liberals: You
can lead or you can follow, but if you are not going to lead, get out
of the way.
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I listened attentively to the member's speech.
With respect, I must say his message is somewhat convoluted.
On one hand he says that this is a housekeeping bill. He referred to
it as status quo legislation and then talked about the Liberals trying
to centralize power with the bill. Now, if the bill does not do
anything, as the member suggested, how could it further centralize
power? There is something there that whoever wrote that speech
should try to straighten out. There is an obvious contradiction.
Let us assume for one minute that the member was confused
about the bill being housekeeping and status quo legislation and it
is about centralizing power which he talked about initially. The
member is going to have to answer another question. If the Liberals
want to centralize power, as they have traditionally wanted to do
according to the member-which of course is factually incorrect as
we all know, those of us who are objective like you, Mr. Speaker,
being the independent person you are in the House you will
understand this-then surely we have not done a very good job of
centralizing.
We live in what is either the most decentralized federation or
second most, depending on those who consider Switzerland to be
more decentralized than Canada or Canada more decentralized than
Switzerland. If we have centralized all that much and it is still the
least centralized country in the world, it seems to me we have not
done a very good job of centralizing.
Would the member explain these contradictions in his speech
because with respect, I believe they do not make a heck of a lot of
sense. We cannot have centralized all these things and still end up
with a country that is very decentralized.
The member also talked about the finances of the nation which
he says we have not sufficiently addressed. Perhaps the member is
reading from material that was prepared some time ago. Surely, he
would know that no less than the people at Fortune magazine,
which is a rather prestigious publication, recently said that Canada
was now a good place to invest because it had finally addressed the
issue of the deficit and was progressing to clean its fiscal house and
put things in order. That is another contradiction. Maybe the
16456
member can explain to us why he believes all these things that are
different from reality.
(1700)
Mr. Abbott: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to answer
those questions. As the member will probably recall, today we will
be going to the world money markets to borrow $100 million. What
is it for? Is it for human resource development or medicare? No, we
are going to the world markets today to borrow $100 million to pay
the interest on the money we have already borrowed. If that is not
bogus I do not know what in the world is.
The reality is that while the member may be correct, and I am
prepared to accept what he has said about Fortune magazine's
saying this is a good place to invest, and truly in Canada with the
resources and the people we have it is a good place to invest, but I
remind him the bond rating agencies have downgraded the
Canadian/U.S. denominated debt and we have been put on watch
on our Canada bonds.
If we are in such good shape, I wonder if they too are concerned,
as we are, about the fact that today we will borrow $100 million to
pay interest on money we have already borrowed.
Dealing with the issues the member raised I find, as my leader
has from time to time, that perhaps if we speak a little slower and
perhaps get to smaller words sometimes we can manage to get our
message to the people on the other side.
I was talking about the fact that this bill is a continuation of the
process of the centralization we have had in Ottawa since 1968,
since the time of Trudeau, when the giant sucking noise Canadians
heard was all of the money, all of the power, all of the decision
making being drawn into Ottawa. This bill does absolutely nothing
to change that situation. It is the continuation of the centralized
decision making process.
I say to the member who, after all, has a responsibility to the
affairs of the House, the House has continued since we reconvened
in the middle of September to do nothing but housekeeping things.
Rather than coming forward with this kind of a bill, why are we not
getting the reports that have been promised from HRD on UI, on
pension? Why are we not getting those things? I suggest it is
because the government is devoid of any ability to bring us those
things.
[Translation]
Mr. Martin Cauchon (Outremont, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
very proud today to have this opportunity to speak in the House of
Commons, this impressive forum of democracy, to support the
Minister of Human Resources Development and his parliamentary
secretary here on my left, on Bill C-96.
The purpose of this bill is basically to establish and give a clear
mandate to a department that, as we know, is fundamentally
important to Canadian society and plays an equally important role
in the daily lives of our citizens, not only in Quebec but in Canada
as well.
In fact, Bill C-96 ensures that the minister and his team can
continue to help people in need, both in Quebec and the rest of
Canada, and in all the regions, whether we are talking about the
Gaspé or Abitibi-Témiscamingue. In fact, it is a tool that allows the
federal government to intervene in an intelligent way to provide
assistance where needed.
(1705)
It makes me really sad to see that, even when we are discussing
an issue as important as the reform of the human resources
department, the official opposition cannot refrain from playing
pure party politics.
During the referendum campaign just concluded, we heard all
sorts of statements which completely distorted the facts and which,
in my opinion, were nothing but an insult to people's intelligence.
Earlier, the member for Lévis concluded his speech by saying
something which the official opposition keeps repeating all the
time. Alluding to comments presumably made in this House, he
said something about facing the music. It is unfortunate for
Canadians that the official opposition cannot set aside its partisan
attitude and stop trying to distort the facts and the statements made
in this democratic place.
I am not surprised to hear members of the official opposition say
that the ultimate purpose of Bill C-96 is to make sure that the
federal government continues to interfere in fields of provincial
jurisdiction. I am not surprised because this is yet another tactic to
avoid debating the real issue, as well as an attempt to fool the
public.
This is unfortunate, because today, what we are saying on the
Liberal side is that the referendum was democratically held, that
people voted no, but also voted for change.
In today's context, changes must involve the federal government
and all the provinces working hand in hand. Essentially, we are
talking about multilateral relations. It is in working together that
we will be able to respond to the desire for change expressed by the
people in Quebec, a desire which is felt not only in Quebec, but
across Canada.
Unfortunately, with the government we have now in Quebec, and
with the official opposition we have in Ottawa, it is very difficult to
see how we can work towards a common goal, an ultimate goal,
which, in the end, is in the best interests of the people, because they
do not want the Canadian federation to work.
16457
Indeed, it is not by withdrawing from multilateral discussions,
as the Parti Quebecois government did in Quebec, that advances
will be made in improving Canadian federalism. It is not by
withdrawing from multilateral discussions on the environment that
it will be able to better defend Quebecers' interests so that Quebec
can continue to be part of the federation, and continue to be an
extremely strong province in a prosperous and united Canada.
It is not by refusing to sit down at a conference table with the
other provincial premiers that the system will be changed. In the
end, it is the people in Quebec who are suffering from this refusal
to co-operate.
There is nothing complicated in this bill. It is aimed at giving
tools to the federal government, at reorganizing a department, and
yet, the official opposition is acting prematurely. The opposition is
talking about interference. It is a bit early to start talking about
interference. Before talking about interference, one must wait to
see the kind of reforms the minister and his team will be able to
bring about.
(1710)
Judging on past experiences, if the past is any indication of the
future, I think the minister has every reason to be proud of the
changes he is proposing, and I think people in Quebec and Canada
have a right to expect promising and positive changes which meet
the expectations not only of Quebecers but of all Canadians.
When I speak about changes the minister should be proud of,
members will recall that, at the beginning of the year, before the
finance minister's budget was tabled, the official opposition said
loud and clear that they wanted the Canada Assistance Plan to be
eliminated and transformed into a much more flexible plan, giving
more leeway to provinces.
Responding to that reality, that legitimate request, the human
resources development minister, in co-operation with the finance
minister, replaced the Canada Assistance Plan with the Canada
social transfer.
What is the Canada social transfer? It is a tool which will allow
the federal government to transfer funds to the provinces so that
they can operate in the social field and do so with much more
flexibility.
Let me read a few lines. It says that the social transfer is mainly
designed to help the provinces provide the level of benefits and
social assistance that they wanted to provide but could not because
of inflexible rules. That is done.
Someone mentioned earlier that the past is an indication of what
the future holds. It is clear that the Canada social transfer is far
from being the monster that the official opposition has made it out
to be. It is essentially a structure in which all the provinces have
more leeway.
What is the Canada social transfer about? It makes it possible for
instance to fund parental wage assistance programs such as the one
known as APPORT in Quebec. This is an exclusively provincial
program. So, with the Canada social transfer, the funding of
programs like APPORT, a program developed by the Government
of Quebec and appreciated by everyone, is made possible, while,
under the old system, the Canada Assistance Plan, it could not be
funded.
The Canada social transfer, or CST for short, also provides for
the provincial sales tax to be refunded to welfare recipients, a
measure which could not have been implemented under the Canada
Assistance Plan. I read further that it also includes a program to
provide food to disadvantaged children, which would not have been
possible either under the old system because it was too inflexible.
The Canada social transfer also includes the provision of
transportation services to people with disabilities, services that can
be provided without having to assessment needs, contrary to the
prescribed procedure for qualifying for funding under the old
system.
The steps taken by the minister and his department are clearly a
reflection of the federal administration's good faith and
commitment to keep up with the trends towards change, as
requested by the public.
As for trends toward change, as for the Canada Assistance Plan,
we keep hearing: ``Yes, but that mean beast, the federal machinery,
is the only one setting national standards''. I have said it in this
House and I repeat that we are a country. I think that, whether we
are from Quebec, Ontario, British Columbia or Newfoundland, we
agree that we, together, as a big family, must have standards that
allow for a similar quality of life throughout the country.
(1715)
But as far as the system is concerned, we kept hearing that
national standards were set unilaterally by the federal machinery.
Again, in trying to respond to the needs for change, to the demands
of the provinces, the Minister of Human Resources Development
has ensured that national standards will now be set in co-operation
with the provinces, through the Canada social transfer. So, we are
not imposing any more; quite the contrary, we are responding to
current federalism, evolutionary federalism. We are responding
once again to the winds of change and, once again, in a spirit of
good faith that demonstrates a will to work in partnership and in
co-operation with the provinces.
When talking about a will to change on the part of the federal
government and a will to respect the wishes of the people, we can
consider the strategic initiatives put forward by the minister to
implement a number of programs based on the priorities and needs
of the provinces.
16458
Can we still talk about interference by the federal machinery?
I think that the action taken by the minister clearly demonstrates
that we are following this trend of open federalism, of modern
federalism that increasingly respects the objectives and wishes of
the provinces as a whole. Furthermore, with respect to reform, we
must bear in mind that the people as a whole asked that reform
take place not only to decentralize but also to ensure that programs
established in the 1960s can be brought into line with the new
needs of Canadians in terms of social and labour market programs.
That is why the minister and his officials are busy implementing
programs that meet the expectations of the members of the
Canadian society of the 1990s by making sure that the department
can make the leap into the next millennium.
In fact, our goal is to better serve the public and provide it with
tools. At this stage, on the basis of Bill C-96, whose purpose is to
set out the department's mandate, I think that in the general, public
interest, we must try to see our basic role, our ultimate goal and
purpose, at the provincial and federal level, as working together,
hand in hand, towards change in the federal system.
The department this bill deals with is an important department
because of both the role it plays in the field and of what it can
achieve with the funds at its disposal.
To show how important this department is, this is the department
responsible for unemployment insurance. Changes will soon be
made to the UI program. Again, the minister's clear commitment to
respecting all the provinces and meeting the needs of the public
will show.
This is an important department, whose role in Quebec and
Canada cannot be underestimated, a department which people rely
on and which has an impact on everyday life, a department which,
last year, spent $13.3 billion in the province of Quebec alone.
How does this affect us? This amount of $13.3 billion was used
to help more than 164,000 Quebecers find jobs and 44,789 students
find summers jobs, to pump $1.5 billion into the Quebec
post-secondary education system, to ensure that more than 80,000
Quebecers receive adequate training, while $3 billion went to
subsidizing Quebec social assistance programs, which benefited
approximately 700,000 people.
(1720)
We are talking about a department that, on the average, allowed
UI benefits to be paid to some 528 unemployed people every
month. That is not all. I have a long list in front of me, but
unfortunately it would take too long to enumerate all the concrete
actions that were taken.
The department also helped develop youth employment. So, we
are talking about a department that is having a real effect, that is
undergoing changes. Given that reality, instead of always playing
politics, the official opposition should rise above partisanship and,
just this once, think about the people's interest, try to serve them
better and, finally, work in partnership.
We know what can be achieved through partnership and, again in
this case, the past gives us an indication of what the future holds.
Take for example the Canada social transfer set up because people
asked for it. There are also the agreements to improve job
opportunities for welfare recipients, which allow us to join forces
in order to help them find jobs. There is also the block funding
agreement which was concluded with Quebec under the Canada
Student Loans Program.
There are many examples showing that if we are ready to
co-operate, as Quebecers want, and work hand in hand toward the
common goal of helping all the people, so that Quebec can still
have its place, we will grow together and allow federalism to grow
in the best interests of the people and the provinces.
Mr. André Caron (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I listened
carefully to the member for Outremont and I am torn between
disbelief and admiration. I say disbelief because, in spite of what
the situation in Canada's manpower and employment sector, the
member for Outremont keeps referring to a slew of federal and
Liberal policies which, in the last two years, have obviously not
given any results.
He told us about the role of the federal government regarding
employment development in Quebec and in Canada. He said that
this is important, that great things are happening. However, when
we look at the statistics on unemployment, we see a situation quite
different from the picture painted by the hon. member.
I say disbelief because I cannot understand how a member, who
claims to be well aware of the situation of workers and of the plight
of the unemployed and the welfare recipients in Quebec and in
Canada, can seriously discuss federal policies and try to convince
us that everything is fine, that there are no problems, that we
simply must let the Minister of Human Resources Development go
on with his good work. This is why I used the word disbelief.
My disbelief is also mixed with admiration. The hon. member
talked about great principles. He told us about how we must work
together, grow together, co-operate, be partners, and do our share to
promote Canada's development.
(1725)
In a way, I admire the hon. member, who may well become a
minister some day. Indeed, his speech was an almost flawless
performance in that it reflected the Liberal philosophy heard for at
least 20 or 25 years, a philosophy which expresses something that
no one recognizes in Canada. We are presented with a picture of
16459
Canada that no one recognizes. And no one recognizes it because it
obviously has nothing to do with reality.
Regarding the bill's provision on manpower training, we note
that, for the last four or five years, since 1991 or so, everyone in
Quebec has been asking that manpower adjustment and manpower
training become the responsibility of the province. I say everyone,
but I should be a little more specific and provide some names, since
the hon. member may not have followed the developments in the
newspapers and may not have heard the views expressed.
First, there was Mr. Bourbeau, then Quebec's Liberal minister of
Labour; he was followed by Mr. Johnson and Mr. Ryan. Now, it is
the PQ government. All of them asked that Quebec be given full
responsibility for manpower. Mr. Dufour, president of Quebec's
Conseil du patronat, made the same request. And so did, just this
week, Mr. Gérald Ponton, president of Quebec's Association des
manufacturiers.
I ask the hon. member: How does he explain the fact that
everyone in Quebec, except for the provincial caucus of the Liberal
Party of Canada, is asking that manpower training be made
Quebec's responsibility? Why is it that he and the minister do not
see that this is what Quebecers are asking for? Why is it that his
government will not comply with that request in the bill before us
today?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Before giving the floor to
the hon. member, I must say that I failed earlier to carry out a duty
with regard to the adjournment proceedings.
It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House
that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is
as follows: the hon. member for
Notre-Dame-de-Grâce-International Criminal Court.
Mr. Cauchon: Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague's
remarks. First, as regards admiration, I would ask my colleague not
to waste any energy in admiring me but rather to use his energy in
helping the federal system change, in working to represent
objectively and constructively the interests of the whole population
of Quebec so that we can continue to make Canadian federalism
change.
I talked earlier about remarks that are an insult to people's
intelligence. We have to listen. There are people watching us today.
Some members said the bill deals with manpower. The bill before
the House, Bill C-96, deals-and I point this out to people
watching us-essentially with structuring the department,
providing the minister and his department with a mandate and the
tools needed to be able to work. It is a bill of a general nature that
has nothing to do with manpower per se.
As concerns manpower, and again I said it in my main speech,
we ought to wait. We are now dealing with a bill of a general
nature. I said in my main speech that the minister and his officials
did an outstanding job in order to serve and to respond to demands
for change made by the population. There are more things to come.
What I ask the official opposition to do is to work in co-operation
with us, to accept the referendum results and to help bring about
changes.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): It being 5.30 p.m., the House
will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members'
Business as listed on today's Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
16459
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
Translation]
The House resumed from October 4, 1995, consideration of the
motion that, in the opinion of this House, the government should
consider implementing a new program of mining incentives which
would encourage exploration and development in Canada.
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia-Matane, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
would find Motion M-292 put forward by my colleague from
Timiskaming-French River quite acceptable if it would take into
account the history of this country and particularly of the province
of Quebec.
I am in favour of implementing a new financial incentives
program to encourage mining exploration and development in
Canada and in Quebec, but not at any price or under any condition.
I do believe that natural resources play a crucial part in the
economy of any country. A country without natural resources is a
country that depends on international markets. It is very hard for a
country with no natural resources to properly develop a processing
industry. This industry would always rely on major markets and
bear the brunt of a supply and demand system.
It would also be subject to the whims of the money markets
which always seek to get the most out of our natural resources. We
had a striking example of that situation in 1929, during the Great
Depression.
When the automotive industry was in full expansion, the rubber
producing countries, especially in Southeast Asia, could not get a
reasonable price for their products although demand was very
strong.
World financial markets were pulling the strings and,
unfortunately, were getting richer at the expense of the producers.
Government had to intervene so that this industry would not go
bankrupt.
We still have the same market system and the government must
act at the natural resources level. To yield all possible benefits, the
16460
development of natural resources must be planned coherently and
consistently, and I would not say this is the case in Canada.
The competition between the federal government and Quebec
and the other provinces is counterproductive and above all very
costly. It generates very expensive duplication and this waste of
energy and money only benefits our competitors on the world
markets.
While we, in Canada, are fighting each other and while the
federal government is trying to oust the provinces from a
jurisdiction which is rightly theirs, our competitors get the
opportunity to capture our own markets. A country which fails to
invest in the development of its natural resources shows a lack of
foresight which makes it very vulnerable.
Motion M-292 by my colleague tends to maintain a minimum
investment in the Canadian mining industry and this is very good.
Moreover, a country whose national government violates the
jurisdictions of other levels of government cannot expect an
exceptional performance from its industry. In Canada, we have had
huge difficulties in this area for some years.
If you are a producer and if, every time you want to go ahead,
you are faced with two levels of government that disagree and with
two sets of standards, you will waste valuable time and energy that
would be better spent elsewhere.
As everyone knows, a country's natural resources belong to the
community. If they are available for the well-being of the
population, they are at the heart of our own development. In
addition to creating jobs, they play an active part in our economic
growth and collective wealth.
As you will recall, Mr. Speaker, sections 109 and 117 of the 1867
Constitution Act gave the provinces ownership of the lands, mines,
minerals, and attendant royalties; several provinces, including
Quebec, used these provisions to promote local industrial
development and economic diversification.
(1735)
I was elected in a rural riding and a relatively poor region. Our
natural resources are the key to the survival and development of
small communities in our regions. The involvement of the
government in this crucial economic sector is essential, and this is
why I congratulate my colleague for presenting this amendment.
But I firmly believe that the federal government should stick to
the Constitution and let the provinces and Quebec take care of this
sector. The federal government should give back to the provinces
the sums it has collected and continues to collect for natural
resources, and tell them: ``Administer them the best you can''.
The federal government profited from the revenues yielded by
the development of natural resources, and it would only be right, as
is requested in Motion M-292 proposed by my colleague, that that
money be used for further developing these resources. The
interference of the federal government in natural resources is
serious. For example, the federal government has heavily taxed
petroleum, which is outright interference in interprovincial and
international trade.
It unilaterally fixed the sale price of oil and gas, wading into the
market beyond provincial boundaries, thus forcing certain
producing provinces to reduce their royalties and, in certain cases,
even causing them to lose certain foreign markets.
Moreover, one must not forget that the federal government has
jurisdiction over interprovincial pipelines, interprovincial hydro
lines and other methods of transportation between two or more
provinces. Finally, in case of conflict leading to political stiffness
like we experienced under the Trudeau government, the federal
government could in a twisted manner use the declaratory power
included in section 91(10)c) of the Constitution Act of 1867 to
unilaterally declare, as we have often seen the Liberals do, that
projects like power dams, mines and oil wells fall under exclusive
federal jurisdiction. Furthermore, it could use the incidental power
to regulate working conditions and product quality in those
projects, thus encroaching once more on provincial jurisdiction.
The present government already did that through its
environmental legislation which declared its authority on such
projects. Many people, particularly now, ask themselves why
Canadian federalism does not work. Yet, the answer is obvious.
There is in Canada a level of government that does not respect the
jurisdiction of other levels of government. There is a government
which wants to grab all power for itself.
There is a government which does not have for objective the
well-being of Canadians, but the appropriation of all power. I
conclude by saying that the Bloc Quebecois will support the
motion, but not without certain reservations.
[English]
Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand-Norfolk, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to have an opportunity to speak today in support of
Motion No. 292, especially after the fairy tales I have been hearing
from the member of the Bloc.
During my seven years as a member I have had an opportunity to
meet various sectors of the mining industry, people involved in the
mining industry on a daily basis. The main message they have been
giving governments over these years is that governments must
make a solid commitment not only to keeping the mining industry
in Canada but also to making it prosper.
16461
The motion before us today proposes the government consider
implementing a new program of mining incentives which would
encourage exploration and development in Canada. Although most
people equate these incentives with taxes and grants, this is not
necessarily the case.
(1740)
I commend the hon. member for Timiskaming-French River
for putting this motion forward. He has been very supportive of the
mining industry. As he previously stated in the House, all the
mining industry wants is a level playing field and a tax system
competitive with the rest of the world and competitive
internationally. In order to do this it is essential to streamline
government procedures and to provide the mining industry with a
single window approach to approvals.
The parliamentary secretary will be speaking after I finish. I am
sure he will bring us up to date on how the minister is moving in
these areas.
Why is this motion so important to Canadians? It is important
because we are being asked to consider new initiatives, initiatives
which previous governments did not feel were necessary.
When driving through Hagersville or Caledonia in my riding the
first things we see as we approach these communities are the shafts
of the gypsum mines. They support the gypsum plants which
produce gypsum board which is shipped throughout North
America. These communities rely on the mines, as do small
communities in remote and rural areas all across the country. For
visitors these mines show the importance of mining to the
economic and social well-being of the country.
There has been a progressive decline in investment, employment
and mining exploration in Canada over the last ten years. Between
1990 and 1993, 20,000 jobs were lost in the Canadian mining
industry. Taking into consideration that mining provides 400,000
direct and indirect jobs in Canada, that number is quite substantial.
There are approximately 150 communities across Canada which
depend on mining for their livelihood. When we factor in the
number of businesses and the family members who buy goods from
the stores and businesses, we are talking close to one million
Canadians depending on this industry, a big industry in Canada.
We are also talking about an industry which pays some of the
highest industrial wages in Canada: $847 per week. Most of these
wages are earned in rural and isolated communities across the
country. They provide the infrastructure in many places which
keeps rural Canada together.
Between 1986 and 1991 Canada failed to attract a single new
mining project with capital of more than $250 million. By
comparison, Latin America acquired five such contracts.
Likewise, from 1991 to 1992 more than 150 companies worldwide
reduced expenditures in Canadian mining projects by 30 per cent,
from $430 million to $302 million.
We need to look at why these investors are no longer selecting
Canada and we must move to provide solutions to the problem.
Why are they going to South America? Why are they going to
Southeast Asia? The common feeling is it must be because of the
environmental differences. I do not think that is the case. That may
be a small component of it but more and more it is a direct result of
government red tape.
We have three and in some areas four different levels of
government. These companies have to go through an enormous
amount of red tape to get anything done. It should be a primary role
of anybody looking at solutions to the problem to deal with the
whole question of red tape.
In 1994 the total contribution to the Canadian economy from
mining equalled $19.1 billion. We must also remember this is a
cyclical industry; it has ups and downs. In 1992 and 1993 alone 44
Canadian mines closed while 22 opened. We can see the trend is
not in the right direction.
(1745 )
The requests that have been put forward by Keep Mining in
Canada are not only logical but they are very plausible and
workable. The Keep Mining in Canada campaign, supported by the
industry, has laid out 10 reasonable points that it feels, if achieved,
would help its industry.
The Standing Committee on Natural Resources when chaired by
the member for Kenora-Rainy River conducted extensive
hearings with all the stakeholders which resulted in the setting out
of nine key recommendations committee members felt that if
followed through on would help the industry.
They talked about streamlining the federal-provincial
environmental regulations, which only makes sense and I know the
Minister of the Environment is working in that area now;
implementing an appropriate incentive to stimulate grassroots
mineral exploration, and I know some hon. members do that
sometimes as well; changing the tax laws on mine reclamation
funding; establishing processes for land use planning that respect
mineral tenure and ensure both the protection of Canada's heritage
and access to the mineral resource development. We have to be
able to balance those two. I know the parliamentary secretary will
be happy to tell us following my speech how the minister is
working in that area.
Overlapping jurisdictions also have a negative impact on
investors. Much time and money is spent by companies filling out
separate forms for either municipal, provincial or federal levels of
government. They always seem to have different guidelines. These
companies have to jump through a number of hoops. Surely our
16462
governments can work together and come up with a single window
and a single set of regulations which these companies can follow.
Canada also must implement an appropriate incentive to
stimulate grassroots mineral exploration. By improving the tax
laws and reclamation funding we would be promoting good
environmental management. I know the member for Davenport
wants to talk about that a little later.
The taxation of money put into trust by a company to meet future
demands for mine reclamation should definitely be one of the items
the government should look at. I am sure the member for
Davenport will have something to say about that.
The last item I want to consider today in my last few minutes is
the topic of establishing a process for land use planning that respect
mineral tenure to ensure both the protection of Canada's natural
heritage and access to mineral resource development. Mining is
part of our heritage and we must ensure that it is accessible and that
its terms can be met.
A commitment to supporting the mining industry does not
translate into excess money being spent. Many incentives can be
implemented that are not costly but which would encourage
exploration and development. I talked about a few of these
incentives in my speech. I urge anyone who seriously considers
what is being voted on today to take a look at this. This is a votable
item. It is a serious item. It is serious in the sense that it helps our
program to develop and create jobs in this country.
We are voting today on the very survival of the mining industry
and the demise of the communities that mining supports. Mining
has always been a very important part of our heritage and I hope we
will keep it.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
motion we are debating today says that the government should
consider implementing a new program of mining incentives which
would encourage exploration and development in Canada.
Mining is one of the most important industries in Canada. It
deserves the government's attention. It pays the highest average
wage of any industry in the country which is over $200 a week
higher than its next highest wage category of transportation and
communication. Mining products total 15 per cent of our exports. It
is a very important industry.
Investment in the exploration of new mines is less than half of
what it once was in the early 1990s. In real dollars investment in
the early 1990s was around $800 million annually. This year it is
expected to be $300 million or maybe less. Exploration and
development have fallen drastically because Canada has failed to
provide a favourable investment climate.
(1750 )
Canada used to be a world leader in mining activity, but that
leadership is in jeopardy. Other nations now offer a more
favourable environment for mining companies. Canada has fallen
from first to fourth place in attracting new investment. We have not
opened a major new mine in the last five years. We need to address
the problem quickly, not by the year 2000, not within the term of
the government's mandate. We need to start now to turn the
situation around.
The motion before us speaks about incentives for the mining
industry to stimulate exploration and development. What kind of
incentives are being talked about? Is it some huge program of cash
rebates? Are costly tax breaks needed so that the industry can
flourish once again?
I intend to support this motion but I want to make sure to let
members know what we mean by incentives. For the Liberal or the
socialist, an incentive is some kind of government assistance. It is a
handout. It is a grant, a transfer or a tax shelter that is big enough to
overcome the disincentives that are found in the industry. If there is
over-regulation, for example, the government handout will be
enough to induce companies to overlook inefficiencies in the
system.
These types of government programs are like giving an oxygen
mask to someone who is choking instead of just loosening the rope
that is hanging around the neck.
For the free enterpriser, the entrepreneur who is a self-starter, an
incentive is not a grant from the government where it picks some
winners and losers in the industry. An incentive is merely an
opportunity.
If I know miners at all, they are free enterprisers. They are risk
takers. They are self-starters. They do not want special help. They
want a level playing field and an opportunity to show their skills,
develop the resources for the good of the country and for their
companies.
We were talking with someone from a major mining association
who represents mining companies yesterday. He told us that the
industry is not looking for handouts. That is not what it needs. The
industry is looking for the government to get out of its way so that
it can get on with doing what it does best.
I am supporting this motion today because that is what I mean by
incentives. I mean deregulation, not in a way that harms the
environment, but in a way that makes government approval
processes more efficient.
Government departments and different levels of government
should communicate with one another to harmonize contradictory
or overlapping legislation. Right now this is Canada's problem.
The government strangles the industry with red tape, then someone
16463
wants to come along and give the industry an oxygen mask of
government incentives. We say, take off the red tape and the
industry will be healthy again on its own.
Today we had a representative from the Mining Association of
Canada appear before the standing committee. He said: ``The
current regulatory system is choked with red tape. Regulations,
guidelines and decision making processes duplicate and contradict
each other from one department to another and between the two
levels of government''. We have to solve this problem.
The industry also needs security of land tenure and security in
Canada's legal regime. Mining companies have to know that when
they start a project they are going to have an opportunity to finish
it.
Security is also necessary in the new environmental assessment
process. The government has made wonderful noises about this
problem. I am sure the hon. parliamentary secretary is going to try
to sum this up.
The Minister of Natural Resources has said many of the right
words to the industry and made many good promises. The red
book, the Liberal mining platform and the White House mining
initiative are all full of great words.
The industry minister promised action on streamlining
regulations this year, 1995. However, to quote Greg Waller, an
executive with Cominco, obviously exasperated with the
government's lack of action to date, says: ``The mining industry is
getting impatient with the empty words''.
An example happened this last week. I received copies of two
separate letters from the provinces addressed to the Minister of
Natural Resources, one in September and one in October,
requesting, almost pleading for a meeting between the minister, the
Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and their provincial
counterparts. They did not even get the courtesy of a reply from the
Minister of Natural Resources until a provincial minister talked to
me late last week.
(1755 )
I raised the issue in the House last week. I find out now the
minister had a conference call with the intergovernmental affairs
minister and the provincial minister. That is a start. It is a shame it
takes two and half or three months to arrange a simple
teleconference call among three parties who say they are interested
in getting to the bottom of this regulatory problem.
There was a good presentation on regulatory reform in
committee today. There were some specific recommendations and
reforms that would help the industry. Many of those ideas were
adopted by an all-party committee in last year's report ``Lifting
Canadian Mining Off the Rocks''. These all-party resolutions were
brought to the government. They were recommendations from all
sides. Not a single one of those recommendations has been adopted
to date.
Again, they are good words, nice words, but we do not need
more words. We do not need more committees. We do not need
more studies. We do not need more talk. We do not need more task
forces. We do not need government inquiries. We do not need
empty promises. We know the problems. We know what to do to fix
them. What is needed right now is not knowledge, more ideas. We
need the political will to get the job done.
Here is part of the conclusion from today's presentation by the
mining association: ``Real progress requires the removal of costly
regulatory systems that are process based rather than performance
or results oriented. This implies a willingness by the federal
government to let go of outdated and expensive centralist systems.
It is a willingness which has not been expressed in concrete action
to date''.
We need to get away from an expanded role for the federal
government in the mining industry. The federal government must
get off the industry's back and out of its pockets and allow the
industry to rise to the prominence it should have. That should be
left primarily with the provinces and the federal government
should remember that.
We are dealing with two philosophies of government. Is the role
of the federal government an ever increasing one or should it take
heed from what the industry, the provinces and many Canadians are
saying? They are saying the role of the federal government is not to
continually expand into areas of provincial jurisdiction; the role is
to see where there is overlap and then to withdraw and allow the
provinces to get the job done.
The Minister of Natural Resources has been politely applauded
for saying the right words to the natural resources community. She
talks the talk, but can she walk the walk? Her political honeymoon
with the industry will soon be over unless she produces results to
act on the good intentions she has expressed.
The problems with regulatory reform are the first test of this
minister's real political will. Will she be able to overcome her
colleagues around the cabinet table who are calling for natural
resource industries to sit on their hands watching as sustainable
development slowly devolves into sustainable preservation? I hope
she has that will. I hope she will be able to stand up to her
colleagues, stand up for a more rational approach to environmental
assessment, stand up for Canadian jobs and expertise and
development.
I call on the minister to back up her words with some action
starting today. Provide the only real incentive the Canadian mining
industry wants and needs which is substantial, positive regulatory
reform. She knows what has to happen. Let us see it happen. Let it
happen now.
16464
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I wish
to congratulate the member for Timiskaming-French River for
his forceful introduction of this motion and for his keen interest
in the importance of the mining industry.
The motion before us urges the government to adopt the
recommendations of the report of the Standing Committee on
Natural Resources entitled ``Lifting Canadian Mining Off The
Rocks'' and urges the adoption of a new program of incentives.
It seems to me that at a time of budget austerity and restraint it
would be wiser not to seek new tax incentives and subsidies. It is
true that the mining industry is an important part of the Canadian
economy. It is true that the past recession has proven difficult for
the mining industry, but the resource sector has returned to
profitability. For example, Barrick Gold Corporation of Toronto
posted record profits of $250 million in 1994, up 17 per cent from
1993.
In addition, as the member for Timiskaming-French River
pointed out at the beginning of this debate, there was a substantial
increase in exploration activities throughout Canada in 1994, 9.1
per cent or $3.3 billion above 1993 according to the Minister of
Natural Resources and the press release which she issued on
February 9, 1995.
(1800 )
On page two of the report I mentioned earlier, we find the
following statement: ``An application to build a mine in Canada,
for example, can take up to four years to make its way through
environmental assessments, in contrast to a mere six months in
Chile''. Are we to conclude that Chile has a more advanced
environmental assessment process than Canada, or that Chile is
providing greater environmental protection than Canada?
Environmental assessment regulations and legislation and the
cumulative impact assessment are essential parts of sustainable
development. They are here to stay. They are safeguards on human
and environmental health.
The report goes on into great detail on issues of tax reform. It is
silent on the cost of tax incentives not only in terms of forgone
revenue but in terms of potential damage to water, soil, and air.
This, I submit, requires attention.
The concluding paragraph of the report on page 11 is also
important because it reveals a big gap between the position of the
mining industry and that of the government. The paragraph states:
``Governments must strike a much more realistic balance between
environmental considerations and the economic viability of the
industry''.
This idea of balancing environmental and economic
considerations runs counter to the Brundtland definition of
sustainable development and the position of the government in the
red book and also paragraph 6(a) of the Department of Natural
Resources Act, which calls for the sustainable development of
Canada's natural resources.
Balancing environment and economy is not sustainable
development because it separates the two, running the risk of
making policy decisions that give precedence to the economy over
the environment. The mining association must realize that the
Department of Natural Resources has a mandate to integrate the
environment and the economy, as defined in the red book.
Regarding federal and provincial overlap and duplication, it is
important to act on what is known. In the late 1980s the federal
government delegated authority for the monitoring and
enforcement of mining regulations to the provinces. In his 1990
report the then auditor general Kenneth Dye stated: ``In the one
area where the federal government has already delegated
monitoring and enforcement authority to the provinces, there has
been a serious deterioration in compliance. A review of the metal
mining liquid effluent regulations issued under the Fisheries Act
indicates that compliance fell from 85 per cent in 1982 to 48 per
cent in 1988.'' This conclusion seems to be important and should
be kept in mind when we hear calls for voluntary programs to
reduce emissions.
Voluntary programs such as the accelerated reduction and
elimination of toxics, ARET program, are not substitutes for
regulations. This conclusion is substantiated by a 1994 Kellogg
Peat Marwick management survey, which found that 95 per cent of
respondents from Canadian organizations cited compliance to
regulations as the principal motivator on environmental issues,
while only 16 per cent cited voluntary government programs as a
principal motivator.
In conclusion, the suggestion that greater investment incentives
to the mining industry should be offered at a time when
governments are desperate for revenues is not synchronized with a
government agenda attempting to reduce deficit and debt. Instead,
it would be preferable to ensure sustainable development in a
variety of ways, including an efficient management of minerals, for
example, by ensuring that recycled materials and virgin materials
are treated equally under the tax system.
It is important to note that a 1994 study entitled ``A Comparison
of Tax Incentives for Extraction and Recycling of Basic Materials
in Canada'' concludes that ``there is a potential bias in the tax
system toward the use of virgin materials relative to recycled
materials''. This bias ought to be addressed and corrected.
In addition, to ensure sustainable development we could
consider programs aimed at new technologies for mineral
extraction and environmentally sensitive exploration methods and
equipment. We could ensure that regulations aim at
environmentally responsible exploration methods and that the
regulations are enforced. We could ensure that exploration, mining
operations, and reclamation
16465
projects are conducted in an environmentally sound manner and do
not compromise vital land uses such as ecologically sensitive areas
and parks.
(1805)
Mining and sustainable development can be integrated for the
long term benefit of Canadians and the economy.
Mr. George S. Rideout (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Natural Resources, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address
the House today on Motion 292, which would require the
government to consider a new program of incentives to encourage
exploration and development in Canada. In part the question is the
definition of incentives and what that actually means.
[Translation]
I would like to thank my colleague, the hon. member for
Timaskaming-French River, for having brought these important
matters to the attention of the House.
[English]
Mining makes an enormous contribution to the Canadian
economy and way of life, representing a vital source of
employment in more than 115 communities throughout the
country. It provides direct jobs for more than 300,000 Canadians
and contributes more than $20 billion to the economy every year.
Moreover, mining activities have a significant indirect effect on
the Canadian economy, from the small local supplier to the
specialized financial institution in Toronto, Montreal, or
Vancouver. For every job created in the mining industry an
additional job is indirectly created in other sectors of the Canadian
economy.
The Canadian mining industry is known throughout the world
for its leadership in developing and applying state of the art
exploration and mining techniques and technologies. We are very
proud of the expertise that was developed here in Canada to take
full advantage of our rich mineral endowment.
The government appreciates the key role of mining to our
economic well-being. However, we are also aware of the
challenges the industry has been facing, especially from increased
global competition and mineral investment. We must meet these
challenges by working with all the mining stakeholders to sustain
the vitality of the industry and provide conditions that will foster its
growth.
In our opinion, the best way to support and encourage the mining
sector is to reduce the level of long term structural impediments to
mineral investment. Many of these impediments were identified by
the Whitehorse Mining Initiative, which saw the federal
government, along with the representatives of industry, provincial
governments, environmental groups, labour unions, and aboriginal
organizations, come to the table to work together. A consensus was
reached and the WMI leadership council accord was signed in
September 1994, which outlines agreed upon principles and goals
to guide the development of mining in this country.
To help develop an action plan to address the WMI issues that
fall within the jurisdiction of the federal government, the Minister
of Natural Resources established a private sector ministerial
advisory committee. One of its first tasks is to provide commentary
and advice on the sustainable development of mineral, mines, and
metals issues paper the minister released in September in
Vancouver. This release fulfils a promise the minister made. After
discussion on the paper, the minister will work with the
stakeholders to develop a mineral and metal policy for
consideration by cabinet.
To address the most fundamental industry concerns we
introduced a measure in the 1994 budget allowing a deduction for
mine reclamation trust fund contributions. Our commitment to
mineral development was also reaffirmed when the mining sector
was identified as one of the six key sectors where the government
wants to see significant improvement to the regulatory regime.
Furthermore, our natural resources standing committee is currently
examining this very issue.
Some specific areas where we are working to make tangible long
term improvements include administration of the Fisheries Act,
land use and related decision making, the definition of waste,
regulatory regimes north of 60, regulatory impact analysis, and
toxic management policy and practices. Important improvements
on issues of overlap and duplication could also be achieved through
various initiatives to harmonize federal and provincial regulatory
regimes.
On October 19 Natural Resources Canada and the Mining
Association of Canada co-sponsored a seminar on regulatory
streamlining in order to help identify concrete ways of accelerating
progress on these issues. In support of the same objectives for jobs
and new investments, NR Canada has been marketing Canada's
mineral opportunities in Canada and abroad in an effort to attract
much needed capital investment for our mineral industry.
(1810 )
The Minister of Natural Resources is a strong champion of the
Canadian mining industry. Earlier this year she participated in the
international ``Investing in the Americas'' conference, where she
vigorously promoted Canada as an attractive country for mineral
investment.
[Translation]
These efforts are very important, because investments are
essential to ensure the industry's future.
16466
[English]
We know that Canada's geography and geology are attractive.
Exploration levels have recently started to recover, thus reflecting
increased confidence in Canada as a mining country.
Of course the 1995 budget must be counted among our efforts to
help solve the problems of the mining industry. By forcefully
proceeding to put our economic house in order, we are sending a
clear signal that we want to regain control of our country's
finances. The measures implemented in the last budget will result
in more favourable investment conditions in Canada, which will
certainly benefit the mining industry.
The government remains committed to a prosperous mining
sector in Canada and promotes actions that are consistent with our
budgetary objectives and the efficiency of the federation. Mining,
more than most industries, is global. The influence that Natural
Resources Canada exercises in national and international fora
makes a significant difference to the sustainable development and
competitiveness of the industry. Our science and technology and
our policy investments are cost-effective and bring benefits to
Canada in all regions.
The initiatives I have discussed are fundamental critical steps
that will result in greater levels of certainty for the mining investor.
This government understands that reality. We will continue to work
in partnership with provinces and territories to ensure that our
geological potential is fully realized and Canadians have an
opportunity to benefit from a strong mining industry.
In conclusion, this government appreciates the important
contribution the mining industry makes to our country's job
creation and economic growth. We understand the challenges that
face the industry today. This government is following a policy
agenda to put in place an attractive investment climate that
encourages and supports a prosperous mining industry committed
to sustainable development.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The hon. member for
Timiskaming-French River, under whose name Motion 292
stands, has asked the Chair if he could close the debate on this
motion under his name, with the understanding of course that he
would only take two minutes and at 6.15 p.m. the Chair will put the
question. Is there agreement?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Translation]
Mr. Benoît Serré (Timiskaming-French River, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I will be very brief. First of all, I would like to thank all of
my colleagues in the Bloc and the Reform Party, and all my
colleagues in the government, who have spoken so eloquently on
this motion and particularly on the importance of the mining
industry in Canada.
I think that we all, as parliamentarians and as federal politicians,
acknowledge the importance of this industry to Canada. It is
wonderful to see all parties supporting this motion and I thank you
for doing so.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): It being 6.15 p.m., pursuant
to Standing Order 93 the time provided for debate has expired.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, if you were to seek it I think you would find unanimous
consent to call it 6.30 p.m. and proceed with the adjournment
debate.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Does the House agree that
we proceed with the adjournment debate?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
16466
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed
to have been moved.
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, on September 29, 1995, I asked the Minister of Justice
whether he and the Canadian government supported the proposal
for an international criminal court and, if so, what they were doing
to advance this proposal. While the minister gave me a very
positive response on that date, I want to pursue this further in order
to put more details on the record of the House with respect to the
proposed international criminal court.
Right away I should clarify the difference between the
International Court of Justice, that is, the world court presently
sitting in The Hague, and the proposed international criminal court.
The existing International Court of Justice, the world court,
deals with disputes between the states; in other words, a dispute
between the United States and Nicaragua or a dispute between
Canada and Spain. If a country breaks its obligations under an
international treaty a group of countries or another country may sue
the accused country, the state, in the International Court of Justice.
However, the International Court of Justice does not deal with
international offences committed by individuals which are in
violation of the same human rights treaties passed by the United
Nations.
16467
For example, although it has been 50 years since the Nuremberg
trials following the second world war, nothing has been done to set
up courts which can do what the Nuremberg trials did. The
Nuremberg trials tried individuals who had committed war crimes
during the second world war and held them responsible for their
acts before the international community.
While there was a lot of talk following those trials that we should
set up a permanent international criminal court, nothing was done
until 1953. In 1953 a draft statute was prepared to establish such an
international criminal court but it fell victim to the disputes of the
cold war and never went anywhere.
However, times have changed and there has been a new initiative
in recent years to once again establish an international criminal
court which would hold individuals responsible when they commit
crimes against humanity, crimes of genocide, crimes of
international terrorism and crimes of international drug trafficking.
Although such individuals might be charged before their own
domestic court or before the court of the country in which the
victims were found, there is more credibility if there is a standing
international criminal court in which such individuals can be tried.
We can recall a few years ago when certain Libyans were
accused of putting a bomb in a plane which blew up over Scotland,
killing many people. There was an attempt to bring the Libyans to
trial in Scotland but there was a credibility question because many
individuals doubted whether the Libyans would get a fair trial in a
Scottish court when the passengers were killed in Scotland. It is
much better that we have an international criminal court for those
kinds of offences in which the judges are from many countries, not
necessarily from the country of the victims, and therefore there is a
semblance of credibility and fairness.
This matter has advanced quite far. In 1994 the United Nations
set up a special ad hoc committee on the establishment of an
international criminal court. The ad hoc committee has met twice
since last December and the whole matter seems to be well on its
way.
My purpose tonight is to ask the parliamentary secretary, since
the very positive response of the minister in September, whether
the ad hoc committee has completed its work and has reported to
the sixth committee of the General Assembly of the United
Nations.
When does he expect we will see agreement to a statute setting
up such an international criminal court? It will be a great step
forward when this is done. I congratulate the Canadian government
on the work it has done so far. I hope this whole project will soon
see the light of day.
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice after
question period today asked me if I would respond to the hon.
member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce on his initiative and his
perseverance to establish a permanent international court.
Events such as those in Rwanda and in the former Yugoslavia
have amply demonstrated the need for a permanent international
court to try individuals responsible for those most atrocious crimes
of all: genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity.
The end of the cold war and a new found political will permit the
international community to consider the establishment of such a
court as a worthwhile and serious idea.
The permanent international criminal court would serve two
crucial purposes. First, an important deterrent to criminal acts is
the knowledge that perpetrators will be persecuted either by
national authorities or by an international court.
Second, the establishment of such a court responds to desire for
justice on the part of victims of these offences, thus permitting the
international community to contribute meaningfully to the
maintenance of peace and security by discouraging reprisals or
other acts of vengeance.
Canada is at the forefront of efforts to create this court. The
Department of Justice together with the Department of Foreign
Affairs and International Trade and the Department of National
Defence have been participating this year in two meetings of an ad
hoc committee created by the General Assembly of the United
Nations to review the major substantive and administrative issues
arising out of the draft statute for the court.
In accordance with the recommendations the ad hoc committee
will be presenting this fall to the general assembly, Canada is now
pushing for the convening of an international conference to
negotiate the creation of the court.
We are very proud of the contribution Canada is making toward
the establishment of the court as well as our current work on cases
to be tried by the ad hoc courts for the former Yugoslavia and
Rwanda. I hope this satisfies the hon. member for
Notre-Dame-de-Grâce who, I say again, has shown leadership on
this issue.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Pursuant to Standing Order
38, the motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been
adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow
at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24.
(The House adjourned at 6.23 p.m.).