CONTENTS
Thursday, November 23, 1995
Bill C-357. Motions for introduction and firstreading deemed
adopted 16697
(Order discharged and bill withdrawn.) 16698
Motion for concurrence in 101st report 16698
(Motion agreed to.) 16698
Bill C-96. Consideration resumed of motion forsecond reading 16698
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 16700
Mr. Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca) 16702
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 16716
Mr. Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine) 16720
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 16726
Division on motion deferred 16728
Bill C-83. Motion for third reading 16728
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 16735
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 16736
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 16736
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 16736
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 16736
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 16737
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 16737
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 16738
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 16738
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 16740
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 16740
Mrs. Stewart (Brant) 16742
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 16742
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 16743
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 16743
Bill C-83. Consideration resumed of motion 16743
16697
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Thursday, November 23, 1995
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
Translation]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to
table, in both official languages, the government's response to two
petitions.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Paul Zed (Fundy-Royal, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I have
the honour to present, in both official languages, the fifth report of
the Standing Committee on Government Operations.
Pursuant to an order of the House dated Wednesday, November
8, 1995, the committee studied Bill C-101, an act to amend the
National Housing Act, and has agreed to report it without
amendment.
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I have the honour to present the 101st report of the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding
associate membership on the Standing Committee on Agriculture
and Agri-Food.
If the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in
this report later this day.
(1005)
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-357, an act respecting restriction on foreign aid.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill is designed to stop the flow of
financial or other aid to any foreign country that refuses to accept
re-entry of its nationals or former nationals deported from Canada.
Far too often when foreign born criminals are ordered deported
from Canada, deportation is hampered because some countries do
not want to take back their nationals. The foreign aid restriction act
addresses this issue by freezing aid to countries that frustrate the
Canadian deportation process.
The bill is a strong measure to ensure effective deportation
policy in Canada. If a country will not take back its citizens who
have committed criminal acts in Canada or who have
misrepresented their past involvement in organized criminal
activity, terrorism or other activities as noted under section 19 of
the Immigration Act of Canada and are ordered deported, the bill
would then direct the Department of Foreign Affairs to suspend all
foreign aid to that country.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
On the Order: Private Members' Business:
Second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Canadian
Heritage of Bill C-292, an act to commemorate the birthplace of
Confederation-Member for Hillsborough.
Mr. George Proud (Hillsborough, Lib.): Madam Speaker, it is
with great regret and lack of support by my Liberal colleagues that
I ask you to seek unanimous consent so that I withdraw my private
members' bill, Bill C-292, an act to commemorate the birthplace of
Confederation.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Does the hon. member
have the unanimous consent of the House?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
16698
(Order discharged and bill withdrawn.)
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, with leave of the House I move, seconded by the hon.
member for Mississauga South, that the 101st report of the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs tabled in the
House today be concurred in.
(Motion agreed to.)
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I wish to present a petition which
has been circulating across Canada. This petition has been signed
by a number of Canadians from Estevan, Saskatchewan.
The petitioners draw to the attention of the House that managing
the family home and caring for preschool children is an honourable
profession which has not been recognized for its value to our
society.
They also state that the Income Tax Act discriminates against
families that make the choice to provide care in the home to
preschool children, the disabled, the chronically ill and the aged.
The petitioners therefore pray and call on Parliament to pursue
initiatives to eliminate tax discrimination against families that
decide to provide care in the home for preschool children, the
disabled, the chronically ill or the aged.
Mr. Andy Mitchell (Parry Sound-Muskoka, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition on behalf of over 500
Bell pensioners.
These pensioners believe that Bell Canada, which was
responsible for the choice of Confederation Life as an
administrator of its group RRSP funds and which encouraged its
employees to participate in it, has an obligation to ensure that its
employees do not suffer economically from their pensions being
placed at risk due to the collapse of Confederation Life.
They ask that Parliament initiate an investigation.
Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina-Qu'Appelle, NDP): Madam
Speaker, it is an honour today to present a petition concerning the
``On to Ottawa'' trek.
These petitions are historically important in that they bear the
signatures of some of the original 1935 ``On to Ottawa'' trekkers,
including Mr. Robert Savage, the last living member of the
delegation of eight to meet with the then Prime Minister R. B.
Bennett.
(1010 )
Sixty years ago Prime Minister Bennett ordered the arrest of the
``On to Ottawa'' trek leaders at a public meeting, hence provoking
the Regina riot. The trekkers, citizens of Regina who witnessed the
riot, family members and other Canadians draw the attention of the
House to the ``On to Ottawa'' trek and its abrupt end in Regina on
Dominion Day 1935, and the then federal government's role in the
police riot in Regina.
These petitioners call on Parliament to extend to the 1935
trekkers, the Regina citizens and their families its unequivocal and
official apology for its part in provoking the police riot.
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
16698
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed from November 21 consideration of the
motion that Bill C-96, an act to establish the Department of Human
Resources Development and to amend and repeal certain related
acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. John Murphy (Annapolis Valley-Hants, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity today to speak on
Bill C-96.
The bill has a single and fairly simple purpose, integration. The
government is setting out a solid legislative process for integrating
Canada's social and labour market programs. With these changes,
the Department of Human Resources Development brings under
one roof all of our efforts to help Canadians achieve their full
potential in society and in our economy.
16699
Within this single department are all the programs and services
that help people looking for work find and keep jobs, help
employers find workers they need, help workers and employers
under federal jurisdiction to maintain fair labour standards and a
safe working environment, help people between jobs, Canadian
seniors, families with low incomes and people with disabilities to
get the income support they need.
It will help people get training and develop new skills for a
changing economy. As well, it will help local businesses,
communities and entire industries to target the skills for the future
and build a skilled workforce that will help Canada be competitive
and prosperous in a changing world.
By bringing all of these different programs into one department,
we have taken an important first step toward ensuring programs
work together, providing meaningful, co-ordinated solutions for
the real world.
By taking this step the government has helped set the stage for
real integration in the way programs and services are delivered to
Canadians. Let us face it, when people come looking for service,
they could care less which program branch delivers that service.
The last thing they need is to be sent running around from one
office to another.
One of the most fundamental goals of the government's
approach is to ensure that integration takes place at the local level.
To do so we must focus on locating the decision making and design
of services at the local level. Instead of highly centralized decision
making, we need to allow a much greater degree of discretion and
judgment in the field.
Having been in the field of psychiatry and mental health for 30
years, I know what it means to tailor programs to individuals; it is
very important and this bill accomplishes that.
Over the last two years I have developed a close working
relationship with the Canada Employment Centre in my riding of
Annapolis Valley-Hants. I have had many opportunities to meet
with the employees, listen to their ideas and watch these
professionals do their jobs. I am convinced more than ever that
decision making power must rest with the local level.
Decisions about what kinds of programs make sense in a
community should be made by the community, in partnership with
local businesses, trade unions, community and municipal
organizations. If it is going to work we have to completely rethink
the way we define programs and services.
(1015)
As my hon. colleague from Burin-St. George's stated, we
cannot say to communities across Canada: ``Here is a program and
here are all the rules you have to follow. Do it our way or not at
all''. He also went on to say that individuals need programs and
even though it is not what they need, this is the only program we
have money for so take it or leave it.
Instead, we want to say to communities and individuals: ``Here
are some basic tools that we know have worked. Here is the money
and the available resources. Now you the client decide which tools
make sense and how you can use these resources most effectively''.
Just do what needs to be done. That is the motto of this bill.
That is what integration means, bringing it down to the local
level. That is what we are trying to do with Bill C-96. The
government is also bringing this approach to the largest single
social program in Canada, unemployment insurance.
For years now, we have had two separate tracks going for people
who are unemployed. On the one hand there is the UI system, an
absolutely vital program providing temporary income support for
people between jobs. On the other hand we have developed an
increasingly sophisticated and effective set of employment
programs, a set of tools to help people develop new skills, gain
work experience and in the end find jobs.
Our challenge in this bill is to integrate these two components, to
build a single integrated employment service that people can turn
to, not just for a cheque but for help to get back into the workforce.
This means finding a way to combine that essential system of
income protection provided by UI with an active system of
employment, a system that gives people the resources and the
opportunity to make choices about the kind of skills that are
required, the kind of future they want to build for themselves.
For example, we are experimenting with a form of internship
with small businesses. There are companies that desperately want
to hire new workers but cannot afford to provide the training new
workers require. With this program we help them hire young
people, older workers and women returning to the workforce. We
provide some support to pay for the learning curve, the time it
obviously takes for new workers to become fully productive in
their new jobs. The experiment is getting good results. Small
businesses are creating jobs for unemployed Canadians, real
permanent jobs.
Over the past year we have developed a program for
self-employment under unemployment insurance. We want to give
people a choice. Rather than simply collecting benefits while they
look for a new job, we want to give people the opportunity to create
their own jobs. The department provides some financial support,
monitoring and counselling to help participants get their businesses
started.
Over the past year 30,000 people have started their own
businesses this way through the unemployment insurance system.
They have not created just 30,000 jobs but rather 60,000 jobs. That
is the
16700
kind of positive initiative that can happen when we think in terms
of integration.
Another example of integration can be seen in our government's
strategic initiatives program. This program is important since it
provides the government with the unique opportunity to
experiment with program design that will support future policy
development.
In September 1994 the government in partnership with the
Government of Nova Scotia announced the launching of such a
program. Success Nova Scotia 2000 will assist 3,000 young Nova
Scotians to gain valuable work experience in leading industries
using internships as an important part of their learning culture.
(1020 )
It is part of our commitment to find better ways for young people
to secure jobs. By bringing together a full range of Canada's social
and labour market programs, we are setting a new course and
making a positive difference in Canada.
Bill C-96 provides a strong basis for this new direction. It
ensures the structure that is in place for the federal government
continues bringing programs and services together while working
with our partners in the provinces and the communities across the
country.
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ):
Madam Speaker, ever since the Bloc Quebecois arrived in the
House of Commons, Ottawa has treated us to power plays of every
description. First, it created the Department of Canadian Heritage.
In so doing, Ottawa denied the existence of the Quebec people and
the government gave itself a mandate to defend and promote
Canadian culture and Canadian identity.
Then came power play number two: the Department of Health.
With this decision, the government expanded and consolidated its
control over an exclusively provincial jurisdiction.
And now for Ottawa power play number three. This time, it is
about human resources. I am referring to the bill before the House
today, the act to establish the Department of Human Resources
Development and to amend and repeal certain related acts. With
this bill, the department blatantly ignores the existing consensus in
Quebec on manpower training and directly intrudes in this
provincial jurisdiction.
A fourth power play is now looming, and I am referring to
reforms in programs connected with income security for seniors.
Of course for the past two years, every time he had to field a
question in the House, we saw the Minister of Human Resources
Development rise indignantly and play the same tape over and over
again: ``The document is wrong, you misread, and you do not
understand''.
However, there is every indication that Ottawa will use this
reform to save money, again at the expense of the seniors, and the
minister responsible seems to be the only one in this House who is
misinformed.
In the February budget that was supposed to reshape Canada,
using a Tory recipe with a Liberal label, the Minister of Finance
announced a reform of programs relating to income security for
seniors. This reform was to take effect in 1997. According to the
Minister of Finance, it will be based on the following five
principles: first, undiminished protection for all seniors who are
less well off, which means there will be no increase in benefits but
payments to the less well off will be maintained at present levels.
Second, a continuation of full indexation of pensions. Third,
eligibility for OAS benefits will be based on family income. People
should realize that this will significantly change the present
system. In fact, OAS has always been universal, but after the
Chrétien government's reform, the amount of the OAS cheque will
depend on family income.
Fourth, benefit levels will be reduced as income levels rise.
Ottawa's so-called positive approach careful conceals its plans to
lower the ceiling for the clawback.
Fifth, control of program costs. In other words, administration of
the OAS system will have to cost less.
This sketchy outline of Ottawa's intentions received a stinging
response from Ms. Blackburn, Quebec's income security minister.
In a press release dated March 2, the minister commented that the
federal government was launching another attack on the incomes of
seniors and that the reform announced in the Martin budget would
permanently destroy the balance of the current OAS system.
The minister also pointed out that the decision to provide OAS
benefits on the basis of family income would mean that more
seniors, mainly women, would have to turn over their benefits to
the federal government. The minister went on to say that women
had won recognition of their independent status in society, but now,
because of budgetary cutbacks, once they were retired their status
would depend on that of their spouse and their family income and
that, considering the measures proposed by Mr. Axworthy andMr. Martin, one wondered if women's rights meant anything at all
to the federal government.
(1025)
The minister's final conclusion is that such a change in
calculating old age pensions makes them no longer a foundation for
financial security in retirement but a social assistance program.
Seniors will be entitled to an old age pension if their income
places them in the category of persons with modest means. We
16701
must therefore acknowledge that the federal government did not
have the courage before the referendum to clearly and precisely
inform Quebecers of what was really in store for them in
connection with old age pensions, because it knew what an impact
that knowledge could have had on the final outcome of the vote.
Jean-Robert Sansfaçon, an editorial writer for Le Devoir, saw the
announcements of old age pension cuts by the Minister of Finance
in more or less the same light as Mrs. Blackburn. In his editorial
last February 28 he wrote as follows: ``If Ottawa goes ahead with
this, it will mean an end to universal old age pensions, which might
end up being reserved only for households with modest incomes.
This is a really new concept, one more closely related to social
assistance than to a pension plan, and would encourage everyone to
save money during their working years''.
In another editorial on March 4 he wrote: ``Although this was not
in the least what was expected of it, the present Liberal government
is preparing to axe the plan-As early as 1997, we will see the end
of basic benefits for everyone regardless of income. The amount
received will no longer be the same for everyone but will be
calculated according to total household income. Instead of being
the base of the retirement income pyramid as it was in the past, the
old age pension would become a kind of welfare payment. This is
more than a reform, it is more like a revolution''.
Before the House adjourned for the scheduled parliamentary
recess, my colleague for Mercier got hold of a document called
Serving Canada's Seniors.
This document confirms the government's intentions of
changing the old age pension into a plan reserved for only the
poorest in our society. Page 5 of this document states: ``The old age
pension system, the guaranteed income supplement, the spouse's
allowance and the senior citizens' tax credit will be combined into
a single new program requiring an income test''.
In short, all programs will be rolled into one and the pension will
be paid to seniors according to family income.
After she obtained this document, the member for Mercier asked
the Minister of Human Resources Development how he could
reconcile what was revealed in this document with the Prime
Minister's statement that the best way to protect our social benefits
was to vote no. With his now legendary arrogance, the minister
replied that the document in question was a mere invention by the
Bloc Quebecois.
I would like to inform the people of Canada and of Quebec
officially that no one within the Bloc has time to waste in writing
such a document. And let me particularly point out that, if it were
really a document from the Bloc, it would have been available in
both of this country's official languages, and not just English.
If the minister sincerely believes that the Bloc authored this
document, I must reach the conclusion that, on the one hand, he
does not know what is going on in his own department, and one of
two things on the other hand. Either he has not read the budget of
his finance colleague, or he read it without understanding it, for the
document Serving Canada's Seniors contains the income security
program reform promised in the Minister of Finance's budget last
February. I would add that I am amazed that the Minister of Human
Resources Development would point the finger at our party, when
it is the Bloc which has been trying to cast some light on the
coming changes to the various programs relating to income
security for Canada's and Quebec's seniors.
I would like to conclude with an invitation to the Minister of
Human Resources Development to re-examine his old age pension
strategy. To pay off the deficit at the expense of seniors, especially
women seniors, is an unacceptable decision. When there is a
budget in excess of $160 billion, one is entitled to think that all of
our social benefits could be preserved, including old age pensions.
The government must have the courage to make decisions that will
enable all citizens to do their part to improve the collective
well-being, and not make the least well off among us pay the price
on their own.
(1030)
[English]
Mr. Peter Thalheimer (Timmins-Chapleau, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, thank you for this opportunity to speak on Bill C-96,
which seeks to establish the legislative framework for the
Department of Human Resources Development.
I have been somewhat amused throughout the course of the
debate on this issue by the comments of some opposition members,
which suggest either a misreading of the bill or an overactive
imagination. For instance, some members of the official opposition
claim to detect a sinister plot by the government to usurp areas of
provincial responsibility. Indeed, some have even gone so far as to
suggest that we might seek to sabotage existing educational,
training, and manpower programs in the province of Quebec. This
rather odd scenario was perhaps best articulated by one Bloc
member who suggested that this legislation might be part of some
hidden agenda by the government to demolish all the educational
tools Quebec has developed.
Members of the third party seem equally confused. Many
Reform members have expressed disappointment that the bill will
not usher in the millennium and solve all the country's problems in
one fell swoop. This would be a miracle were it to occur, since the
bill from its inception was designed simply to take care of some
legislative and administrative issues.
16702
It is difficult to determine whether such opposition concerns are
real or simply represent mere political gamesmanship. However,
it seems only fair to give these members the benefit of the doubt.
I would like to take a few moments to address some of the
misconceptions clearly plaguing some opposition members and
explain why passage of the bill is so important for assuring further
progress in providing even higher levels of service to Canadians.
To begin with, let me state what this bill is not designed to do. It
is not, as some opposition members have suggested, a power grab
or an attempt to raid areas of provincial jurisdiction. This should be
clear from even the most cursory reading of this bill, which makes
no significant changes to the statutory elements of the founding
departments that are being brought together under this legislation.
Equally important is the fact that this bill does not change the
powers of the federal government or the provinces. Nor does it seek
to grant new powers to the federal government, as some have tried
to suggest. The department's mandate is clearly limited to just
those matters over which Parliament has jurisdiction. Nor will
there be any new powers granted by clause 20, which empowers the
minister to sign contracts with agencies and institutions other than
the provinces. This authority already exists and therefore
represents no change whatsoever.
If such concerns are unfounded, what does this bill really seek to
do? Simply put, it seeks to recognize in a legislative, unified way
the restructuring already under way, which is bringing together
under one umbrella organization portions of the former
departments of employment and immigration, health and welfare,
secretary of state, and all of labour.
This consolidation is critical, since it will allow us to take a more
holistic approach to the social, economic and training issues that
have traditionally been addressed by these departments. It will
allow us to provide better service at lower cost and develop the
flexible, imaginative, and highly targeted approaches needed to
adequately address the challenges facing Canadians now and in the
future.
Of course this process of renewal has been under way for some
time. I am pleased to say that this new department has had a
number of successes in developing new approaches so Canadians
can better cope with an increasingly demanding labour market.
As gratifying as this is, more remains to be done. That is why the
changes contained in the bill are so important. To begin with, it will
help us build on these initial successes by clarifying the role of the
department and the responsibilities of the minister to both
Parliament and Canadians generally. It will simplify the current
complex trail of statutory powers, many of them going back to the
original pieces of legislation that set up the founding departments,
by providing one act that sets out the mandate and powers of the
department. Such a change will clarify the identity of the
department by laying out for both employees and clients the
department's goals and the resources it will have to achieve them.
(1035)
As well, the legislation will give people and organizations
working with the department a clear idea of just who it is they are
working with. As incredible as it may seem, many departmental
officials still use old letterhead bearing the names of their former
departments for legal and contracting purposes. This is confusing
for partners, since in their minds those old departments no longer
exist.
Of course these are not the only administrative problems to be
addressed. For instance, without the proper enabling legislation
simple tasks such as transferring personnel can be costly and
time-consuming. This is also the case with large and detailed
contracts, which often involve a number of former departments.
Most important of all is the need to bring the current transitional
phase of restructuring to a close and then move forward. We need
to build on our recent successes and undertake exciting new
initiatives aimed at investing in our most important asset, people.
To do this we need to clear away administrative obstacles so we can
further undertake new initiatives such as UI reform, develop new
programs and services under the human resource investment fund,
and improve programs for our most vulnerable citizens, including
seniors and the disabled.
Finally, this legislation will improve service to Canadians while
at the same time ensuring taxpayers' dollars are spent in the most
cost effective manner possible.
The bill before us will allow us to achieve all these goals. It will
create the architecture required to implement the reforms needed to
support Canadians with the job training opportunities they need to
enter the next century with confidence. I would encourage
members to support Bill C-96.
Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, Bill C-96, an act to establish the Department of Human
Resources Development and to amend and repeal certain related
acts, is basically just reorganization of the department and does not
offer any substantive changes.
It amazes me that with the number of people who are currently
dependent on HRD for their welfare, some legitimately and some
not, with the country in economic doldrums, with the debt
increasing, with the IMF recently downgrading our country's rating
by 50 per cent six weeks ago, the government persists in serving up
bills that nibble around the edges of these problems, which affect
us all.
16703
Here is another opportunity lost. Never at any other time in
recent history has this country required strong leadership in so
many different areas. HRD is no different. In fact HRD affects
the lives of those who are in the lowest socioeconomic situations
within our country.
We sympathize with the government in the position it faces.
Indeed it is a difficult one. However, it is not an excuse for inaction,
particularly since we as a party have put forward strong solutions to
address these very important areas. Our HRD areas are in critical
shape. They are in effect ready to fall apart.
On the one hand, we have an increase in demand. On the other
hand, with an increasing debt we have less money to spend on
social programs. An important fact is that by the year 2010 the
combination of payments on the interest and all the payments on
social programs will consume every single dollar and every penny
that comes into the federal coffers. What is the government going
to do when that day comes? It is only 15 years from now. What is it
going to do?
We need intelligent plans in order to put social programs on a
firm fiscal footing. The consequence of not doing that is to face
collapse. Those who are going to suffer the most are those who are
in greatest need. It is not the people in this room who are going to
suffer; it is the people in soup kitchens, the people who cannot feed
their children anything but macaroni and cheese, the people who
are unemployable and the people who are not making ends meet.
They are the ones who are going to hit the wall. They are the ones
who are going to have to pick up the pieces, but they will not be
able to pick up the pieces.
(1040)
The Reform Party has been accused of being a slash and burn
party. I would not have joined this party and my colleagues would
not have joined it if that were the case. I believe that every member
of Parliament is committed to ensuring that social programs will
continue in the future. We do not want to see people suffer.
However, to sit around and do nothing is the single greatest threat
to social programs. Inaction threatens social programs. It is causing
them to implode. Health care is being rationed. Social programs are
being rationed. There have been cuts across the board in welfare.
That is what is preventing the people who truly need the programs
from being able to live a healthy life.
Those who suffer the most are the children. They are not
receiving the proper nutrition. They do not have the ability to grow
up to be healthy and strong.
We spend $19.1 billion on old age security. The cost of that is
increasing rapidly. It is out of control. Within the next 15 years the
number of seniors will increase by 40 per cent. How will we pay for
this? There is absolutely no plan for providing OAS to these
people.
The Canada pension plan is $500 billion in debt. This is not
accounted for in the debt figures. It is not actuarially sound, and
there is no plan to change it.
The Reform Party has put forward a plan for super RRSPs. I
hope the government will seriously look at that plan and work with
us on the program to ensure that the people who need it will receive
both the OAS and the CPP.
I would like to make some constructive suggestions. First, we
have to decrease duplication and decentralize. It was a tragedy that
the referendum was based in part on decentralization, because that
is going to have to happen in every province across the country. For
the country to be carved up partly over decentralization is a
tragedy, because it is inevitable.
In fact clause 6 of the bill does the opposite. It strengthens the
hand of the federal government rather than decentralizing powers.
Decentralizing powers does not mean that people will suffer. By
doing that, duplication will be decreased and more money will be
provided to the end user.
The government can take a leadership role by working with the
provinces in providing a minimum standard across the board to
create similar standards for the provinces and ensure that those
provinces that are the most impoverished will not suffer. It is a
challenge, but it can be met.
Second, we have to prioritize spending. It makes no sense to me
that when we are prioritizing spending we cut across the board.
That cuts from everybody, those who are abusing the program as
well as those who are not.
In British Columbia they looked at welfare. They looked at 780
people. Of that number, 280 were flagrantly abusing the system and
did not need to be on welfare. They stopped after looking at 780
people; it was too inflammatory for them to continue. That is a lot
of people. That money could be better spent in bringing down the
debt and also in ensuring that the people who need it will get it.
Cutting across the board only makes those who are the poorest
suffer more.
We should focus on skills training. Let us make sure there is
enough money in the pot to provide skills for the unemployed.
We also need to decrease the tax load. We have heard much
about taxing the rich and corporations. However, the reality is that
small and medium sized businesses are creating the jobs in our
country.
(1045 )
What are these businesses telling us? They say that we cannot
compete with other countries with our existing tax load. Many of
the closed shops and closed industries and much of the exodus of
companies south are in large part due to the fact that their tax load
16704
is too great. Who suffers? It is mostly the people who are employed
by them. Therefore our unemployment rates go up.
We need to decrease government red tape which is severely
restricting the ability of companies to function properly. We must
also decrease the debt.
We are not a slash and burn party. We have put forward
constructive plans to enable us to decrease the debt, to get the
deficit to zero, to priorize social programs, to provide alternatives
to social programs, to priorize spending and to give people the
skills to take care of themselves.
Ms. Hedy Fry (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Health, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I too should like to speak to Bill
C-96.
The bill is simply a housekeeping bill that brings together a
number of departments under one roof. Yet it has inflamed the
emotions of both opposition parties. Their criticisms are so
completely unjustified that I must wonder if in making the
accusations both parties are really speaking to their not so hidden
agenda.
Some members opposite see Bill C-96, particularly clause 6, as a
power grab. I have no idea how they came to this conclusion
because clause 6 simply states:
The powers, duties and functions of the Minister extend to and include all
matters over which Parliament has jurisdiction and relating to the development
of the human resources of Canada not by law assigned to any other Minister,
department, board or agency of the Government of Canada, and are to be
exercised with the objective of enhancing employment, encouraging equality
and promoting social security.
Any reasonable objective analyst not fixated on a separatist
agenda or decentralist ideology would see that clause as a
statement of purpose. It lists clear and legitimate limits for the
minister, whose mandate is and always has been to devise policies
that enhance employment, encourage equality and promote social
security.
Bill C-96 does not change federal or provincial powers at all. It
does not tip the balance one way or the other. It neither increases
nor reduces the minister's range of authority. The statutory powers
of the department in place now are unchanged. I am sure members
of both opposition parties who have basic reading comprehension
skills must know that.
The bill does not establish new initiatives or alter existing ones
in any way. Only those members opposite who have chosen to play
the victim role to the hilt and who apparently see a potential
humiliation in every act of the federal government would see a
power grab in the bill.
The three objectives set out in clause 6 of the bill, enhancing
employment, encouraging equality and promoting social security,
have always been key objectives of the federal government,
especially of Liberal federal governments.
If a national government is not in the business of creating jobs,
promoting equality of opportunity and establishing a social safety
net, what is its business? Any federal government on the globe that
is not totally anaemic, corrupt or viciously insensitive must have
these fundamental objectives, especially the government of a
country that has been named for the third year running the best
country in the world in which to live. If the Canadian government
were to drop these objectives, the official opposition would be the
first to scream unjust and declare yet another humiliation of
Quebec.
The Canadian government is constitutionally responsible for
unemployment insurance and for creating and operating programs
that help unemployed Canadians find employment no matter where
they live in the country. In my riding in British Columbia COAST
and FOCUS YWCA have provided and continue to provide
invaluable services, especially for single moms on welfare.
Currently many of these programs do not receive funding from the
B.C. government when they are actually saving tens of thousands
of dollars in welfare payments.
(1050 )
The federal Government of Canada has an international
obligation under a convention of the International Labour
Organization to provide national labour market information and
exchange for all Canadians. The federal government is responsible
for national economic growth and development. Therefore it is
common sense that it must be involved in training.
If we have learned one thing over the past decade it is that a well
trained workforce is absolutely essential if we want to remain
competitive in the global marketplace and to maintain our standard
of living as number one in the world. The strongest most innovative
economies in the world today, Japan and Germany, have become
what they are largely because of their national policies that
emphasize training.
The federal government must be able to assist those affected by
special situations that go beyond the jurisdictions of any one
province, such as workers in the fishing industry, older workers
displaced by restructuring of the economy or the dispossessed
youth of Canada. In my riding Youth Service Canada projects have
benefited youths very directly.
The federal government has absolutely no interest in having
powers just because it wants them. The Minister of Human
Resources Development said it very well when he said that we
must combine resources across the country so that when one area is
facing high unemployment another area helps to support it.
That is the Canadian way. That is why we have a federal country
and a federal government. One part of the country supports another
when it is undergoing trouble. It is a family in which we all help
each other in times of need, because we know one day we may in
16705
turn be in times of need. That is the fundamental concept of
sharing. The more we fragment the country as the third party
opposition would have us do, the more we divide it, separate it,
decentralize it and balkanize it into a series of fiefdoms, the less
capable we are of helping individuals that no longer have the
benefit of that sharing. That is why the federal government must
continue to play an important role in this area.
We have always been open to discussions with provincial,
territorial and municipal governments about who is the best suited
to deliver certain programs. We have negotiated that because we
know we do not always deliver the best programs and that things
must be done at the community level.
Because clause 6 of Bill C-96 sets out the department's mandate
in terms of general objectives, we must have the flexibility to serve
Canadians better. I do not want to sidetrack the debate by raising
non-issues and reading into clause 6 things that are there. It is
really a disservice to the thousands of Canadians in all provinces
who benefit from job creation and training.
The other clause in Bill C-96 about which concerns have been
raised is clause 20. It reads:
For the purpose of facilitating the formulation, co-ordination and
implementation-
Words like co-ordination mean that we work together to make
something work. It is so simple and fundamental to a clear
understanding of how teamwork is accomplished, of how we pull
together, that I cannot understand the problem. Anyway the clause
continues:
-the Minister may enter into agreements with a province or group of
provinces, agencies of provinces, financial institutions and such other persons
or bodies as the Minister considers appropriate.
Any reasonable objective observer would see in this clause no
hidden agenda to intrude. It merely provides a way to formulate
co-operation with all groups with which we must form partnerships
if we are to make the changes.
Without the authority that clause 20 gives the minister the
department would have difficulties conducting its simple mandate
and its simple business. However the Bloc is bent on getting more
power for the political elite in Quebec, while the Reform Party is
bent solely on getting more power for the provinces and
fragmenting and balkanizing the country.
In 1994-95 the department of human resources signed more than
50,000 labour market related contracts in Quebec which were
worth $700 million. Among those 50,000 contracts were 9,600
contracts with non-profit organizations, 9,300 contracts with
private sector enterprises and 25,000 contracts under the fee payer
trainee program, all in Quebec. It is the authority granted to the
minister under clause 20.
(1055)
It allows us to enter into agreements with financial institutions
for student loans. How are we to create a country of young people
who can take over from us and carry on if those who cannot afford
to go to school are not allowed student loans?
It enables the federal government to sign agreements with
provinces to help displaced older workers. When 45 or 50 year old
people lose their jobs, especially in the emerging communication
technology era, they need training.
This kind of section empowered Ottawa to enter into a
partnership with Quebec to help entrepreneurs and to help workers
affected by the closing of the Hyundai plant in Bromont last March.
The whole bill helps the department of human resources to create a
national vision for Canada. It is not for British Columbia alone. It
is how we work together as a country to achieve the kinds of things
that make us the envy of the world.
We are a unique country. I continue to hear people talk about
how another country does it and why we are not doing it the same
way. Wherever we go we hear people saying that Canada is a
unique country. We have learned how to work together in peace.
We have learned to do what we are supposed to do, that is to create
peace, order and good government.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ):
Madam Speaker, Bill C-96-and this may surprise you-seems to
me to insult Quebec federalists. A lot of federalists in Quebec still
felt, in the last referendum, that the federal government deserved
one last chance to demonstrate its desire for change. Bill C-96,
which was tabled before the referendum and which the federal
government is still having debated in the House simply as if
nothing had happened, represents the federal government's
decision to interfere more systematically and with a basis in
law-a new approach.
The bureaucratic powers in Ottawa have now decided to
incorporate into legislation the intrusions by the federal
government over the past years in the area of manpower through its
control over the unemployment insurance fund. This is particularly
significant and a bit of a blow to Quebec federalists and to the
consensus in Quebec on the question of manpower.
There is, for example, Ghislain Dufour, the spokesperson and
chief executive officer of the Conseil du patronat du Québec, who
is not exactly considered a separatist or a sovereignist in Quebec.
He says that now is the time, following the close result in the
referendum, for the federal government to make it clear it is in
favour of change and therefore acknowledge the consensus in
Quebec on training and manpower. It is time the federal
government agreed to give Quebec full responsibility for
manpower to
16706
put an end to the duplication and unnecessary expenditure in this
sector.
We hear the same message from Gérald Ponton of the
Association des manufacturiers du Québec. In the days that
followed the referendum, he said it was absolutely vital that one
level of government withdraw, if manpower practices were to be
effective. For this to work in Quebec, it is the federal government
that will have to withdraw. We must not forget that the whole
matter of training is part of government activity, it does not simply
come out of thin air.
As Quebec is already responsible for the labour code, which
covers the vast majority of Quebec workers, for occupational
health and safety, for minimum labour standards and for all
regulations on professional qualifications, professional conduct
and mass layoffs, giving Quebec responsibility for the entire area
of training is like giving it an extra piece of equipment in its tool
box. The Government of Quebec already has the networks, like the
education network, for it to get involved in occupational training,
among other areas, in order to ensure that young people coming
along and workers needing retraining receive what they need
efficiently and appropriately.
The auditor general, in his latest report, concluded that employee
training costs were highest in Quebec in terms of the money spent
by the federal government.
(1100)
This is further proof, with the numbers to support it, that the
federal government should withdraw from this sector.
But, instead, it forges ahead with Bill C-96; it insists on
interfering everywhere, and on signing agreements with municipal
governments, various agencies, and even the provinces. But
nowhere does it say that these agreements will be in keeping with
the provinces' policies.
In a way, this is the continuation of the monolithic state, and this
is the terrible insult to Quebec federalists who want to see the
Canadian Constitution and the Canadian structure revamped so that
the federal government assumes only those responsibilities which
come under its jurisdiction and which would be acceptable to
federalists.
I also believe that this is the proof that, after all, sovereignists
are right. Even with the warning it was served on October 30, the
government is unable to shift gears and proceed with the
adjustments that would allow it to meet Quebecers' aspirations; the
only way for Quebec to have the tools it needs will be for the
province to hold another referendum and separate.
What could be said to get the government to reverse its decision
to pass this bill? What could make the government withdraw from
this sector? I believe it would take two conditions which will be
easily attainable. First, the federal government must stop using the
unemployment insurance fund as a cash cow; now that it can no
longer borrow money abroad, it has discovered a domestic market,
namely employee and employer UI contributions. As a result, this
year, in 1995-1995, it has accumulated a five billion dollar surplus,
while it cut the number of weeks during which beneficiaries are
entitled to UI benefits and increased the number of weeks of work
required to qualify for UI. It has some nerve.
This is quite a message for the workers of Quebec and Canada,
especially seasonal workers; it says that in order to be able to
encroach on a field of exclusive provincial jurisdiction, the federal
government is going to squeeze money out of those who need it the
most. Let us take a worker in peat production, forestry or
agriculture in general; because of those measures, instead of
becoming entitled to unemployment benefits after 12, 13 or 14
weeks and receiving them for the rest of the year if his job is to
continue the following year, the worker will have to find work for
14 or 15 weeks; otherwise, he will not be able to fulfil the
requirements and receive a full year's income either from work or
unemployment.
We know that unemployment insurance is not financed by the
government, but exclusively by employer and employee
contributions. Let us try to transpose this situation into another
type of insurance program. You pay premiums, but you have no
control whatsoever on the contract which determines how you will
obtain insurance benefits; the decision is entirely up to the
government. Instead of being eligible for benefits during 30 or 35
weeks, you will receive them for 25 or 30 weeks only, and there
will be a four or five-week waiting period during which you will
have to go on welfare. That is what is happening in Quebec this
year. Between September 1994 and September 1995, the number of
welfare recipients increased by 20,000 because of changes made by
the federal government and now they are announcing, for next
week, a new reform which will raise eligibility requirements yet
again.
This also sends a message to federalists who believe there can be
a difference between Canada and the United States. This
government keeps trying to copy the American model, but that will
never give the expected results. Canadians, particularly those of the
Maritimes and Eastern Quebec and all those who really want more
balance in our society and an adequate distribution of wealth and
expenses, will have to stand up and say: ``No; we will no longer
accept that kind of action on the part of the government. It will
have to restrain its activities to its own constitutional jurisdiction
and withdraw once and for all from such areas as manpower
training.''
(1105)
That is why I think the government should listen to the
provinces, take note of the consensus in Quebec and withdraw Bill
C-96
16707
completely, because it already has rejected our amendment which
would have given the provinces an opting out option.
Since that they have rejected the amendment, the only other
solution is to withdraw the bill itself so that we can clarify the
situation and so that Quebec can have sole jurisdiction in the area
of manpower training and take all the necessary measures to face
the challenges of our changing society.
Given the arguments presented, I hope the government will have
the decency to withdraw that bill.
[English]
Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.): Madam Speaker, on
Tuesday we dealt with the amendment proposed by the member for
Mercier, a motion that had nothing to do with Bill C-96. Now
perhaps we can move forward.
As I look back over the various statements by members on this
bill, it seems to me there are really two basic questions we have to
answer. First, does Bill C-96 represent any change in statutory
powers that would allow the federal government to interfere with
the provinces? Second, is the department created by Bill C-96 the
kind of department we want, a department that will provide the best
possible service and the right kind of service to Canadians?
We can deal with the first question very quickly. It has been
answered clearly by the Minister of Human Resources
Development and it is answered clearly by the bill itself. There are
no substantive changes to existing statutory powers. The bill itself
in clause 6 limits the powers of the minister to matters under the
jurisdiction of Parliament, so there can be no intrusion on
provincial areas of responsibility.
That really is the end of the discussion. Some people may say
otherwise. They may say the bill is a secret plot to invade
provincial territory, but saying it is so does not make it so, no
matter how many times you say it. In the end we have to base any
conclusions on what is really in the bill in black and white, not
what is in other people's imagination. What is there in black and
white is very clear: There is no interference with the provinces,
possible or intended, in Bill C-96.
The second question deserves more comment. Is this the kind of
department we want to create?
Fundamentally, this bill draws together all the different
elements, programs and policies of the federal government related
to human resources development into one integrated, coherent
system. It is the basis for a new approach to helping Canadians as
they deal with some of the incredible changes in the workplace and
in the economy. It also provides a basis for new relationships
between the federal government and individual Canadians,
between different levels of government, between governments and
local communities. As the Minister of Human Resources
Development said when he moved second reading:
This is not a defence of the status quo or what it used to be. It is an attempt to
provide a new, innovative way of governing-.The old ways are simply 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 on policy.
The minister went on to say that the single focus was there so we
can tackle the real deficit problem, which is not just the fiscal
deficit, but the human deficit, a deficit as corrosive and
undermining to the well-being of individuals as anything we face
on the fiscal side.
How can this new department help tackle the problems we have
with the human deficit? I say it is by providing a single focal point
in the communities across the country, drawing together all the
resources of the federal government and the community to help
people find and keep jobs. It is by providing the opportunity for
working more closely with the provinces to draw all of this
country's resources together to help people find jobs. This is the
priority of this government. It is the number one priority for
Canadians. We know that.
Throughout this debate we have heard many examples of how
this approach is already working. We have heard how the
department is building a new integrated, decentralized service
network moving from 450 to 750 points of service reaching smaller
communities 24 hours a day. It is providing four times as many
offices where seniors can get service in person. It is using the best
technology available to speed up service, cutting UI processing
time by two days, cutting old age security processing claims from
eight days to one-half day.
(1110)
We have heard how major changes have made student loans
more accessible, flexible and sustainable. This has helped more
than 300,000 students this year alone and has provided special
grants to more than 13,000 high need students. We have heard how
our new youth internships are leading to real jobs for some 24,000
young Canadians and how 130 Youth Service Canada projects
across the country are helping young people serve their
communities while getting valuable work experience. We know
this is essential.
We have heard how the department is building new stronger
partnerships with the private sector. There is increased funding for
sector councils, partnerships where every federal dollar generates
an additional $1.50 from industry to help Canadians adjust to the
new economy, and we all have to realize it is here.
We have heard how the federal government is developing new
partnerships with the provinces through joint federal-provincial
initiatives. This is helping some 60,000 single mothers, older
workers, aboriginals and young people to get new skills and new
jobs.
16708
We have heard again how this department is reviewing and
distilling its 39 programs into a streamlined decentralized set of
re-employment tools, tools that respond directly to the needs of
Canadians where they live. Decisions can be made in the local
communities instead of many miles away in some centralized
bureaucracy. The provinces, municipalities, local businesses and
organizations can be part of those decisions. They can tailor how
federal service will be used to help people in their communities
get back to work.
This may sound abstract, so I am going to talk about my city,
London, Ontario. In the city of London, Ontario there is a
wonderful example of these policies in action. Last month the
minister sat down with community groups and political leaders in
London to discuss the creation of a new learning and life centre
there.
The London Learning and Life Centre will provide a centralized
location for employment preparation, skills training and adult
education. It will house a job search centre, an interactive lab for
computer training and office space for community service
professionals. Even an on-site child care service is planned.
An estimated, and I think this is conservative, 8,000 to 10,000
persons will utilize its services annually in London. The centre
began as a community initiative, bottom up, not top down and has
enormous community support. Its partner organizations include
groups representing women, youth, adult learners, aboriginal
people, immigrants and educators. Recognizing the real concerns,
the real common sense of enabling local communities to work
together for social development, the federal government
contributed $700,000 to the initial stages of the centre's creation.
We heard the minister make clear commitments to build on the
success of this decentralized approach, inviting the provinces to sit
down and devise new solutions, new ways of working together.
This is what the Canadian public wants. We want governments to
work together with communities and individuals, new ways to
deliver the best possible services, the most effective services to
Canadians where they live, not here in Ottawa. This is clearly the
right direction. This is clearly the kind of change and the kind of
department that we need as Canada prepares for a new century.
The basic philosophy behind the new department, the vision
behind Bill C-96, represents something new and very exciting. It is
already making a difference in my community and in the lives of
hundreds of thousands of Canadians every day throughout this
country.
It is up to this House now to ensure that the department can keep
moving forward and that Canadians can count on this government's
commitment to provide the best possible help in today's economy.
Bill C-96 creates the department that can deliver what Canadians
need. It creates the kind of department that can make a difference
and the kind of department that makes sense.
We have every reason to move forward, not backward, and to put
this legislation in place as quickly as possible.
[Translation]
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil-Papineau, BQ): Madam
Speaker, I stand today in this House to address Bill C-96, an act to
establish the Department of Human Resources Development and to
amend and repeal certain related acts.
The bill gives a legal basis to the Department of Human
Resources Development in order to extend the powers of the
Minister of Human Resources Development.
(1115)
Thus, by this bill, the minister is given the power to circumvent
provincial powers in order to establish direct links with local
organizations or such other persons as he considers appropriate.
With increased federal intrusion in social and employment
programs, and most particularly, in manpower training, all social or
employment related sectors are likely to be affected by federal
action. Consequently, by getting new powers, the minister is
interfering with provincial jurisdiction.
In the powers, duties and functions of the minister outlined in
clause 6, it is specified that he exercises his power
-with the objective of enhancing employment, encouraging equality and
promoting social security-
in matters over which Parliament has jurisdiction.
Clause 20 provides that the minister, within his powers, duties
and functions,
-may enter into agreements with a province or group of provinces, agencies of
provinces, financial institutions and such other persons or bodies as the
Minister considers appropriate.
In the old legislation, the minister only had the power to enter
into agreements with a province or group of provinces.
In clause 31.3,
The Commission may authorize any person or body-to exercise powers or
perform duties and functions of or delegated to the Commission.
In the old legislation, it could only delegate them to ``officers or
employees or classes of officers or employees of the Commission
or, where the Minister approves, of the Department'', in section
18.3. It thus has a delegation power equal to the minister's.
Quebec partners in the labour market have long recognized the
need to repatriate to Quebec federal responsibilities and budgets
for manpower.
The 1989 employment forum was a major step concerning this
claim. In December 1990, the Quebec Liberal government official-
16709
ly demanded that all federal budgets, including UI funds, allocated
to manpower programs be transferred to Quebec.
The Quebec government hastened to create the Quebec
manpower development society or SQDM so that labour market
partners could work together to manage all manpower development
programs in Quebec.
Bill C-96 increases the federal presence and encroaches on
provincial jurisdiction by allowing the federal government to
approach organizations, municipalities and individuals directly,
without going through an intermediary.
The bill gives the minister, among other things, greater powers
to intervene in income security matters for children and seniors.
This opens the door to the privatization and contracting-out of
certain programs, including unemployment insurance and the
Canada pension plan.
As spokesman on seniors organizations for the official
opposition in the House of Commons, I am outraged by the June 12
tabling of the document from the Department of Human Resources
Development, which questions the universality of old age pensions.
On Thursday, October 26, my colleague, the hon. member for
Mercier and official opposition critic on human resources
development in the House of Commons, said this: ``The old age
pension plan, the guaranteed income supplement, the spouse's
allowance, the pension income tax credit, and the age tax credit
will be combined into a single assistance program. Seniors'
eligibility for this program will be based on their income''.
The hon. member for Mercier also had this to say about the
reform: ``It is not only the end of universality for the old age
pension that is at stake. What this government wants is to base the
amount of the pension cheque on family income. This will affect
mostly women and threatens their financial independence. The
planned reform would also affect those who already receive their
pensions, despite what the Prime Minister of Canada had
suggested''.
It is obvious that the end of universality for old age pensions
marks a significant setback for Canadian and Quebec society, for
women, and for all those who have a right to expect a minimum of
financial security in the future.
(1120)
Quebec also has the dubious honour of having the highest rate of
poverty among seniors over 65 years old in all of Canada. This
analysis was made by the senior citizens council. The old age
security pension remains the main source of income for seniors,
and elderly women in particular. I spoke many times in this House
to denounce the federal government's planned cuts to old age
pension, especially those to be announced after the October 30
referendum in Quebec.
When we put questions to the HRD minister in the House, he
laughs them off and always seems to have all the answers. To listen
to him, you would think that he is graced with papal infallibility.
On September 26, as the official opposition's critic for seniors
organizations, I asked Prime Minister of Canada if he could
confirm for Quebecers and Canadians in general that his
government's old age pension reform was actually ready but being
put off until after the referendum so seniors would not know how
extensive the cuts awaiting them were.
At the same time, I pointed out to the Prime Minister that his
Minister of Foreign Affairs had clearly stated that the federal
government would definitely not touch old age pensions, which is
in total contradiction with his finance colleague's announcement,
in his February budget, of an old age pension reform.
Of course, as could be expected, the federal government did not
announce any cuts before the Quebec referendum. I must point out
that the federal labour minister and minister responsible for the
government's no campaign in the referendum also departed from
the tradition federal Liberal line in reassuring a concerned lady by
saying that the pension system would also be maintained under the
Quebec sovereignty bill.
On September 21, I had questioned the Minister of Finance
about the review of the Canada pension plan, pointing out to him
that it was obvious that he and the HRD minister were waiting until
after the referendum to let the axe fall on the old age pension
program.
The Parti Quebecois made a firm commitment to maintain the
old age pension program in a sovereign Quebec. In fact, clause 11
of the draft bill on Quebec's sovereignty states that pensions and
supplements payable to the elderly shall continue to be paid by the
Government of Quebec according to the same terms and
conditions.
Unlike the federal government, Quebec will be able to fund this
program through tax moneys recovered from Ottawa. It should be
pointed out however that the old age security program is funded
through taxes levied by the federal government in Quebec and
across Canada. On the other hand, the Quebec pension plan, QPP
for short, is funded through premiums paid by Quebec employers
and workers. With the QPP, Quebec already has all the
administrative structures needed to keep providing the old age
pensions currently paid by Ottawa out of Quebec taxpayers' taxes
when Quebec becomes sovereign, which should not be long in
coming.
Bill C-96 is the federal government's way of interfering in and
creating more overlap with provincial jurisdictions. Areas coming
under the responsibility of the minister would include old age
security programs, and the Bloc Quebecois cannot support such a
bill.
16710
[English]
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
we have heard many fine words about Bill C-96 over the past two
weeks. I will quote some words said on Monday because they sum
up one of the main reasons we need to proceed with the bill.
One member said: ``The key to the future is a good training
program based on the manpower requirements of the region in
which they live. It is certainly not here in Ottawa, far from my
region and others, that public officials can determine the best
training programs for my constituents. They are too far away and
they do not know about our specific needs. Therefore the decision
making process regarding manpower training must be closer to
those concerned''.
(1125 )
Bringing decision making closer to those concerned is perhaps
the simplest way to describe the principle underlying Bill C-96.
What is interesting is that the person who described it in this way
was none other than the member for Chicoutimi.
I am very pleased to see that the Bloc Quebecois, despite all its
rhetoric, agrees with the basic intention of the bill. The government
is decentralizing labour market programs more than ever before so
that individuals and communities are empowered to make real
decisions that affect their lives.
If the member truly believes this is the right thing to do, and it is,
he has every reason to endorse the bill. Of course the member goes
on to describe the bill as unacceptable to Quebecers. His colleague,
the member for Blainville-Deux-Montagnes, goes so far as to
described Bill C-96 as a steamroller of centralizing and anti-social
legislation. I can only assume this is merely a lapse into the Bloc's
more picturesque rhetoric.
I urge the member for Chicoutimi to trust his first instincts and
recognize the bill for the ground breaking decentralizing legislation
it is.
Everyone in the House recognizes there is a need to forge better
partnerships, better working relationships between the federal and
provincial governments. This is precisely why the federal
government has invited the provinces to talk about new
arrangements for labour market programs. We have made it clear
that we fully respect the integrity of provincial jurisdiction in the
area of training. We want to find a better way to work together.
Bill C-96 is a concrete illustration of this desire. The Minister of
Human Resources Development said on November 9: ``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. The time has come for us to take a
much closer look at the respective roles and to build bridges to
bring us together''.
Our actions as a government, the initiatives taken with this
department over the past two years, also demonstrate this desire to
work with the provinces and address their concerns. Surely the time
has come for all levels of government, federal, provincial and
municipal, to rise above the old-fashioned turf wars and start
finding ways to work together, to bring our resources together and
to help the people we serve.
The Bloc, on the other hand, seems intent on blocking the very
progress it professes to believe in. Instead of urging us on, instead
of supporting positive, constructive action, it throws up this wall of
words. Under the banner of jurisdiction the Bloc says we should do
nothing. In the name of progress and change I say let us find better
ways to do our job.
We cannot do a better job by building walls that keep us apart.
We need a better philosophy. We need the kind of philosophy the
minister outlined when he spoke of the need to empower
communities and individuals to make more choices. What does the
Bloc Quebecois saying response? No. Individuals should not be
empowered to make more choices. That is the philosophy of the
Bloc Quebecois.
We need the kind of philosophy the minister outlined when he
spoke of new partnerships: government with the private sector,
government with the school boards, government with the
provinces. What does the Bloc say in response? No. We do not
want to work together for change.
Is it any wonder so many people in Quebec feel abandoned? The
member for Chicoutimi speaks with concern for his riding, which
has the highest unemployment rate in Canada. How can he expect
to help Canadians in his riding with a do nothing philosophy?
How can we hope to help the people of Chicoutimi by saying:
``You cannot have this awful federalist Bill C-96. You cannot have
a system that gives you the power and resources you need to build
better lives and get good jobs. It is not the Bloc Quebecois way.
This is plain nonsense. Quebecers and all Canadians deserve
something better than that. The one million Quebecers who turn to
HRDC for help each year deserve the best help they can get. The
more than 164,000 Quebecers we helped find jobs last year deserve
that help. The 44,789 students who found employment last summer
deserve those jobs.
16711
(1130 )
The 700,000 Quebecers who use provincial social assistance
programs deserve to see the federal government's contribution,
almost $3 billion each year, used in the most flexible and
productive way possible.
The half million UI claimants in Quebec each month deserve the
best possible service in their quest to get back into the workforce.
The 400,000 Quebecers who benefited from the department's
employment programs and services deserve to see those programs
become more effective, more flexible, more focused on their needs.
The 850,000 Quebec seniors deserve to benefit from improved
access and service that will be available as the department builds
its new service delivery system.
Every Quebecer deserves more than the status quo. Bill C-96 is
about moving beyond the status quo to something better, to more
responsive programs and services, better programs and services
designed and delivered at the community level, where they can
make a difference.
Bill C-96 will strengthen partnerships and decentralize power
even further and let Quebecers make the decisions about what
kinds of programs and services make sense in their communities.
We have made enormous progress over the last year in the
pioneering of this approach, fundamentally rethinking and redoing
the way HRDC works in communities in Quebec and across
Canada. We are making enormous progress in working with the
provinces to provide the most flexible services possible to all
Canadians. Consider, for example, the Canada health and social
transfer, which will replace the old Canada assistance plan. The
whole point of this CHST is to help the provinces deliver the kinds
of social benefits and services they want to deliver but cannot
because of the inflexibility of existing arrangements.
We are making real progress, showing that we can work together
in putting solid progressive social programs in the hands of
Quebecers. Bill C-96 is about continuing this momentum. It is
about continuing to work together to clarify the roles of different
levels of government and it is about building bridges. Surely this is
a better way than talking about imaginary power grabs. Building
bridges together is the philosophy. This vision underlies the new
Department of Human Resources Development.
Bill C-96 provides the basis for the new department. With the
accord and support of the House we can put this legislation in place
and move forward.
[Translation]
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Madam Speaker, I
am very pleased to address once again Bill C-96, this time at
second reading. This act to establish the Department of Human
Resources Development has an extremely negative impact in my
riding, since it involves, among other things, a restructuring of the
employment centre network across Canada, including in Quebec.
Following that restructuring, there will be 28 regional
management centres in Quebec, as well as 78 local centres or
suboffices. What is disturbing for Trois-Rivières and its
surrounding region is that the government, in its wisdom, has
decided to establish the regional operation centre in Shawinigan,
instead of Trois-Rivières.
From now on, Trois-Rivières will be served by a suboffice of the
regional centre in Shawinigan. You can understand that this
decision is unpopular and also illogical. We strongly hope this is
just an idea, but there is every indication that a final decision has
been made at the departmental level. That decision is unpopular.
Indeed, already, more than 25,000 residents from the
Trois-Rivières region have signed a petition, in which they express
their disagreement and their discontent. Moreover, all the major
stakeholders, including MPs and MPPs, the mayor of
Trois-Rivières, various community groups, as well as 70
organizations, including some 40 municipalities, have also
expressed, in writing or through resolutions, their opposition to the
government's intention.
(1135)
In addition to the employees' union, which is being disregarded
in this process, two other organizations, the Fédération de l'âge
d'or and the Fédération des caisses populaires of the Mauricie
region, co-operated to ensure the success of that petition.
Not only is that decision unpopular, it is also illogical. It is so
illogical and it makes so little sense that it even contradicts the
criteria defined by the department regarding the selection and the
location of these regional management centres. The main criteria,
which were based on plain common sense, took into account the
number of people concerned, including UI beneficiaries, income
security recipients and seniors, because they are greatly affected by
this project. These criteria also took into consideration the number
of companies and employers hiring people who are UI
beneficiaries, at least we hope this is the case, and which are
concerned by such a decision and by the current role of the
employment centres.
Given the numbers for these groups in the Shawinigan and
Trois-Rivières regions, that decision does not make sense and goes
against established criteria. Indeed, in terms of numbers, the ratio
is two to one in favour of Trois-Rivières for just about every group,
16712
whether it is the overall population, the number of companies, the
number of UI beneficiaries, etc.
This shows just how illogical that decision is. It is a decision
which goes against the department's own criteria.
That operation is upsetting for Trois-Rivières residents, because
it has to do with the establishment of regional centres. Yet, the
government wants to go to Shawinigan and just keep a local centre
in Trois-Rivières, in spite of the fact that the latter is recognized as
the main centre in the region. This is totally unacceptable and we
will continue, along with the other stakeholders, to denounce that
situation.
We have to know what it will mean in the ordinary run of things.
People will come to apply in Trois-Rivières, since the role of
sub-offices, like the one intended for Trois-Rivières, is to receive
applications for benefits, only recording facts without making any
analysis nor any ruling, and then pass on that information to the
regional management centre, which will from then on keep the
actual file of the claimant's application. When the application will
need, as is the case in three out of four applications, a
supplementary, subsequent operation and a special analysis, that
will mean that the whole operation, any action, any movement will
come from Shawinigan, in a ratio of two to one because of the
population pool.
At present, for unemployment insurance, the department's
investigations, which are routine in some cases, are made in
Trois-Rivières, as are complaints made to the board of referees,
since the actual file is in Trois-Rivières. In answer to the letter we
wrote to make the appropriate representations about the intended
move, the minister indicated that services will not be altered in any
way for the people of Trois-Rivières. However, from now on,
contrary to what the minister said in his letter, the department's
investigations and the appeals to the board of referees will be made
in Shawinigan and from Shawinigan, which substantially alters, to
use the minister's word, operations as they now stand.
We therefore question the good faith of the minister who, in our
opinion, is trying to fool the population when he says such things.
You have to be aware that this project has been developed, or this
decision made, without any consultation. It was announced just
before the House recessed, or just before the change of rhythm that
occurs in our society at the beginning of the summer holidays,
since the announcement was made on June 22 and later confirmed
in late July or early August, at a time when it is practically
impossible to mobilize the population. What a nice approach,
somewhat in keeping with the minister's image.
I remind you that this was done without any consultation, both
locally and regionally, and regardless of the regional dialogue that
goes on in our area, the Mauricie.
(1140)
I remind you also, as was confirmed to me yesterday by reliable
sources, that there has been no comparative analysis of the impact
of keeping that centre in Trois-Rivières, which used to be the focal
point, instead of moving it to Shawinigan. They did not study the
impact on the population, users or costs. I will deal with that later
on.
One of the impacts is that Bécancour, a community traditionally
and naturally linked with Trois-Rivières, particularly as regards the
manpower operations at the regional office in Trois-Rivières, will
now have to deal with Drummondville, a choice that is arbitrary
and inconsistent with the practices in our region, and makes no
sense.
Anyone with the slightest acquaintance with this area would
know things do not work that way. That is one of the reasons why
my colleagues for Richelieu and Champlain and I agreed to a joint
position and condemned that move, because our ridings are
affected in various ways. This is a good example of the kind of
co-operation that can come about when people want to co-operate.
Another aspect, which is just as revolting, is that this move will
be detrimental to those most in need, people who have just lost
their job and find themselves in a state of vulnerability they had not
experienced before.
These people will feel increasingly uncomfortable in dealing
with a system decreasingly at their service. Besides, what we have
here is technological change of a type that will dehumanize
relations between the department and people in need like the
unemployed, seniors-who will feel the impact of that move-,
people on welfare and community organizations which, as we
know, rely heavily on volunteers and government assistance.
Things have been made more difficult for them, and that is why this
move should be condemned.
The government can choose one of three solutions if it wants to
mend its ways. First, it could maintain the status quo, deal with
existing circumstances, respect the wishes of the local population
and users, and keep the centre in Trois-Rivières. Everybody would
be happy.
A second alternative would be to have a regional office in
Trois-Rivières for the whole area, including Bécancour, and give
Shawinigan the status of a regional centre for the north shore,
including Saint-Tite. The situation would be similar to that of
Gaspé or Sept-Îles, something that could make sense. It would be
up to the hon. member for Saint-Maurice to demonstrate that such
an alternative makes sense.
Third, the most absurd alternative would be to set up a regional
management centre in Shawinigan to serve the whole region, a
decision we will always condemn.
16713
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ): Madam
Speaker, let me first start by saying that our worst nightmare has
come true. What we feared when we embarked upon the last
referendum campaign was that the central government would
disregard one of the most solid consensus we have ever seen in
the province of Quebec.
This most solid and deep-rooted consensus is that we will never
be able to do anything about the employment situation if we do not
give the levers required to deal with labour market-related
problems to the most capable level of government to do so.
Right now, the best government to give Quebec a labour market
policy to efficiently fight unemployment is not the central
government, but rather the National Assembly of Quebec.
Why are we saying that it is not the central government? Because
the central government has to make decisions about a labour
market that covers five regions, and we know that the labour
market situation in New-Brunswick is nothing like the situation in
Quebec.
This is why several, if not all, of the major stakeholders on the
Quebec labour market are opposed to Bill C-96.
(1145)
Let me remind the House of some of the organizations that are
against Bill C-96. There is the Société québécoise de
développement de la main-d'oeuvre, the Institut canadien de
l'éducation des adultes, the FTQ, the CLC, and despite this
coalition of organizations representing tens of thousands of
citizens, the central government has the nerve, the gall to introduce
in this House a bill that would allow the federal to interfere in an
area without any mandate to do so.
I hope that the government whip and his team will finally come
to their senses and realize that they are doing something irreparable
by submitting Bill C-96.
Yet, when you think about it it is obvious that everything which
concerns the labour market comes under provincial jurisdiction.
Surely, no member of this House is unaware that the labour code,
the CSST, orders respecting collective agreements and mass layoffs
are areas of provincial jurisdiction and that it is perfectly natural
that labour market-related policies are the specific and exclusive
business of the provinces.
Let me remind the House of a fact: unemployment is not innate.
One is not born unemployed. Unemployment has nothing to do
with genetics. Nor has it anything to do with the language one
speaks. A person's language does not bear on his or her working
skills. How is it, then, that within the federation the unemployment
rate has always been higher in Quebec than in Ontario? Workers in
both provinces have about the same qualifications and live in about
the same social and economic environment. How is it that for the
last 20 or 25 years Quebec has had a higher rate of unemployment
than Ontario? And I am sure we could give very concrete examples
of countries where unemployment was successfully eliminated.
They have what is called a frictional unemployment rate of about 3
or 4 per cent, reflecting the number of people who quit their job for
a very particular reason and are looking for another one.
How is it that we are unable in our system to create conditions
allowing all those who want to work to find a job? Naturally, there
are those who cannot work because they are handicapped and those
who are momentarily out of work and those who do not want to
work. But how is it that in 1995 qualified and competent people
who truly want to work find themselves in a system where the
government is unable to create conditions leading to their
employment? You do not have to be a rocket scientist or have three
doctorates to understand that if unemployment is not a matter of
heredity or of language, there must be political reasons to explain
why the unemployment rate is at 11, 12 or 13 per cent.
These political reasons are very clear: we have two governments
which impede each other's initiatives regarding labour market. The
best example of this inefficiency, my colleague the member for
Trois-Rivières referred to it, is of course the existence of two
manpower centre networks which cancel each other's initiatives.
Let me just remind you that Ottawa administers just as many
programs as Quebec does. Quebec has approximately 25 programs
to put people back to work and so does Ottawa. What this means is
that if the people that we, as members, meet in our constituency
office, and I am sure that this happens to you too, are UI recipients,
they are eligible for some programs, but if they receive income
security benefits, they are eligible for some programs but not for
others.
(1150)
I believe we are mature and lucid enough as parlementarians to
say that the situation we must aim at is having only one
government that will control all powers and levers in order to help
put people back to work, away from that unacceptable situation
called unemployment.
This decision, this wish is incompatible with the existence of
two governments and it certainly is incompatible with the fact that
two governments can each have 25 programs without any
coordination between them. Instead of proposing what all
important stakeholders in Quebec are asking, that is that the federal
government pull out of the labour sector, this government has the
nerve, the irresponsibility and the irreverence to give us a bill, Bill
C-96, which increases the powers of the minister in labour matters.
Can you imagine such a situation where all Quebec stakeholders
are asking for one thing and the Government of Quebec, speaking
as one, is incoherently saying the exact opposite? We must not
forget that the social cost of unemployment was estimated and I am
16714
convinced that all parliamentarians are concerned about this
situation.
I would like to remind you that we have, in Quebec, a very
respectable and respected organization called the Forum pour
l'emploi. Of course, this employment forum expressed the wish to
see all manpower policies transferred to Quebec, but it also
analyzed the social cost of unemployment. It estimated that-I
know this will give you quite a shock, so I will say it slowly-the
economic cost of unemployment for 1993, that is 1993 A.D., not
200 years ago, was about $30 billion.
This means that, because the government is perhaps considering
maintaining a duplication of structures, our society has to put up
with a shortfall of $30 billion. That is the reality. That is what is
unbearable with Bill C-96. Not only will the government not
respect the consensus that exists in Quebec, it included in the bill
dispositions that will allow it to disregard the authority of the
Quebec government and give direct funding to organizations like
CDECs or direct it through other channels for the delivery of
manpower related services, all this without going through the
principal stakeholder, the Quebec government.
But that will not last long. Something will happen soon. There
will be a grass-roots movement. People will take to the streets
when they realize that we cannot support inefficiencies, that there
is no reason to tolerate unemployment rates of 11, 12 or 13 per cent
when other western societies are able to give work to everybody.
Since you are telling me that my time is up, Madam Speaker, I
will conclude by saying that this bill in unacceptable and that we
hope that the government will see the light and respect Quebec's
jurisdictions.
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to make this speech
immediately following the remarks of the hon. member for
Hochelaga-Maisonneuve. I listened very carefully to his remarks
and now I would like to rectify a few things. I would like to show
all our colleagues in this House, particularly members of the Bloc,
that the adoption of Bill C-96 is part of a process that favours
change and that supports the concept of partnerships with the
provinces.
The leader of the Bloc said himself a while ago that he favoured
change but wanted an agreement with the other provinces. I think
this bill is very much in line with this idea. There is a partnership
between the federal government and the provinces and, of course,
there is change.
(1155)
Any motion aimed at delaying the adoption of this bill seems
negative to me and, unfortunately, opposition members sometimes
take a negative and very partisan attitude. This is the opinion I
have of the members opposite. They are not as objective as some of
us are. The bill we are proposing is about greater openness towards
the provinces and a better sharing of responsibilities.
As the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Foreign
Affairs, the member for Parkdale-High Park, said so eloquently in
the House and I quote: ``Bill C-96 is not changing any statutory
powers''. Listen to this, Mr. Speaker. It comes from an authority on
the subject. ``It is not taking any powers away from Quebec or from
any other province. This bill seeks to enable us to work together in
order to deliver programs and services more efficiently at less cost
to the taxpayers''.
And now the member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve is saying
that the bill is useless unless it gives new legislative powers to the
federal government. How can a member of the Bloc who favours
decentralization oppose a bill because it does not centralize
enough? He just told us that the bill is useless unless it provides for
more centralization. The member may be a centralizing separatist,
but not me.
We, in the Liberal Party, are in favour of a flexible federalism
and, in this bill, we simply want to confirm the fact that there is
now a minister who is responsible for several federal departments.
This does not take any powers away from the provinces. Quite the
contrary, this bill gives no power to the federal government that it
did not already have, except that from now on these powers are in
the hands of one minister instead of several.
Our government is deeply committed to reducing spending and
this is why we wanted to reduce the number of ministers and
consolidate some of the existing powers and federal departments.
The powers transferred to the minister of Human Resources
Development are not those of provincial ministers but they are part
of powers that other federal departments already had et they are
being consolidated.
I know that the hon. member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve
wishes to hear what I have to say and that he will listen carefully to
my speech, so that he can be well informed and can vote for Bill
C-96. I know that after hearing what I have to say he will be able to
change his mind. As I look at the hon. member for
Hochelaga-Maisonneuve at this very moment I have no doubt that
he is in the process of changing his mind. He may even be off to
reconsider his position on the bill.
So, to put the excellent words of the parliamentary secretary I
referred to earlier in a perspective even closer to reality, he
declared that the Bloc members began by saying that the
referendum had sent a clear message to the federal government. A
very clear message indeed. It showed that a majority of Quebecers
do not want separation. The parliamentary secretary went on to say
that this was the clear message we received and that we had to work
with that in mind.
16715
This is what we intend to do and therefore we will respect, as
we always have, the will of the people of Canada and, in particular,
of Quebec. This is why we continue to offer good government to
Canadians-those who live in Quebec and those who live
elsewhere, of course.
(1200)
A few days ago, on November 20, 1995, the Parliamentary
Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, said: ``I draw the
attention of the official opposition to recent post referendum polls,
which state that 61 per cent of Quebecers want to remain in Canada
and 78 per cent of Quebecers want to see major changes to the way
the Canadian federation works''. People want functional changes
while remaining in Canada. That is what Quebecers want and we,
of course, intend to respect that.
Today, we have before us a bill whose purpose is not to
centralize but to consolidate into one department the work being
done by different federal departments in order to improve
government operations and to cut costs. ``It is through bills such as
this that hopefully through provincial federal co-operation we can
get more people to work'', said the hon. member for
Parkdale-High Park.
On November 9, the Minister of Human Resources Development
clearly addressed one of the essential impacts of this bill. He said
and I quote: ``- 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. 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 what the minister
said.
The opposition saw or pretended to see in Bill C-96 a move by
the federal government to take over new powers. According to
them, it is an intrusion in a provincial jurisdiction. In fact, the
member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve spoke to it earlier, and I
know he is listening carefully.
The reality is quite different. For instance, one must examine the
exact wording of clause 6 of the bill, which is in fact a restrictive
clause. It sets limits to the powers vested in the minister by the bill.
It clearly says that the only issues concerned are those under the
jurisdiction of Parliament. Again, the only issues concerned are
those under the jurisdiction of this Parliament, period.
This clause applies to everything under the authority of the
Department of Human Resources Development. Any existing
statutory power will remain exactly the same after this bill is
passed. I repeat for the member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, the
same.
There is definitely no intrusion on areas of provincial
jurisdiction: the bill forbids that. It is crystal clear. That being said,
I am sure-maybe not sure, but I hope-that the Bloc members
will change their mind and vote for the bill. I already see in the eyes
of some of them that they are tempted to change their mind and
suddenly vote for such a good bill.
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Mr. Speaker, when I
hear the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell telling us that
it is crystal clear and explaining things at great length, with a
certain sense of humour, I feel that, after all, the problem might lie
in the very objective way he is looking at the situation, a liberal and
objective way, I might add.
I will use the next few minutes to explain to my ``objective''
colleague a number of facts which might help him understand our
huge reservations-I am quite sure that he is listening very
carefully to my remarks and that he will take them into serious
consideration.
Instead of being part of the solution, Bill C-96 makes the
problem worse.
(1205)
Indeed, far from heralding the withdrawal of the federal
government from manpower training, Bill C-96 reinforces the
federal presence in this area. Duplications and inefficiencies
resulting from this bill will grant the minister new powers, whether
the objective member opposite likes it or not, new powers to
negotiate directly with local governments or agencies, bypassing
the provinces, which will enable him to set directions, standards
and outcomes unilaterally.
The honourable government whip told us that clause 6 did not
provide for new powers and that it defined and restricted them.
Well then, let us have a look at clause 6. It reads:
The powers, duties and functions of the minister extend to and include all
matters over which Parliament has jurisdiction-
Tell me, Mr. Speaker, is there any matter over which Parliament
does not have jurisdiction, and which would not come under the
laws of the land? Whatever goes on from sea to sea is regulated by
this country's legislation and, consequently, is a matter over which
Parliament has jurisdiction one way or another.
Not only are they not restricted, but they are incredibly
increased. In fact, the powers, duties and functions of the minister
are quite broad. Moreover, contrary to the present legislation, they
are not specified, and we know that the federal government has a
habit of intruding on matters of provincial jurisdiction. Therefore,
there is cause for concern when you see the numerous jurisdictions
of Parliament.
Let me quote the description of Human Resources Development
Canada which is found in the Budget Plan tabled on February 27,
1995. It says: ``Human Resources Development Canada
administers unemployment insurance, income security programs
for children and the elderly, the current federal programs of
support to
16716
provinces for post-secondary education and welfare, labour market
adjustment and social development programs, and student loans.''
What we see today, with Bill C-96, is a strengthening of the
federal government's hold on each of these areas and on all of them
collectively. I was listening earlier to the member who expressed
some deep feelings about this. I remember that the Minister of
Human Resources Development has told us repeatedly that we
simply did not understand that things would be better. It seems the
only ones who are optimistic about Bill C-96 are the government
party and the minister.
I would like to refer to a press release issued by the Institut
canadien d'éducation des adultes on October 5, 1995. It says that
the Board of directors of the ICEA, formed of academic, labour and
community representatives, is unanimously opposed to Bill C-96.
The organization invites all its partners to mobilize and denounce
that bill which undermines the equity principle governing our
social security system in Canada and denies the exclusive
jurisdiction of provinces over manpower training and development.
It is not a sovereignist institute from Quebec which says that, it
is the Institut canadien d'éducation des adultes. It seems that only
the minister and the cabinet believe that Bill C-96 is a good thing.
No, it is not a good thing. The same press release says: ``Bill C-96
is, for the most part, one of the worst scenarios, something that our
Institute denounced last fall, during the hearings of the Standing
Committee on Human Resources Development.'' This indicates
not only that the minister consulted, but that he was told that this
was the worst thing to do. And yet, he went ahead and did it.
I would also like to mention the position of the Quebec
government, because I believe that our viewers should know what
Quebec thinks of this intrusion.
(1210)
Mrs. Harel, the Quebec Minister, said: ``When you read Bill
C-96, you understand why the federal Minister of Human
Resources Development did not respond, last spring, to my
pressing demand for a federal-provincial conference on that
reform. The bill is the opposite of the Quebec consensus on
manpower. The opposite of the single window principle. This is
proof that the federal government is committed to continuing and
even increasing the costly duplication and overlap in the area of
manpower in Quebec''.
So, when the minister tells us, as he did during Question Period,
``I consulted, I went to see my counterparts in the other provinces'',
we can only say that as far as the Quebec minister is concerned this
was not the case. Once again, we have a minister who is intruding
on provincial areas of jurisdiction and in particular Quebec
jurisdiction, in a dangerous manner.
I would also like to mention the SQDM. Yesterday during
Question Period, the Minister of Human Resources Development
said that during the summer he met, through officials, with
representatives from the SQDM and that agreements had been
signed. He implied that everything was fine. Yet, nothing could be
further from the truth. On October 4, 1995, the SQDM stated its
position on Bill C-96 in a press release and I quote: ``The board
members of the Société québécoise de développement de la
main-d'oeuvre ask the federal government not to set up a parallel
structure of partnership and not to take initiatives overlapping
Quebec jurisdiction in the area of manpower development''.
Bill C-96 has catastrophic consequences. Starting withMr. Valcourt, a former minister in the previous federal government,
and now with the present minister, we are headed toward disaster in
the area of manpower management.
In fact, in his recent report, the auditor general mentioned that
job creation through the manpower development programs of our
Canada Employment Centres was more costly in Quebec than
elsewhere. Why? Why is it that the federal government is less
efficient in Quebec than elsewhere? Simply because it stubbornly
refuses to give Quebec all of the powers in this area.
To conclude, I would like to give specific examples affecting
ordinary people. We are not talking about a piece of paper called a
bill, but about real people suffering through real unemployment.
A few weeks ago, a woman who wanted to start her own business
dropped by my office. There is a program called Self-Employment
Assistance which would have allowed her, because she was
receiving unemployment benefits, to start a business, to create
jobs. Believe it or not, there is just enough money in this program
to satisfy a handful of individuals in my own riding, and she was
told to look for a job rather than to create one since, if she created
one, she would no longer be eligible for unemployment insurance
benefits. That is the great way unemployment is being perpetuated
in Quebec. We prefer to give money to people to do nothing rather
than help them create jobs for themselves and for others.
I will conclude on this note: I look forward to the day where a
minister will have the courage to tell his or her civil servants that
the federal government will no longer interfere in the manpower
area in Quebec and that it is going to give the province all of the
powers in this field, which will result in huge savings. We will, at
last, be able to create the jobs that everybody needs.
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, as the
saying goes, the proof is in the pudding. Let me tell you that I
believe this hold true for what the Chrétien government intends to
do with regard to social program reform, especially unemployment
insurance.
16717
Contrary to the fine promises which were uttered with a hand
on one's heart, contrary to the statements of love and respect made
in a none too subtle way in Montreal, the federal government is
preparing to circumvent the will of Quebecers in a vital sector,
that is to say training and labour programs.
(1215)
Once again this government which claims to be in favour of a
decentralization of powers is preparing to grab greater powers by
means of the administrative restructuring of the Department of
Human Resources Development Canada, which is the purpose of
Bill-96.
Unfortunately this is not a coincidence since the same thing
happened with other departments. This is the case for example of
the Department of Health and the Department of Canadian
Heritage. I have already condemned the same underhanded tactics
used by the government in those cases.
In the bill before us, that deals with the Department of Human
Resources Development, the minister gives himself an enormous
power that will extend to all areas relating to manpower.
As we are now able to really identify the government's huge
appetite, members of the Bloc Quebecois want to alert public
opinion in both Canada and Quebec. Bill C-96 contains a key
section, that is, section 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, and are to be
exercised with the objective of enhancing employment, encouraging equality
and promoting social security.
This section contains all the potential sources of major conflict
between the provinces and especially between Quebec and the
federal government. Indeed, it is important as this moment to go
back in time and to point out clearly that the federal government,
after some unfortunate procedures before the Privy Council and to
the great displeasure of the provinces, obtained constitutional
jurisdiction only over unemployment insurance. It is because of its
strange and omnipotent spending power that it has invaded
manpower training and that it now wants to get into the field of
equality and social security.
I am not making this up; it is clearly set out in section 6 of the
bill. This further intrusion is very badly orchestrated and has been
denounced by many stakeholders, both sovereignist and federalist,
such as the Société québécoise de développement de la
main-d'oeuvre, the Canadian Labour Congress, the Canadian
Institute of Adult Education and the Quebec Minister of
Employment.
I would also remind the House that, historically and constantly,
all Quebec spokepersons on this issue have denounced federal
interference in manpower training. What will provincial
organizations and governments think of this new federal intrusion
in an exclusively provincial jurisdiction? I am sure that reactions
are currently negative, will be negative and will soon be made
known. They will follow Quebec's claims. Will they have the good
fortune of influencing the direction that the current government has
set for itself? I have my doubts about that. This is a very
unfortunate situation because this new constitutional snag goes
against the interests of the population.
In a document called ``Un Québec pour l'emploi'', which he
published this year, Pierre Paquette analyzes the requirements for a
full employment policy in modern Quebec. Mr. Paquette, who has
been secretary general of the CNTU for five years, has also sat on
the board of directors of the Economic Council of Canada and on
committees to kick-start the economy and stimulate employment in
the southwest and east end of Montreal. He identifies three major
elements of a comprehensive employment strategy.
The first element is all the actions that have a bearing on
economic growth factors, including both individual corporate
policies and social economic policies affecting all of society as
well as the international community. The second element is the link
between sectoral and regional development policies as part of an
industrial policy. The third and last element stresses the importance
of implementing a whole series of active manpower initiatives
including professional training, placement, specific measures for
disadvantaged groups and regions, and reducing the number of
hours of work in all its forms.
You may have noted that all these areas come under exclusive
provincial jurisdiction. Mr. Paquette goes on to say, ``Effective
implementation of a comprehensive full employment strategy
requires a strong social consensus. In this regard, it is hard to
imagine how the various social stakeholders across Canada could
agree on the implementation of a full employment policy''.
(1220)
This conclusion is clear and explicit. As we have said a thousand
times in this House, there is a consensus in Quebec that this
government persists in ignoring with impunity.
The people of Quebec reject Bill C-96. They reject this
counterproductive approach, which, far from giving them
concerted access to the work place, keeps them a little further
away.
In closing, I would like to make a suggestion to the government,
which, until the next referendum on Quebec's future, will at least
allow the people to benefit from their contributions to both levels
of government.
16718
I would suggest that the federal government should withdraw
completely from all employment, manpower, social assistance and
training matters. At the same time, I would suggest that the federal
government should transfer to the government closest to the
people, the provincial government, the money needed to put in
place a real full employment policy, as the Quebec government
wishes. This will demonstrate concretely the government's
commitment to the equality and social security it refers to in
clause 6 of its bill. I thank you and I hope that this government
has heard my message.
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the federal
government promised Quebecers that many things would change if
they voted no in the October 30, 1995, referendum.
A mere three weeks after the referendum, Quebecers are already
getting a taste of changes to come as the Minister of Human
Resources Development presents Bill C-96 to merge four
departments into a single one. But at the same time, as could be
expected, he gives himself broader powers, continues to invade
provincial jurisdictions and goes against the quasi unanimous
consensus in Quebec on this issue.
Back in 1991, the Bourassa government was asking that Quebec
be responsible for all expenditures relating to manpower
development, including training. At the time, Mr. Bourbeau, the
minister responsible, had written his federal counterpart a very
clear letter on this subject.
Time and time again, the Quebec national assembly requested
almost unanimously that Ottawa withdraw from this provincial
area of jurisdiction. After this bill was introduced, several major
stakeholders in Quebec made representations against the HRD
minister's centralizing designs. For example, the Société
québécoise de développement de la main-d'oeuvre takes issue with
the government repeatedly trying to interfere in provincial areas of
jurisdiction.
According to the SQDM, clauses 6 and 20 of Bill C-96 would
empower the Minister of Human Resources Development to enter
into agreements with a province, a group of provinces, agencies of
provinces, financial institutions and such other persons or bodies as
the minister considers appropriate, to improve the labour market
and promote equality and social security.
In so doing, the minister blatantly violates provincial
jurisdiction and goes directly against Prime Minister Chrétien's
promises of decentralization during the referendum campaign.
These promises were short-lived. When questioned on this by the
Bloc Quebecois, the minister said, with rare degree of arrogance,
that the opposition had obviously not even bothered to read the bill.
(1225)
Not only must this bill be read line by line, it must also be read
between the lines. One must do more than read the bill, and when
that happens, one realizes that it is totally different from what it
appears to be, because it allows the federal government to interfere
in areas of provincial jurisdiction.
In response to another question from the Leader of the
Opposition, the minister answered that he felt that the hon. member
had strayed substantially from the line of logic and reason. That
attitude shows clearly that the minister does not understand the
issue and that he insults every Quebec stakeholder opposed to the
new bill.
Even the Conseil du patronat, and this is quite something
because that staunch supporter of federalism rarely agrees with the
Bloc's philosophy, is asking the minister to amend, if not withdraw,
Bill C-96.
With the rapid development of new technologies and the
globalization of markets, Quebec industry must quickly adapt to
meet the new challenges of the world economy. Manpower training
plays a vital role in ensuring that our workers are familiar with
state-of-the-art technology and can meet the needs of the Quebec
labour market.
Currently, there are close to 70,000 jobs which are available in
Quebec but remain unfilled because adequate occupational training
was not provided. The Quebec government recently introduced
legislation to encourage companies to offer more in-house training.
However, a lot remains to be done and, without total control in
that sector, the provincial government cannot adequately meet the
expectations of the Quebec labour market. The federal and
provincial governments are always competing to show workers
which of the two levels of government can best meet their
expectations and aspirations.
When that happens, it costs millions of dollars in unnecessary
duplication. Such duplication costs several hundreds of millions in
the manpower training sector, and that is a real shame. For
example, in the Eastern Townships, for every dollar spent on
manpower training, 42 cents go to administrative costs. Over 40
per cent, more specifically 42 per cent, of the amount which should
be used for manpower development is used instead to pay for
course organization, promotional efforts and course delivery. This
is an incredible waste of energy and money.
Unfortunately, Quebec workers are the ones who are affected by
the stubbornness of the federal government and of its Minister of
Human Resources Development. Moreover, since the 1990 UI
reform, the federal government has been making extensive use of
the UI fund for training purposes.
16719
(1230)
In 1994-95, $531 million were spent for that purpose. The
federal department now offers 27 initiatives or programs, most of
which create duplication with the 22 programs offered by the
SQDM and others offered by various departments.
In 1994, the federal government announced the creation of Youth
Service, at a cost of $175 million. This program is entirely
comparable to the Volunteer Youth Action Program which is
efficiently run by the SQDM. In spite of repeated demands by the
Quebec government, the federal government keeps refusing to
transfer funds into the provincial program, thus wasting money
because of duplication.
Another equally pathetic example is the federal program that
matches another similar Quebec program called Jeunes stagiaires.
The 50 Canadian sectorial skills council, set up in 1992, are another
case of duplication, considering the 15 Quebec manpower sector
committees which have been in place for more that five years. The
federal government will spend more that $250 million to set up its
own councils. Finally, because of the rigid standards for POWA,
the federal government has failed to compensate many garment
sector workers.
In view of the difficulties some workers were experiencing, the
Quebec government, through the SQDM, had to step in to make up
for the federal government's shortcomings. There again, we have
duplication. What a waste of money and time. The cost of all this
duplication is estimated at $250 million a year. That is poor
management and poor efficiency.
In conclusion, I would say that federal intrusion in the area of
human resources development since 1942 is one more example of
its abuse of the spending power and of its disregard for the
exclusive jurisdictions of the Quebec government.
Constitutionally, the provinces have exclusive jurisdiction over
manpower training, but, to this day, the stubbornness of the federal
government still undermines the development of the Quebec
economy.
Vocational training is the cornerstone of competitiveness and
availability of highly skilled workers, two assets that are essential
if we are to develop a high technology economy, attract many
investors and produce value added goods.
This minister and his government should stop all this nonsense
and give back to Quebecers all the tools they need to deal with after
manpower training. Bill C-96 should therefore be withdrawn, and
the Prime Minister should start to deliver on his decentralization
promises in areas where a strong consensus exists in Quebec.
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, not long
ago, I read the speech the Minister of Human Resources
Development made during second reading of Bill C-96. This bill,
entitled an Act to establish the Department of Human Resources
Development and to amend and repeal certain related Acts,
certainly stems from a noble intent.
When I read this speech, I got the feeling that we were taking
part in a huge change operation, a bit like the edifying
commitments the Liberals make to try to make us swallow the pill.
The minister said, and I quote: ``a new, innovative way of doing
government, to get people to begin to think differently about how
government can relate to individuals, to provide a much more
effective way of enabling people to respond and make choices
themselves and not have choices made for them, to share, to create
partnerships, to get away from the top down command system and
to turn that into a Canadian Tire philosophy based in the local
communities with tools and instruments customized and tailored to
the needs of those communities.''
One could think that the minister is talking about real
decentralization and is about to comply once and for all with the
repeated and urgent requests of the province of Quebec for control
over the policies and programs concerning manpower and training.
(1235)
However, the minister warned us right from the start. ``It is, he
said, decentralization of a very different kind.''
The minister then said: ``There has been a lot of talk about
decentralization. So far it has been a somewhat restricted debate as
it talks only about decentralization in terms of transferring from the
federal government to provincial governments.'' And this is very
significant. The message here is clear. The kind of decentralization
the minister is bragging about has nothing to do with Quebec's
expectations and ignores the consensus that was reached in Quebec
over manpower training.
Let us look at this a little bit closer. Even though the prime
minister told us, in answer to our questions, that the official
opposition had obviously not bothered to read Bill C-96, we have to
conclude that several individuals, institutions and organizations in
Quebec are really ignorant, according to the prime minister.
Unfortunately for him, the people of Quebec also know how to read
between the lines.
It is appalling but not really surprising to see that Bill C-96 goes
totally against the large consensus reached in Quebec over
manpower issues. For several years now, all those involved in
Quebec's labour force have agreed to demand the repatriation to
Quebec of all manpower training programs and of the related
budgets.
Far from abiding by this unanimous consent, the federal
government has announced its intent to continue with and even
increase all of the costly duplication and overlap. Once again, the
Liberal government ignores its own basic rule. Yet, the Canadian
Constitution 1867 recognizes clearly and explicitly the areas of
provincial jurisdiction. But for years now the federal government
has been using its spending power and its authority to impose
national standards and to infringe upon the jurisdictions of the
provinces. All that Bill C-96 does is legalizing a de facto situation.
16720
Whatever the Prime Minister says, we did read this bill, and
it was easy for us to grab its real intent. For example, clauses 6,
20 and 21 are unequivocal.
Clause 6 aims at extending federal jurisdiction by expanding the
powers, duties and functions of the Minister. Clause 20 provides
that the Minister may negotiate and enter into agreements with, and
I quote: ``such other persons or bodies as the Minister considers
appropriate.''
In the same vein, clause 21 reiterates that the Minister may
authorize any other person or body to exercise any power or
perform any duty or function of the Minister.
All that to make sure we understand that the Minister has no
obligation to consult or agree with the provinces in precise areas of
provincial jurisdiction.
Indeed, from now on, according to Bill C-96, the department of
Human Resources Development will be authorized to by-pass the
provinces and impose manpower standards and policies. It will be
able to develop a parallel federal structure to intervene on the
Quebec labour market.
The federal government is empowering itself to by-pass the
provinces and to intervene directly with bodies, municipal
governments and individuals. While the Constitution gives
provinces power over manpower development and vocational
training, the federal gouvernment has chosen to ignore it.
So history repeats itself. It will be remembered that, in 1991, the
previous Conservative government tried to encroach upon
provincial jurisdiction and directly interfere in matters regarding
vocational training and manpower. Once again, Quebec
unanimously denounced these centralizing and unconstitutional
moves by the federal government.
The Quebec Liberal Party and the Conseil du patronat du Québec
added their voice to this denunciation. The same centralizing
designs, which are spelled out in Bill C-96, are now giving rise to
the same denunciations everywhere in Quebec. The initiative is,
however, more subtle this time, because it comes a few days after
the referendum.
(1240)
While the Liberals spoke of nothing but change during the
referendum campaign, there are now, with Bill C-96, attempting
further intrusion in the area of training.
The Canadian provinces have different labour markets. A
centralized and uniform approach would hardly help anyone. The
result would be more red tape, as my colleague for Joliette clearly
demonstrated earlier.
Let us not forget that Quebec already has established manpower
networks. The Société québécoise de développement de la
main-d'oeuvre is a special form of partnership involving all
Quebec stakeholders in manpower matters, whether they are
employers, unions, co-operatives, educators or community groups.
Quebecers know better than anyone else what is good for them.
Quebecers must decide what their manpower policies should be
and set their own priorities.
This is not a symbolic demand or the confirmation of a historic
right. It is only a matter of good old common sense for those who
take to heart the promotion and the support of manpower
development. If there really is a will to change and to decentralize
in Canada, as we were told during the referendum campaign, this is
the time for the winds to blow.
If Bill C-96 is a proof of the flexibility the Liberal government
boasts about, if it is indicative of the rejection of, and I quote the
minister of Human Resources Development, ``the old top down
centralized hierarchies of governmental organization, which have
been really a product of the old industrial age'', then, it is a total
failure.
Bill C-96 sends a clear message to the Quebec Liberal Party, to
the Conseil du patronat and to all other partners in the field of
employment in Quebec, and it is that the federal government will
never accept that Quebec assume sole responsibility for manpower
training within its territory. Ottawa will never accept either that
Quebec repatriate the funds that the federal government allocates
to manpower training programs. Quebecers will clearly see that it
is impossible to develop a Quebec manpower policy suited to its
realities and administered by Quebec if they stay in Canada. That
will only be possible in a sovereign Quebec.
Therefore, I urge all members of Parliament who really care for
the improvement of relations between the two founding peoples of
this country to support the amendment proposed by the hon.
member for Mercier and to vote against Bill C-96.
Mr. Patrick Gagnon (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in fact, the bill has
nothing to do with jurisdictions. It has everything to do with
people. It is aimed at helping Canadians and, of course, Quebecers
in remote areas to find jobs.
The bill is designed to allow young people, older workers, single
mothers and low income individuals to acquire the skills they need
in our ever-changing economy. It is also aimed at bringing
communities, businesses and all levels of government together to
look at the human aspect of regional economic development.
This means that other forms of agreements and partnerships
between the federal government and the provinces are possible.
Quebec talked a lot about partnership during the referendum
campaign and we are willing to go in this direction. As a matter of
fact, partnerships with local and regional economic development
16721
authorities in the area of social and labour programs are highly
desirable. That is certainly the way to go.
If we really want to pursue this discussion in a positive manner,
it is important that we adopt this bill now and start working towards
establishing new and improved partnerships with one another.
While some members are worrying about the federal
government taking powers away from the provinces, the
Department of Human Resources Development is doing its job
with Quebecers and, of course, with the Quebec government. Using
jurisdictional considerations as an excuse, members of the Bloc
would want us to do nothing. Let us say this: in the name of the
progress and of the changes that are obviously wanted in Quebec,
let us find better ways of doing our job.
(1245)
Canadians, as well as Quebecers, are well aware that the federal
government has a legitimate role to play in development and
manpower. So let us get things straight.
We had a case, the other day, that showed the urgent need for
federal involvement, through its agencies, its community
development organizations which play an active role in every
regional county municipality and through the Federal Office of
Regional Development, which is always there to give a welcome
and desirable helping hand to stimulate small businesses in
Quebec. There are other examples, such as the Federal Business
Development Bank. When there is a need for a partner, to set up a
small business in Quebec, especially in remote areas, this
additional financial help from the federal government is always
welcome.
I would like to talk about a particular case that occurred in my
county a few weeks ago. Throughout the referendum campaign in
the riding of Bonaventure, the minister of agriculture, who happens
to be my provincial MNA in Quebec City, asked for the
participation of the federal government in order to stimulate, or
create if you will, a dairy industry in Gaspésie. Following pressure
from that minister, it was agreed that the federal government would
invest in the establishment of a cheese-making operation in that
region. Now, the day after the referendum, that very same minister
who had challenged us to invest reneged. He decided, on the basis
of provincial programs and on the advice of his provincial
bureaucrats, that the agreement was no longer valid. I find that
most unfortunate, but fortunately the federal government remains
present even if the Government of Quebec went back on its
commitment to develop an important industry in Quebec, and
especially in my region which is said to be a depressed area.
The federal government is also committed to helping people who
are victims of particular circumstances that do not apply only to
one province. This is the case of senior workers whose jobs are
being jeopardized by the restructuring of the economy. It is also the
case of some workers in fisheries. We have all heard about TAGS.
In Quebec $100 million was spent to support those who were hard
hit by that moratorium. There are still considerable investments
being made to find new markets for underdeveloped species. As we
know, however, fortunately it is the federal government that
manages fisheries in the Gulf and elsewhere, but once the fish gets
to the docks it is the responsibility of the province from then on. It
is then up to Quebec to issue fish processing plant operating
permits, but unfortunately Quebec is still refusing to invest the
amounts necessary to give our local entrepreneurs a chance to
diversify, particularly into underdeveloped species such as
mackerel and herring.
There are lots of similar examples in Quebec, unfortunately
demonstrating Quebec's intransigence and the fact that it is not
necessarily attuned to the true needs of the population. When I
heard the opposition saying ``All we want is decentralization, all
we want is for Quebec to make a final decision'', were they
referring only to the SQDM? Mention has never been made of the
fact that there are people who are what the Bloc would probably
call ``Quebecers of the majority'', old-stock Quebecers, working
for the federal public service, who come from the Magdalen
Islands, Bonaventure of course, or elsewhere in Quebec, and that
these people are seeking, not only as federal employees, but as
concerned individuals, to provide the public with proper services.
(1250)
And in all the speeches I have heard this morning, there was not
a single member of the Bloc, not a single member of the
opposition, came forward with a good idea. The only thing that was
said is that everything that happening in Quebec at this time is the
federal government's fault. What I find regrettable, however, is that
no one is listening to the voice of the people. There is already talk
of a third referendum in Quebec. Mr. Speaker, let me state here to
you, here before my constituents, before eastern Quebec, before all
Quebecers, that the winning side this past October 30 was the no
side.
I believe that what will be expected of the outgoing Leader of the
Opposition, when he is premier of Quebec as he surely will
be-and let me, in passing, wish him luck-is a commitment. He
must make a commitment. In fact, he did, and people in the PQ
government have announced they are prepared to work together
with the Canadian government. I think Quebecers are fed up with
constitutional discussions that fail to provide any answers. We
want to put Quebecers back to work, and this will happen within
the Canadian federation.
Throughout the referendum campaign, we made it clear that if
Quebec left Canada, it would lose several billion dollars worth of
federal investment. Losses would be considerable and would be felt
by everyone, but especially by the most vulnerable people in the
province of Quebec. I think we have reached a point in our history
where we should look at what we have in common, instead of being
16722
divided and dwelling on the past like the Leader of the Opposition
did throughout the last referendum campaign.
I challenge the future Premier of Quebec and members of the
opposition to lay down their arms and say: ``We are willing to work
with everyone. We are willing to work with the federal
government, the municipalities and, of course, the other
provinces''. I think it is really too bad that the Quebec government,
which claims to be anxious to promote regional economic
development, tends to boycott agreements and federal-provincial
meetings and conferences.
I think that is too bad, and it is unfortunate that in several
sectors, including fisheries and agri-food and agriculture, we see
this refusal to meet Minister Tobin and officials and ministers from
the other Canadian provinces. I think the Quebec government and
especially members opposite will have to consider that people want
development, but not if it means Quebec has to separate, not if it
means breaking up and destroying the country.
I think that people, especially in Quebec, want to build a fair and
credible society, and this will happen within the Canadian
federation. In concluding, I would urge opposition members to
suggest alternatives, to work with us, but even more important, to
work with and for their constituents. I am convinced and confident
that their constituents feel it is up to them to work with us to
strengthen the economy of Quebec and Canada.
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, before he leaves, I
would like to congratulate the member for
Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine for having successfully
enlivened the debate this morning to some extent on that side of the
House, because, up to now, things were pretty quiet.
Mr. Gagnon: True. True.
Mr. Dubé: He encouraged us to pay attention to and analyze the
outcome of the referendum. I would like to return to his
recommendation, and look at the outcome of the referendum in his
riding. In his own
riding-Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine-as he knows, it was
not the no vote that won, but the yes. So, if he truly spoke for the
people of his riding, he would be saying something different. It
appears he did not listen carefully. Too bad for him.
I, however, remember. I have listened carefully to most of the
speeches by the member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine. I
remember him from when I was a brand new member. There was a
debate on the famous ferry that would run between the Magdalen
Islands and Prince Edward Island. The solutions proposed by the
Government of Quebec were not particularly to his liking. He said:
``I will listen to what my people have to say, and, you watch, we
will come up with a solution''.
(1255)
The solution the federal government came up with was to buy a
secondhand boat from somewhere else, rather than have a new boat
built. Since then, the president of the Société de transport des
Îles-de-la-Madeleine has been running around after secondhand
boats, with $30 million of federal money. Recently, someone said
on his behalf, a representative of the Société said: ``Unfortunately,
the federal government took so long in the matter, I missed an
opportunity. The boat was sold elsewhere. There are no more
secondhand boats for sale''.
Meanwhile, I know, because we are talking about real problems,
we are not talking Constitution, we are talking jobs, I am the
member for Lévis, where the Chantier maritime de Lévis is
located, and where workers at MIL Davie remember what the
member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine said: ``A second
hand boat rather than a new one''. Hundreds of unemployed
workers remember that.
I listen to them and I say to the member, because sometimes we
have to raise our voices so the member opposite understands: Not
only did you not listen to the people of Lévis, you did not even
listen to the people of the Magdalen Islands.
Before you warn me about the relevance of my remarks, Mr.
Speaker, I will return to Bill C-96.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I simply want to put you at
ease. It has nothing to do with relevance. You should, however,
always address your comments to the chair, and not directly to each
other.
Mr. Dubé: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. You understand that we
cannot always resist temptation. I have every intention of following
your rules, which I graciously accept because of my great respect
for your position.
The hon. member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine, for
example, wonders what the official opposition is worried about,
arguing that this bill will not broaden the human resources
development minister's jurisdiction.
Not only is the hon. member for
Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine not listening, but he has
apparently not read the bill. What does the bill do? It expands the
Department of Human Resources Development. It must be realized
that, if we take away the money allocated to debt servicing, it
almost exceeds 50 per cent of the federal budget. That is quite
something.
It includes the old employment department, the labour
department. It is responsible for old age pensions. On this subject, I
simply wish to remind the hon. member for
Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine about the debate surrounding
the replacement of many employment centres with computer
terminals.
16723
As one who listens to citizens and to seniors in particular-and I
know that all members on this side of the House have heard
them-, I can tell you that they are concerned. They are not used to
typing on computer terminals to get information. They are very
concerned about this. The government is saying that they are
moving their services closer to the people, but installing a
computer terminal in a municipal location is not the way to go.
My main concern-and that is clear from the debate today-is
that Bill C-96 will enable the federal government to deal directly
with agencies and individuals in matters coming under the
exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces like postsecondary
education, security and manpower training. It is certainly not a case
of jurisdictions being unclear.
The hon. member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine
suggested that we look ahead not back. I would actually encourage
him to go back to the Canadian Constitution and read it over. The
Constitution states that these areas are indeed areas of exclusive
provincial jurisdiction.
The hon. member closed by saying: ``Let the members of the
Bloc Quebecois and the Parti Quebecois, the people of Quebec and
the Société québécoise de développement de la main-d'oeuvre
come and help us, the federal government, to do what we have set
out to do, so that it can be better done, in partnership''.
He got it all wrong. It should be just the opposite. The federal
government should be the one trying to help provincial
governments in exercising their exclusive jurisdictions. That is
what decentralization should be about. It should not be about the
federal government decentralizing its action by going over the
heads of the provinces to deal with agencies, businesses and
individuals. This is not decentralizing. It is by-passing, going over
the heads of the provinces. That is not the same thing, and it
certainly does not qualify as decentralization.
On the contrary, that is centralizing. You keep the money, spend
it according to certain rules or national standards and go over the
heads of the provinces to deal directly with businesses and
individuals in areas of provincial jurisdiction.
(1300)
The past often gives us an indication of what the future holds. I
will not go very far back in time. I will focus on the past couple of
years. As the opposition's critic for training and youth, I would like
to remind the House of a bill I mentioned a number of times
already to give you an idea of what the minister has in mind when
he talks about decentralizing. I am referring to the infamous Bill
C-28 that the House passed on June 23, 1994. What is so special
about this bill that the Minister of Human Resources Development
is responsible for? Subsection 3(1) states that, from now on, the
HRD minister will designate himself appropriate educational
authorities for the provinces, which flies in the face of the
Constitution. I say it again because people have to understand.
Over time, people may forget the connection between certain
legislative measures passed by the government. Bill C-28 is an
example of a case where the federal government ignored the
provinces.
Subsection 14(7) states that Quebec can opt out, with financial
compensation, like before, provided that its program meets every
requirement and that each of its components is similar to that of the
federal program.
The Quebec government is free to do what it wants and, yes, will
even get money. However, that money, which, incidentally, comes
from Quebecers who pay 24 per cent of their taxes to Ottawa, will
only be paid provided certain conditions are met. In other words,
Quebec is free to do what it wants, but if it does not do this or that,
the federal government will cut funding. What a nice way to view
decentralization, this in a field of provincial jurisdiction. Such is
the spirit that guides this government.
I followed every initiative of the minister regarding his
employment development strategy for young people. One must
admit that, in the two-year period, it has not met with much
success. The figures for the last two months show that the
unemployment rate for the under-25 group is exactly the same as it
was two years ago, when the minister took office. This is quite the
strategy.
My limited studies in political science have taught me that a
political or administrative strategy was good to the extent that it
produced results. Otherwise, the strategy was not good and had to
be changed. I invite the Minister of Human Resources
Development to change his strategy for helping young people find
jobs. At the moment, he is in the process of trying to duplicate
Quebec provincial programs at the federal level. For example his
Youth Service Canada is identical in every respect to the Quebec
program Jeunes Volontaires. He has tried something involving
work placements as well, but these are things that have already
been done by the Government of Quebec and the Société
québécoise de la main-d'oeuvre.
During the referendum campaign, Quebecers heard and saw all
this, with training and employability enhancement programs that
change daily, but the last time I looked there were 102 federal and
provincial programs. The total has even gone as high as 108, but a
few were combined after that. It is still a huge number, and people
cannot find their way around all these programs.
A number of stakeholders in the Société québécoise de la
main-d'oeuvre, including Mr. Béland, the president of the
Confédération des caisses populaires et d'économie Desjardins du
Québec, the FTQ, labour federations, and the Conseil du Patronat
as well, have been unanimous in demanding that the federal
government pull out of this area. Despite their repeated demands,
however-and this is where there is a danger when it comes to
public opinion-there is a certain fatigue setting in and the strategy
of the government across the way, apart from answering questions
16724
asked during question period, is to pretend that everything is rosy.
No reaction. Total silence. No problem. With time, people are
saying, ``Maybe the Bloc MPs will get fed up. Anyway, it is a
temporary party only''. They are aware that we are in existence for
a limited time, but that time is a bit longer than planned, and we
continue to keep our shoulders to the wheel, to be vigilant,
tenacious, persevering, keeping on our toes, and it is our intention
to remain that way. We will continue until the Quebec consensus
concerning manpower is satisfied with the federal government's
actions.
(1305)
Mr. André Caron (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I welcome
this opportunity to join my fellow Bloc members in speaking to
Bill C-96, an act to establish the Department of Human Resources
Development and to amend and repeal certain related acts.
As my colleagues explained earlier, this is an important bill. Last
week when we were debating the amendment of the hon. member
for Mercier, government members said that the bill simply grouped
certain components without introducing any new elements. They
told us not to worry. They said that the federal government would
keep up the good work in the provinces and municipalities for the
benefit of Canadians, and that basically, there was very little to get
upset about. They assumed that the referendum was partly to blame
that it was nothing very serious.
I would like to point out that the opposition of the Bloc
Quebecois to this bill is fundamental. This bill goes to the very
heart of a certain definition, a particular vision of Canadian
federalism. First of all, the Department of Human Resources
Development. As the hon. member for Lévis said earlier, this is a
very important department. It is responsible for unemployment
insurance, old age security, education and transfers to the provinces
for social assistance, and it has a budget that is probably second
only to the budget for servicing Canada's debt.
This department is a giant that is able to intervene in areas which
it assumes are under its jurisdiction. It can intervene effectively
because it has the resources. Over the years, the department has
developed a mandate for intervention. Consider unemployment
insurance, which required an amendment to the Canadian
Constitution. Consider old age security, family allowances and
federal assistance to the provinces for post-secondary education.
Gradually, over the past 15, 20, 30 or 50 years, this department, or
should I say its predecessor departments which it has now
absorbed, have spearheaded a Canadian vision of social policy.
If we recall what happened when Canada was founded in 1867,
simply put, there was a division of powers, as is normal under a
federal system. The federal government had its powers and the
provinces had theirs, and anyone who bothers to read the
Constitution will see that areas with a more immediate impact on
people, such as health, education, and social assistance, were a
provincial responsibility, while foreign affairs, the economy, the
armed forces and other areas of a more financial or economic
nature were the responsibility of the federal government.
As I just said, over the years we have seen the federal
government increasingly invade the jurisdictions of the provinces.
So much so that today, we are considering a bill that will provide a
rationale for the federal government's presence in provincial
jurisdictions. I realize some people will say this may be normal,
that federalism has evolved and change is necessary, that certain
problems must be dealt with and that this should be done by the
level of government best equipped to do so.
(1310)
This is a bit what the bill says. The Minister of Human
Resources Development may, at his pleasure, intervene, according
to clause 6, in: ``-all matters over which Parliament has
jurisdiction relating to the development of the human resources of
Canada''. Admittedly, this is very broad. The department may enter
into agreements involving employment, encourage equality and
promote social security. In the present context, members will agree
that this is very broad indeed.
We in the Bloc feel that the department is using this bill to
acquire legislative jurisdiction to define policy in areas of
provincial jurisdiction. What is the effect of the federal
government's approach? It could be dramatic, given that Quebec,
Ontario and the other provinces also operate in these areas.
The Government of Quebec is involved in health, education,
social and employment matters in these jurisdictions. It has defined
its programs. It has set up departments. It has activities planned in
these areas. We note, in the bill before us, that the federal
government is giving itself the right to intervene in these areas.
Perhaps it wants to intervene with the best of intentions, but, in
practical terms, two levels of government are operating in the same
areas with programs that often compete with or overlap each other.
My colleague mentioned there are currently more than 100
programs, either federal or provincial, aimed at meeting objectives
in the social, educational or employment fields.
So we end up with two levels of government that, in a way,
knock each other out of commission, not out of ill will, but because
of the very nature of the political structure defining the programs
and objectives. What we see in Quebec, what I have noticed in my
riding, is that there were provincial policies, co-ordinated primarily
by the SQDM, the Société québécoise de dévéloppement de la
main-d'oeuvre, and there were federal policies from the
employment centres and the Department of Human Resources
Development.
16725
When we think about the section 25 program from
unemployment insurance, the job readiness programs and the
special programs of certain agencies to help specific clientele, we
realize that everyone's intentions are good. However, we also
realize there is often inefficiency, which the Minister of Human
Resources Development himself admits. Yesterday, during
question period, he in fact said that he wanted to make changes in
Canada and in his policies, because he could see over the past two
years that the policies were ineffective.
So we end up with two levels of government that, in a way,
pursue ineffective policies, precisely because these policies
overlap and cancel each other out. The Bloc Quebecois's argument
against this bill is that there should be a single level of government
dealing with these issues.
If we look at the Canadian Constitution, we see that these
programs should come under provincial jurisdiction. So we in
Quebec asked the federal government to withdraw from these
programs and transfer responsibility to the Quebec government.
The other provinces do not, of course, want these powers, but we in
Quebec want to be in charge of these programs because of our
history, because the Quebec government is the government of a
people, a nation distinct from Canadian society.
This has been a Quebec demand for 30 years, going back to Mr.
Lesage, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Bourassa, Mr. Lévesque. This is a
constant demand. We have always come up against a brick wall. If
the federal government had acted in good faith, Canada might have
achieved some form of asymmetrical federalism allowing Quebec
to put forward its policies and to feel respected, while the other
provinces could have enjoyed greater centralization and carried out
programs benefiting their labour force, something that we do not
have in Canada at the present time.
(1315)
This is the brick wall we have come up against in recent years,
whether at the Quebec government or the federal government level.
This situation has come about because the federal government has
refused for 30 years to accommodate the specific demands made by
all Quebec governments for 50 years, going back to Maurice
Duplessis.
I call on all members to reject this bill at second reading so that
the jurisdiction of each level of government in the Canadian
federation can be respected.
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Milliken: What a pleasure.
Mr. Nunez: If the hon. member opposite will give me a chance, I
would like to take part in this debate today on Bill C-96 to legally
establish the Department of Human Resources Development.
As I said in my remarks on November 20, this bill accentuates
the federal presence by giving the minister new powers, including
the power to bypass provincial authorities and negotiate directly
with local authorities and agencies. I denounce, once again, the
federal government's centralizing designs. As you know, there is a
strong consensus in Quebec on the need to have control over
manpower training programs. This is an area where there is a great
deal of duplication and overlap, which is proving to be extremely
costly and inefficient.
Just to show how inefficient the federal government is, and this
department in particular, the report tabled by the Auditor General
of Canada two days ago, on November 21, is very critical of the
manpower training programs, describing these programs as
ill-suited to industry's needs. An estimated 300,000 positions
remained vacant every year between 1988 and 1990 because
suitable incumbents could not be found, but the training programs
offered by the department related to only 5 per cent of these vacant
positions. To be facing that kind of a problem when unemployment
is on the rise is incredible. The federal government's inefficiency
and squandering in this regard has to be denounced. The
Department of Human Resources Development spends $2 billion a
year on manpower training.
The auditor finds that there is no systematic or global measure to
deal with the situation.
I also want to point out that clause 6 of Bill C-96 authorizes the
minister to bypass provinces and establish direct links with
financial institutions, local organizations and such other persons or
bodies as he considers appropriate, ``with the objective of
enhancing employment, encouraging equality and promoting social
security''. Moreover, the minister may authorize ``any other person
or body'' to exercise his powers. That provision opens the door to
the contracting-out and privatization of employment services,
something which is already illustrated by the streamlining of the
federal network of employment centres.
The bill also provides that the Canada Employment and
Insurance Commission may ``authorize any person or body-to
exercise powers or perform duties and functions of the
Commission''. Under subsection 31(3) of the former act, the
commission could only delegate its powers to members of its staff
or, subject to the minister's approval, to members of the
department. Thus, the commission will enjoy a power to delegate
similar to that of the minister. This is the same minister who is
about to announce
16726
additional cuts of $1.25 billion in the UI program. That is a lot of
money.
In spite of the fact that the public service, the crown corporations
and the private sector are all experiencing cuts, closures and
massive layoffs, Bill C-96 is silent on job creation.
(1320)
Let me give a few examples of such cuts. First, by 1997, Bell
Canada will have closed nine regional offices in Quebec alone. It
also intends to close three auditing offices.
That company, which employs 46,000 people, hopes to layoff
10,000 of them over the next three years. A large number of these
people are members of the Communications, Energy and
Paperworkers Union of Canada. This is a 22 per cent reduction of
the company's staff. Bell has 28,606 employees in Ontario and
17,300 in Quebec. It intends to reduce its staff through voluntary
termination of employment, early retirement and outright layoffs.
It should be noted that Bell cannot justify such major cuts, given
the huge profits generated last year. Moreover, during the first six
months of 1995, the company paid $35 million in dividends, which
is as much as it did for the same period last year.
Recently, a group of Bloc Quebecois members, including
myself, met with officials from the company and the union, here in
Ottawa. We heard both sides. Following these meetings, I
personally feel that these massive layoffs are totally unjustified,
particularly since Bell is among the telephone companies
employing the smallest number of people per line in North
America. Bell has always made substantial profits. I salute the
courage and the determination of the employees of that company
and also of their union, which seeks to protect the rights and
benefits of its members against a management strategy designed to
produce massive layoffs.
I would also like to salute the 2,000 delegates who are attending
the Ontario Federation of Labour convention which has been going
on in Toronto since Monday night. Yesterday, they marched down
Bay Street, where Canadian banks and large corporations have their
headquarters, to protest against Mike Harris' right wing policies,
especially against the first piece of legislation his government
enacted, which repealed the anti-scab act and makes the creation
and certification of trade unions more difficult.
I would like to quote a statement made by an American, the
Reverend Jesse Jackson, who told the convention delegates: ``Do
not allow the right to destroy all the accomplishments of many past
generations''. I could not agree more.
The Harris government has decided to dismantle the Ontario
Labour Code. Moreover, it wants to reduce the size of the labour
ministry by 46 per cent, which will mean fewer occupational health
and safety inspectors, fewer air quality technicians, fewer officials
to enforce minimum work standards, etc.
I an concerned about all these cuts and these attacks against
workers in Ontario, the richest province in Canada.
The federal government, and the provincial governments of
Ontario and Alberta, which are going after the poorest members of
society in an attempt to put their financial house in order, are on the
wrong track. They will only increase poverty. I believe that the way
to go, instead, is job creation initiatives, tax fairness, a better
redistribution of wealth, and increased social security.
Both at the provincial and federal levels, anti-scab legislation is
not only essential, but urgently needed. I was very disappointed by
the vote taken the day before yesterday by the members of this
House who rejected by 144 against and 104 for the bill presented by
my Bloc colleague, the member for Manicouagan. However, I
salute the courage of a great number of Liberal members who
supported the bill and who were in agreement with it, under the
previous Conservative government. On the other hand, I denounce
all the ministers, especially the labour minister, who voted against
it.
(1325)
Following the example of Quebec and British Columbia, such an
act at the federal level would avoid the worsening of labour
conflicts, as was the case at the Ogilvie flour mill, in Montreal,
where the strike lasted for 15 months.
Finally, I will say that I support the FTQ's request for the
strengthening of the present succession rights of workers, should a
Crown corporation be privatized or a private company under
federal jurisdiction be disposed of. This problem has arisen mostly
with the sale of Canadian airports.
To conclude, I stress that I will vote against Bill C-96.
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
like my colleagues, I welcome the opportunity to speak about the
Act to establish the Department of Human Resources
Development.
Bill C-96 establishing the Department of Human Resources
Development flows from the June 1993 reform and is another
demonstration of this government's desire to centralize. The
Liberal Party of Canada, faithful to the objectives established by its
guru of the last decades, Pierre-Elliott Trudeau, took office at the
House of commons in October 1993 with the clear intention of
giving government in Canada a more centralized structure. Right
16727
from the beginning, there was a major offensive action against the
autonomy Quebec was aiming at. During the two years of the
present administration, we have seen countless examples of this
thrust towards centralization.
Bill C-96 is but another step in the invasion, by the central
government, of Quebec's jurisdictions in the area of social and
economic development. Clauses 6 and 20 of that bill reveal the
federal government will to limit the freedom of action of the
Quebec National Assembly.
Clause 6 defines the powers, duties and functions of the minister
which now extend, and I quote: ``to include all matters over which
Parliament has jurisdiction relating to the development of human
resources of Canada-with the objective of enhancing
employment.'' The clause is unequivocal; it allows for the creation
of a vast federal Human Resources Development department where
the minister will have considerable powers and will be free to act
without the approval of the provinces. In fact, this bill contains no
provision on provincial jurisdiction, let alone on honouring this
jurisdiction; on the contrary, it denies Quebec's exclusive
jurisdiction over manpower training and development.
Clause 20 lists the organizations with which the minister may
enter into agreements. It reads as follows: ``For the purpose of
facilitating the formulation, co-ordination and implementation of
any program or policy [-]the minister may enter into agreements
with a province or group of provinces, agencies of provinces,
financial institutions and such other persons or bodies as the
minister considers appropriate''. So the minister may put anyone
he wants in charge of managing his department's policies and
programs without having to justify himself in the House or
worrying about the Quebec government's directives.
In other words, he would have full discretion to contract out. The
minister would have the power to enter into agreements with
regional and local organizations, including municipalities, thus
bypassing the provinces. This bill will allow the federal
government to disregard Quebec's exclusive jurisdiction over the
design of manpower training and development programs.
Quebec has always denounced the federal government's
intention to put in place its own parallel manpower programs in
Quebec. Quebec's Minister of Employment, Mrs. Harel, says that
this bill is the antithesis of the Quebec consensus on the manpower
policy, the antithesis of the single window.
(1330)
Bill C-76, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget
tabled in Parliament on February 27, 1995, is another example of
the Liberal federal government's relentless denial of Quebec.
Under this bill, the Minister of Human Resources Development can
use the money saved through UI reform to set up a human
resources investment fund.
This fund will be spent on manpower training programs, among
other things, thus allowing for massive federal intervention-on a
discretionary basis and with a centralizing effect-in education, an
area over which Quebec has exclusive jurisdiction, with total
disregard for Quebec's policies in this sector.
Interprovincial trade is another area in which the federal
government likes to impose its centralizing vision.
In Bill C-88 regulating interprovincial activities, the federal
government assumes powers that were never discussed when this
agreement was negotiated and signed in June 1994. Clause 9 of the
bill stipulates that if a party is found to be in violation of Article
1710 of the agreement, the federal government, whether or not it is
a party to the dispute, takes it upon itself to impose retaliatory
measures against any province without distinction.
This bill shows, once more, the federal government's
determination to act as judge and jury in interprovincial trade and
to give itself, through this bill, a power of enforcement under
orders issued by itself to extend the application of any federal law
to the provinces, as stated in clause 9(1)(c).
This unitary state attitude of a centralizing federal system is in
contradiction with provincial identities and, as such, impedes the
development of the people of Quebec. This attitude is also reflected
in Bill C-46 establishing the Department of Industry, whose clause
8 states specifically that the Minister of Industry is responsible for
``economic development in areas of Ontario and Quebec''.
This legislation only goes to show that there is overlap with
respect to regional economic development by confirming the
federal industry minister's right to interfere in an area of
jurisdiction over which Quebec has been demanding control for a
long time.
Bill C-91 to continue the Federal Business Development Bank
under the name Business Development Bank of Canada is the last
example of the centralizing federal legislation that I will give you
here.
Clauses 20 and 21 of this act are totally unacceptable to Quebec.
Clause 20 suggests that the Business Development Bank of Canada
may enter into agreements with, and I quote: ``and act as agent for,
any department or agency of the government of Canada or a
province, or any other body or person, for the provision of services
or programs to'' them or on their behalf.
This act also flies in the face of the economic development
policies being implemented within Quebec. Under this clause, the
Liberal federal government pursues its strategy of centralization, a
political strategy to substantially restrict the Quebec government's
ability to act in the area of economic development, ultimately
preventing it from achieving political autonomy.
16728
By usurping the power to act as an agent for any department
or agency of Quebec, through the bank, the federal government
completely ignores the authority of the Quebec National Assembly
and its legislation on the executive council, which states that no
department or agency of the Government of Quebec may deal with
the federal government without prior consent. The new Federal
Business Development Bank, the Business Development Bank of
Canada, has become the instrument of federal interference in
regional economic development in Quebec.
(1335)
The totally demagogic approach developed by Pierre Elliott
Trudeau, who claimed that Canada is the most decentralized
country in the world, is an insult to intelligence and reflects the bad
faith now being displayed by the current Prime Minister. Such an
attitude is a major impediment to finding a solution regarding
Quebec's place in North America. In spite of the incessant pleas of
the Quebec government to develop its own economic and social
policies, the Liberal Party of Canada always said no and used every
available legislative means to restrict the decision making power of
Quebec's national assembly.
In the late sixties, Trudeau became Prime Minister and imposed
a national vision which resulted in a series of federal interventions
in fields of exclusive provincial jurisdiction. Since then, the
primary objective of the federal government has been to streamline
government activity and strengthen federal authority over the
political economy. For example, in the area of manpower
development and training, the federal government has over the last
fifty years assumed increasing responsibility regarding the
definition of the framework and conditions relating to government
intervention in that area of Quebec economic activity. As a ``policy
definer'', the federal government has given itself the role of
direction setter and harmonizer, as opposed to that of a service
provider for the provinces.
The patriation and review of the Constitution were opportunities
for the federation to affirm the authority of the central government
over the economic and social management of all the provinces.
Regardless of what Pierre Elliot Trudeau and the current Prime
Minister may say, the 1982 Constitution Act confirms Ottawa's
dominating role as the place where power is exercised. This is why
2,308,266 Quebecers voted for sovereignty on October 30.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is the House ready for the
question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those in favour of the
motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): In my opinion the nays have
it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Pursuant to Standing Order
45, the division on the question now before the House stands
deferred until Monday, November 27 at the ordinary hour of daily
adjournment, at which time the bells to call in the members will be
sounded for not more than 15 minutes.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wish to
seek the unanimous consent of the House to further defer the vote
until Tuesday at the ordinary hour of adjournment.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
(1340)
[Translation]
Hon. Diane Marleau (for the Deputy Prime Minister and
Minister of Environment) moved that Bill C-83, an Act to amend
the Auditor General Act, be read the third time and passed.
Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy
Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am very pleased to take part in the debate on Bill C-83 at
third reading and to support this legislation which will establish for
the first time within the federal government the position of
Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development.
Not so long ago, maybe 20 to 25 years ago, the environment was
not among the major concerns of the government. In fact, most of
the environment departments, at the federal and the provincial
levels, were only set up during the 1970s. At that time, the
environment was considered a self-contained issue. It was dealt
with within one department, as were all the other areas, such as
health, education, finance or revenue. Each department saw to its
own business, without thinking about integrating elements from
other departments.
Little by little, we realized over the last 25 years that everything
that relates to one area, such as environment, taxation, transporta-
16729
tion, health, is also interrelated with other areas. Nowadays, we
cannot talk about the environment without addressing the issues of
health, economy, energy, taxation, public transportation.
Everything is linked together.
In fact, all things are interdependent. The whole environmental
issue hinges on ecosystems and biodiversity. We need something to
support all forms of life, our natural resources and everything that
is essential to the wealth of any country, of any community.
We realize today that the only way for us to protect the
environment and to ensure that sustainable development is a
constant concern in our lives is to integrate the environment with
all other aspects of government. That is why it is becoming
increasingly important to talk not only about the environment, but
also about sustainable development, biodiversity and
interdependence.
That is why, in an ideal world, we would not even need an
environment department. In an ideal world, such a department
would not be needed because every department, whether it be the
Department of Health, Finance, Transport or Fisheries, would in
itself be a sustainable development department, an environment
department.
But we are far from this ideal world. We still need a Department
of the Environment to act as a watchdog and to ensure that
environmental protection becomes an integral part of the agenda of
all other departments.
[English]
This is the central objective of Bill C-83. The central objective is
to ensure that each ministry of the government, whether it be
finance, transportation, health, or any other ministry, will be
convinced that the way to promote the environmental cause is to
make each ministry's activities and actions sustainable in the long
term.
(1345 )
The reason for the bill is to ensure sustainable development
strategies within the aegis of each ministry of the federal
government. We have now constituted Bill C-83 to install a
commissioner of environment and sustainable development within
the office of the auditor general to monitor and inspire sustainable
development strategies to be installed in each ministry of
government, subject to public scrutiny through the office of the
commissioner; the commissioner being installed within the office
of the auditor general with all the autonomy and independence the
office implies and sanctions.
The idea will be for these sustainable development strategies to
be public in scope and accountable to the people of Canada through
Parliament. They will have to be filed in Parliament and will be
monitored by the commissioner who will have to report on them.
Bill C-83 will require the sustainable development strategies to
be upgraded on a systematic basis so that the commissioner will
have a benchmark starting in two years on the progress of these
sustainable development strategies, considering the evolution of
society in all its forms.
The office of the commissioner for environment and sustainable
development is a key development in the governance of federal
institutions. Besides the very important task of monitoring the
sustainable development strategies of the ministries, another
extremely important element of the commissioner's duties will be
to be accountable to the public at large so that the public will have
access to the commissioner's office to inquire, to complain if
necessary, about the activities of the various ministries with regard
to their sustainable development strategies and their environmental
consciences.
The second element of public participation, that of
accountability to the public, is a feature of the act which is almost if
not as important as the first because the two are intertwined. This
will provoke a transparent act, a bill that opens the scope of
government to the public to ensure the government not only preach
the preservation and enhancement of natural resources and the
ecosystems that sustain all activities, but put the theory, the
concept and the principles into practice in the every day governing
of the various ministries of government.
Bill C-83 in that sense is a great step forward for the
government, a clear achievement for the Minister of the
Environment, in having recognized the necessity for the office in
the red book which was the flag ship of the Liberal Party of Canada
during the last election and, more important, to have carried out
this key commitment at an early stage in its evolution as a
government.
(1350 )
I am very pleased to have been part of the standing committee
that examined and reported on the concept and office of a
commissioner of environment and sustainable development. We
are the first industrialized country of our size to have implemented
such an office. We followed the lead of a very small country, a
leading country of the world in this sense, New Zealand, which
seven years ago installed an office of commissioner of sustainable
development.
During the course of our hearings we were fortunate to have had
the benefit of the experience and the advice of the commissioner
for New Zealand, whose trail blazing work today has been the
source of inspiration for ourselves. It is our hope that now that
Canada has gone forward with the red book commitment and
installed a commissioner for environment and sustainable
development, this will become a practice that hopefully will be
followed by the other nations of the world.
16730
All of us are in this together. The environment is the most global
issue of them all. Today we are committed as a nation to many
international treaties such as the conventions on climate change
and on biodiversity.
We are committed to the commission on sustainable
development. We are committed to so many international
instruments concerning environment and sustainable development
that as we act, as we move forward, we set a tone, a benchmark
which I firmly hope in this case will be followed by others in
Canada and beyond.
[Translation]
I think Bill C-83-Could we ask these gentlemen to let me
conclude my remarks?
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Many members are coming
into the Chamber for question period but I ask for the co-operation
of the entire House while the parliamentary secretary concludes his
remarks.
[Translation]
Mr. Lincoln: Mr. Speaker, I hope that all of the political parties
represented in the House of Commons will consider this bill a
positive, constructive and trail-blazing piece of legislation.
We may not have gone as far as the committee wanted to go at
first, but I do think that our final resolution, the conclusion we have
come to, is realistic and constructive, and is a huge step forward,
not only for the federal government, but for all of Canada. This bill
will show that the government is now firmly committed to
sustainable development, not only through its environment
department, but through all of its departments, all of the machinery
of government. It will be up to us, as members of Parliament, and
up to the people to ensure that the Commissioner of the
Environment and Sustainable Development not only follows up on
the sustainable development strategies, but also voices our
concerns and puts pressure on all the governments, the current one,
the next one and all the others after that. All this will mean that, for
the government and the population, sustainable development will
become one of our concerns and part of our daily lives.
I think Bill C-83 is a big step in the right direction for all of us. I
am pleased to see today that it has come so far and that it will
become a reality very soon, and I hope it will be passed by the
Senate very fast so that it can come into effect as soon as possible.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I will take a moment to
clarify a matter we dealt with earlier with reference to Bill C-96,
following an intervention of the chief government whip, on vote
deferrals.
It is my understanding the recorded division on second reading
of Bill C-96 is deferred not to the ordinary hour of daily
adjournment but to the end of government business on Tuesday,
November 28.
The Speaker: It being 2 p.m. we will now proceed to Statements
by Members.
_____________________________________________
16730
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Ms. Hedy Fry (Vancouver Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this
week is Seniors' Safety Week. While growing old is as inevitable
as taxes we know that seniors should remain active and stay in their
own homes for as long as possible. It is integral to their good
health.
Ironically the home is one of the least safe places for seniors. In
Canada accidental death or injury leading to hospitalization that is
often permanent is three times higher for seniors than for any other
age group. These injuries exact high psychological and social costs
on seniors. They lead to loss of independence and mobility, and
fear and anxiety lead to isolation.
Therefore making home and consumer products safe is the best
health promotion for seniors. Health Canada promotes increased
safety awareness among seniors and their care givers. Access to
devices and home improvements that ensure safe living
environments for seniors are a priority for the government, which
is why we support the Canada Safety Council's national safety
week campaign.
I urge all members of the House to work toward safer
communities for seniors. We will all be living in them eventually.
* * *
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Senate has now passed the infamous firearms
legislation. For some it may be considered a victory but it is a very
hollow victory at best.
The government has made some vague promises of safer streets
and safer homes by introducing mandatory registration of rifles and
shotguns. The Minister of Justice has never explained how
cracking down on law-abiding citizens is going to prevent the
criminal misuse of firearms. Obviously, criminals are not going to
register anything they own.
I believe the legislation is nothing more than a very thin smoke
screen to offer a false sense of safety to Canadians who are
16731
concerned about the growing crime problem in this country and to
take pressure off a government that seems unwilling to do anything
meaningful about it.
There is a tremendous cost involved in the legislation. The
set-up cost is $118.9 million by the minister's own figures, and
registration itself will cost hundreds of millions more.
At a time when we are seeing federal cutbacks in transfer
payments for health care, post-secondary education and various
social programs, should the government not be reconsidering its
priorities and refocusing the spending of what money it has in areas
more meaningful than the registration of firearms belonging to
law-abiding taxpayers in this country?
* * *
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, studies in
the U.S. show that smoking causes 415,000 deaths in a year and
$50 billion in medical care costs.
Smoking is the most important preventable cause of premature
death. The immediate causes of death are a wide variety of cancers
and cardiovascular and respiratory diseases. Yet 48 million young
Americans still smoke. Twenty-four billion packs of cigarettes are
purchased each year. Every pack sold causes $4 of expenditures on
smoking related health care.
As 70 per cent of smokers begin before the age of 18 years,
discouraging smoking among the young is essential if we are to
cope with this problem. It has been shown that the young prefer the
most heavily advertised brands. Here in Canada we must
discourage our children from smoking.
These facts are from the 1994 issues of the morbidity and
mortality weekly report of the Massachusetts Medical Society,
1440 Main Street, Waltham, Massachusetts, 02154. I would be glad
to provide extracts to anyone interested.
* * *
Mr. John Murphy (Annapolis Valley-Hants, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, on Thursday, November 16, I attended the local kick-off
for the Mothers Against Drinking and Driving red ribbon campaign
in the town of Kentville in my riding of Annapolis Valley-Hants.
The red ribbon project is this organization's most visible grassroots
campaign. Each red ribbon serves as a reminder for motorists to be
safe and sober drivers during the holiday season and throughout the
year.
In 1994 over 1,700 people were killed in alcohol related
accidents. That works out to 4.6 people per day. By working to
raise awareness on this issue, we can all help to prevent the
senseless deaths and injuries that result from drinking and driving.
I have a red ribbon tied to the antenna of my car. I would ask that
all members of the House support this very worthwhile campaign
by doing the same.
* * *
Mrs. Jean Payne (St. John's West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on June
14 the government tabled Bill C-98, the Canada Oceans Act. This
legislation is structured to provide a legal framework for the
implementation of a new ocean management strategy. The Canada
Oceans Act is needed to enable nation-wide management of our
oceans on an ecosystem basis while ensuring that economic
opportunities are achieved.
The province of Newfoundland is unique in its location and its
dependency on intelligent oceans resource management. For this
reason, the Canada Oceans Act is a landmark piece of legislation
and is directed at the promotion of sustainable development and the
protection of ocean resources.
With the Canada Oceans Act came the merger of the Canadian
Coast Guard and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. One key
role for this integrated fleet will be fisheries conservation inside
the 200-mile limit. Groundfish and other species will be protected
while nature rebuilds these resources and shellfish will be
protected from over-exploitation.
The Canada Oceans Act signals a renewal of Canada's-
The Speaker: The hon. member for Macleod.
* * *
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, medicare is
important to all Canadians.
Medicare deserves a federal health minister who can adapt to
major inevitable changes, like new technology, which will be
expensive; like a population that is aging, which will also be
expensive; and like government debt, with a federal Department of
Health spending $1,200 per person per year on debt service and just
$268 per person per year on health.
(1405 )
We need a keen, adaptable minister with fresh ideas. What do we
have? We have a minister out of her depth, who is fining the
provinces for the delivery of health care that does not match her
interpretation of the Canada Health Act.
Medicare deserves better. Canadians deserve better. Federal
fines for medicare mean failure.
16732
Mr. John Solomon (Regina-Lumsden, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
last month the Liberal government reduced federal transfer
payments to Saskatchewan by a further $244 million. With a stroke
of a pen, Saskatchewan's budget surplus has been wiped out.
Saskatchewan was the first province in Canada to produce a
balanced budget without hurting those in need. This latest Liberal
action will hurt those in need most.
Provinces have been under constant attack from the Liberal
government's cutting of transfer payments. The Liberals' slashing
of post-secondary education funding means higher education will
only be available to wealthy families.
The reduction in transfer payments to the provinces is damaging
to Canada's inter-generational and inter-regional sharing. Forcing
young Canadians to pay more for their post-secondary education
could cause them to lose sympathy for their elders. We ought not be
surprised if soon these young people in turn demand that other
generations, such as seniors, finance their own social and economic
needs on a pay as you go basis as well.
Is this the Liberal vision for Canada, pitting one generation
against the other?
* * *
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (Parliamentary Secretary to
President of the Treasury Board, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise today
in recognition of the hosting in Winnipeg next February of the
Seventh International Winter Cities Conference and Showcase.
[Translation]
This conference will bring together mayors and business leaders
from more than sixty different cities and twenty-six countries, to
share their knowledge and ideas about what it is to live in a winter
city.
[English]
By hosting Winter Cities '96, those of us who live and work in
Winnipeg will be able to demonstrate to the rest of Canada and
indeed to the rest of the world that we are immensely proud of our
city and delighted to share it.
Winter Cities '96 is also a tremendous chance for Canadian
businesses to showcase and promote their talents. At the moment,
over 200 volunteers are hard at work preparing to welcome visitors
from over 60 cities and 26 different countries.
[Translation]
I would like to thank them for their hard work.
[English]
I am sure that Winnipeg will make this Winter Cities Conference
the most successful yet.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Roger Pomerleau (Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister made a shameful
remark, taking dangerous liberties with reality.
By linking the departure of CP Rail from Montreal with the
sovereignist movement, and even having the colossal nerve to state
that the sovereignists are intolerant of cultural minorities in
Quebec, the Prime Minister sidestepped the question and added
fuel to the fire.
If the Prime Minister listened to CBC a little more often, he
would have known that Mr. Ritchie, the President of CP Rail, has
denied any connection between moving the headquarters and
Quebec's move toward sovereignty. Mr. Ritchie simply pointed out
that 80 per cent of CP activities were in the west. And this is the
result of federal policies.
Rather than seeking to exacerbate the differences between the
various groups making up Quebec society, the Prime Minister
ought to be working to bring them closer together. This is another
of the real problems the Prime Minister ought to be addressing.
* * *
[
English]
Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke-Lakeshore, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, November has been declared hemophilia month.
Approximately 2,400 Canadians are affected by hemophilia, an
inherited condition characterized by a failure in blood-clotting
mechanisms in the body.
The Canadian Hemophilia Society is dedicated to providing
information and support services to persons with hemophilia and
other related blood conditions.
The Canadian Hemophilia Society has recently received a grant
for $125,000 from Health Canada to assist in the development of a
stronger volunteer base. This is in addition to the over $450,000
that has been contributed through the national AIDS strategy for
AIDS information and prevention activities.
Today let us join together to salute the outstanding work of the
Canadian Hemophilia Society. We wish them a successful
campaign during hemophilia month.
16733
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale-High Park, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
Canadian Polish Congress is an umbrella organization that unites
over 240 organizations representing Canadians of Polish origin.
The congress is active in many areas, from helping to
successfully resettle newcomers to the promotion of excellent
relations with ethnocultural groups across Canada.
Throughout its history, the congress has participated in the
development of a strong and united Canada, often providing input
and advice to federal and provincial governments through briefs
and through personal input.
I am therefore pleased to announce that the Canadian Polish
Congress Council has chosen Ottawa as the site of the 1995 annual
meeting this week. I welcome the delegates from all provinces and
regions, who are beginning the council meeting with a visit to the
House of Commons.
* * *
(1410)
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, according
to the
Globe and Mail, the government is preparing to reduce
maximum insurable earnings for unemployment insurance.
This decrease will constitute the most important tax cut by this
government, but essentially the ones to benefit will be high income
earners who will therefore be paying less into the unemployment
insurance fund, while people with unstable and seasonal work will
get less money in benefits.
The minister himself has stated in the past that raising the ceiling
would improve income distribution. He knows what he is doing.
We are anxious to see this long awaited unemployment insurance
reform. This government, which claims it is addressing people's
real problems, did not dare to table it before the referendum. Now
we are really going to get clobbered.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, methinks
the Liberals doth protest too much.
To the members of the traditional good old boys club in Atlantic
Canada, let us talk oppression. It is the Liberal fisheries minister
who would charge an ice-free port for icebreaking. It is the Liberal
human resources minister who airlifted Atlantic Canadians to
Ontario. It is Liberal provincial politicians who have monitored
attendance at public meetings. These are the politicians who
perpetuate the oppressive political system of handouts and rampant
patronage. The truth hurts.
Reformers openly challenge the political system in Atlantic
Canada. We offer hope and self-reliance to Atlantic Canadians
through proposals such as Atlantica, which builds trade alliances
with the eastern United States. This will create jobs.
The Speaker: The hon. member had me worried there; I thought
he was going to start reciting the Barbe.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the leader
of the Bloc Quebecois surprised few people on Tuesday with his
announcement of his candidacy for the position vacated by Jacques
Parizeau.
He surprised no one either with his announcement that his first
priority would be Quebec's public finances. Truth be known, the
disastrous state of Quebec's public finances is forcing all
pretenders to the throne to promise to make them their first priority.
He did, however, surprise and disappoint people with his
announcement that he would never sign a new constitutional
agreement. The potential successor to Jacques Parizeau must
respect the people's decision of October 30 and work, as the people
of Quebec have requested, to renew Canadian federalism. If his
separatist obsession precludes his doing so, let him give up the
throne to someone who give more heed to the will of the people.
* * *
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, last
evening, the other House finally voted in favour of gun control.
The work we started six years ago has finally come to a
conclusion. We now have a tool to help improve public safety. The
struggle mobilized many people who, like me, firmly believed that
tighter control was necessary. I would like to thank them for their
dedication and their tenacity.
On the eve of the grievous anniversary of the massacre at the
École polytechnique, Parliament has heard the concerns of the
victims' families. Responsible gun owners like us know that
privileges imply obligations, and so the law will be observed. We
must, however, remain vigilant and continue to keep close watch
on the law and its regulations.
16734
[English]
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, the Canadian
sugar industry is very happy with the recent trade ruling by the
Canadian International Trade Tribunal, which confirmed that
dumped sugar from the U.S. and subsidized sugar from the
European Union is threatening material injury to the industry.
(1415 )
The industry is also pleased that the United States has decided to
exempt sugar from the Helms bill, which would have placed
serious implications on Canada's ability to export sugar.
All this being said, the Canadian sugar industry still has one very
key irritant that needs to be resolved. Canadian sugar exports to the
U.S. were drastically reduced last year when the Americans
implemented new trade restrictions which lowered our export
quota. As a result, the Lantic Sugar refinery in Saint John, New
Brunswick, had to lay off many employees. These tariffs are
estimated to cost many hundreds of Canadian jobs in the sugar
industry.
As an Atlantic Canadian, I call on the minister of trade to finish
the job and continue to enter into formal negotiations with the U.S.
_____________________________________________
16734
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, yesterday
when the Prime Minister backed out of the promises he made to
Quebecers six days before the referendum and said that reopening
the Constitution was out of the question, Quebecers all
remembered the promises made by Pierre Elliott Trudeau on May
14, 1980, promises on which the government at the time
immediately proceeded to renege.
Since six days before the referendum the Prime Minister clearly
referred to the Constitution as a way to bring about change, does
yesterday's retreat signify that Quebecers were tricked once again
as they were in 1980, when they were promised so-called
satisfactory constitutional changes and the government did not
deliver?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
the Environment, Lib.): On the contrary, Mr. Speaker. The Prime
Minister's statement in Verdun on October 24 was as follows, and I
quote; ``We will keep open all the other roads to change, including
administrative and constitutional means. Any changes in
constitutional jurisdiction will only be made with the consent of
Quebecers'', while the Leader of the Opposition said, and I quote:
``While he talks about the Constitution, we will look after jobs''.
[English]
When asked whether he would sign any deal he said: ``No, it is
not possible. I am a sovereignist''. The person who is off the wall
on this is not the Prime Minister; it is the Leader of the Opposition.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this is a
fine way of passing the buck. This government blames
unemployment on the previous government, and when there are
problems with the Constitution, it blames them on the opposition.
When the Prime Minister made these promises to Quebec a few
days before the referendum, he knew there was a sovereignist
government in Quebec City. He knew that perfectly well. He made
certain promises. So how can he use the sovereignist government in
Quebec City as an excuse to back out of the promises he made so he
will not have to deliver the goods?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will repeat the promises
made by the Prime Minister, which will be kept, and I quote: ``We
will keep open all the other roads to change, including
administrative and constitutional means. Any changes in
constitutional jurisdiction will only be made with the consent of
Quebecers''.
If anyone is saying no, it is not the Prime Minister but the Leader
of the Opposition, who the day after the referendum dismissed the
option of constitutional change.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): How delightful, Mr.
Speaker. What is the world coming to? Now for my question, and I
hope we manage to understand each other.
The Prime Minister of Canada-not Joe Blow but the Prime
Minister-comes to Quebec six days before a referendum. Without
anyone asking, he promises the changes the Deputy Prime Minister
just mentioned.
(1420)
And then we have the same Prime Minister, and since I am going
to quote him, I will quote exactly what he said two days after the
referendum in this House: ``This I have promised and this I will
do''. And yesterday, he told us: ``I will not do it''. What is going
on?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on the contrary. The Prime
Minister promised, and I quote: ``Any changes in constitutional
jurisdiction will only be made with the consent of Quebecers''.
16735
Meanwhile, the Leader of the Opposition and future leader of
the Parti Quebecois said in English, referring to the Constitution,
that he did not believe it would be possible to formulate any offers,
that they were not interested. That is what the Leader of the
Opposition said, and we do not want to impose constitutional
changes if he says Quebec does not want them.
[English]
The Speaker: I remind all members not to use props of any kind.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, two days ago, the Prime Minister made a suggestion to
extend the deadline of the phoney committee chaired by the
Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, whose mandate, according
to its chairman, is to save Canada by reviewing all the options to
renew federalism.
Can the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs tell us if he still
intends to table the report of the phoney committee before
Christmas or if he will grab the line thrown by the Prime Minister
to gain a little more time?
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 should first set the record straight. As I said before, the
perfect example of a phoney committee is the Parti Quebecois's
regional commissions, in which the Bloc Quebecois took part.
I would like to remind them that there are five million voters in
Quebec, not 50,000, and that their commissions were not
representative and did not try to find conclusions that would help
Quebec and Canada, while our committee is looking at all the
options and seeking solutions to our problems.
Once again, we are holding out our hand in good faith to the Bloc
Quebecois and the Parti Quebecois and urging them to soften their
stance and negotiate a renewed federalism, as 80 per cent of
Quebecers are asking them to do.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I must admit that the minister has a vivid imagination. He
said that his committee's mandate was to review all the options in
order to honour the Prime Minister's referendum promises,
because the Prime Minister did make promises. But the Prime
Minister is now turning his back on constitutional change. This is a
remake of 1980, an old movie that we have seen before, but we
have since gained 10 per cent. Soon we will gain even more in less
time.
In this context, can the minister tell us what the phoney
committee still has as a mandate? Should he not dismantle it
instead, since the Prime Minister has decided as usual not to offer
Quebec anything?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Queen's Privy Council
for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and
Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, once again, the hon. member's statements are wrong. As
the Deputy Prime Minister said, the Prime Minister clearly stated
in Verdun that we would keep open all other avenues of change,
including administrative and constitutional changes.
Yesterday in the House, the Prime Minister said this:
I never said we were going to change the Constitution-I said we were going
to make changes to the federation, constitutional changes, if necessary-
There is no contradiction between the two sentences. It is the
official opposition that will not abide by the results of the
referendum, which showed very clearly that Quebecers want
change, but within Canada.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we
are being reminded again today by the Bloc Quebecois that in the
referendum campaign the federal Liberals made a couple of
constitutional offers to Quebec. Despite the referendum loss the
Government of Quebec and its future premier have already made it
clear that they reject these offers and further that they would reject
any offers of renewed federalism.
(1425)
Will the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs make it clear
today for all Canadians that the Government of Canada will not
make further constitutional offers to a PQ government that has no
intention of accepting them and that Canadians are sick and tired of
playing this game with the separatists?
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, unfortunately it is true that the Leader of the Opposition,
thinking about his future role as premier of Quebec, indicated that
he would not consider any offers to renew federalism.
However, in saying that the leader was refusing to recognize the
result of the referendum where the majority of Quebecers told him
that they wanted changes to be made within Canada. He was also
refusing to respect the majority of Quebecers who have expressed
their views.
We will not do the same thing to Quebecers. We will be in a
position to offer ways in which the present problems can be solved.
16736
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
minister avoided answering my question on constitutional offers,
but in any case I will proceed with my supplementary question
for the same minister.
As he pointed out, the Government of Quebec has made it clear
that it will seek another referendum on sovereignty in spite of the
fact that in the last referendum it never did make a detailed
proposal on sovereignty and the proposed economic partnership.
Before the next referendum will the federal government
formally request that the Government of Quebec table its detailed
proposals for sovereignty and future economic relations with the
rest of Canada so that Quebecers and other Canadians can evaluate
the credibility of the ideas?
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, we will respect the current referendum which indicated
that Quebecers want changes to be made and that they want the
changes to be made within Canada.
I will repeat what the Prime Minister said yesterday in the
House.
[Translation]
``I never said we were going to change the Constitution. I said we
were going to make changes to the federation, constitutional
changes, if necessary''.
That is what we are working on. We will make recommendations
to the Prime Minister, and we hope to be able to find solutions that
will ensure, once again, that Canada remains as we know it, a
united country, a country where we can all make our dreams and
aspirations come true, whether we live in Quebec or in another
province.
[English]
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, these
are good words but they continue to miss the point, which is that
the Government of Quebec is not interested in such plans and will
proceed with another referendum at some point.
Let me go back to the Government of Canada's own
commitments. On October 25, 1995 in a speech to the entire nation
the Prime Minister said:
All governments, federal and provincial, must respond to the desire of
Canadians everywhere for greater decentralization.
This was a commitment to all Canadians that the Government of
Quebec simply could not reject on behalf of everybody.
As the government has done nothing but bash decentralization
since the referendum, what specifically do the Prime Minister and
the government have in mind in making this kind of a
commitment?
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, on this very important question I can only repeat what our
line has been. It has been that decentralization would happen only
when it is shown very clearly that it is more efficient to transfer
responsibilities from one level of government to another.
It will be decentralization if it well serves Canadian citizens who
pay taxes, but there is no doubt that decentralization for its own
sake is not a remedy to any of the problems we now have.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of Finance.
In his budget speech, the Minister of Finance announced that
compensation packages for laid-off public servants would cost
approximately $1.3 billion. But the annual financial statement
tabled by the government shows a huge cost overrun, with costs up
to $2.3 billion.
(1430)
How can the government explain the fact that its public service
downsizing programs have cost $1 billion more than anticipated?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if the President of the
Treasury Board were here, I am sure that, in response to the
member's question, he would say that this increase can be
attributed, first, to the pension funds that were not factored in when
preparing the budget since they were not included in budget
projections and, second, to the fact that more employees have
accepted the offer earlier than expected. These costs will be
recovered in time.
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is surprising to
say the least that the President of the Treasury Board never
mentioned anything about this to the Minister of Finance. In view
of the finance minister's answer, I might add that one of these
public service downsizing programs, the early retirement program,
which was supposed to affect 4,000 employees and cost $300
million, attracted 1,500 more people than expected and ended up
costing $800 million instead of the original $300 million, or almost
three times more than expected.
How can the government explain that its early retirement
program will end up costing almost three times more than
expected?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): First of all, Mr. Speaker, as I just
said, this is explained, in the one hand, by the fact that some
employees have agreed to retire sooner than anticipated and, on the
other hand, by the fact
16737
that there are more people in certain areas than in others, but that is
not a problem for the government because this will save us money
down the road.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
governments of the provinces, particularly Manitoba, Alberta,
Saskatchewan and Ontario as well as the two territories all
registered opposition to the registration component of Bill C-68.
How does the government plan to gain the co-operation of these
governments after having forced the bill upon them against their
will?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I am glad the hon. member has noted that Parliament has now
adopted a bill designed to ensure that we have peaceful
communities-
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Gray: -and designed to ensure we have increasingly safe
homes and safe streets in this country.
I am sure the provincial governments will take note of the strong
support for this measure across the country which will inspire their
co-operation.
In any event, the Minister of Justice has announced today the
appointment of a user group on firearms, composed of people from
across the country who are responsible firearms users. This will be
a very important way to make sure we have a cost effective, user
friendly system of firearms registration which takes into account
the concerns of responsible firearms users.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member would have us believe that the provincial governments do
not have any consideration for the safety of their communities and
their streets and that only the federal government can see that kind
of safety within the bill.
The federal-provincial financial agreements for the
administration of gun control programs expired on March 31, 1993.
I ask the government, what is the status of these financial
negotiations with the provinces? Have these agreements been
renewed and if not, why not?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I will have to get further information on this for my hon. friend. It
is the desire of the government to have agreements with the
provinces which respect their concerns and at the same time ensure
the safety of Canadians.
I hope my hon. friend will finally realize the support of
Canadians for this bill and cease his opposition, which is certainly
not well founded in light of the facts and in light of the support of
Canadians who want safe homes and safe streets. They do not want
an American style gun culture anywhere in Canada.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage. Mr.
Manera, the former CBC President, and Mr. Beatty, the current
one, both said that, should the CBC undergo additional cuts, it
would be necessary to review the mandate of that corporation.
(1435)
Does the minister intend to order new cuts to the CBC and, if so,
will he review its mandate, as is deemed necessary by Mr. Manera
and Mr. Beatty?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has got it all wrong. You do not deal
first with the budget and then with the mandate. You start with the
mandate and then look at the budget. This is exactly what we are
doing.
A committee will make recommendations to us regarding CBC's
mandate. We will look at these recommendations, make decisions
and then decide on a long term financial plan.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, given that the French network is already performing a lot
better than the English one, does the minister realize that any
additional cut would have a greater impact on the French network
and could jeopardize its mandate?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, there is one aspect regarding CBC's mandate which, I
think, will not change. It is the fact that the CBC must respect the
linguistic duality of our country. This is a public institution. It is an
institution which will continue to reflect that basic reality of our
country.
If the hon. member has opinions on the budget cuts made by
CBC's president and board of directors and looks to me, it may be
that she wants me to manage that corporation. That will not
happen. I will merely be the one who decides on CBC's mandate
and budget.
16738
[English]
Mr. Allan Kerpan (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food.
Last March the minister announced that he had instructed the
Farm Credit Corporation to turn over the Crow payout to producers
who lease land from the FCC. Last month the FCC stated that the
minister's benevolent government corporation would increase the
producer's share from a very generous 10 per cent up to a
whopping 25 per cent.
Why did the FCC defy the minister's instructions? Farmers want
to know who is in charge: the minister or his good Liberal friend
and party contributor, Mr. Don Jackson?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do not know what party
affiliation Mr. Jackson has. I have never discussed it with him and I
do not intend to.
On the substance of the issue, it is obviously not up to me to offer
instructions to the FCC in terms of how it manages its business
affairs. When the announcement was made in the budget with
respect to the $1.6 billion capital payment in the wake of the
cancellation of the WGTA, the FCC itself took the initiative to
announce that it would find a way to equitably share that benefit
with its leasing clients. It offered one particular formula. A number
of the clients indicated to the FCC that in the opinion of the clients,
they did not think that formula was sufficiently generous. As a
consequence, the FCC more than doubled the formula.
Mr. Allan Kerpan (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the minister and the general manager for the FCC are
saying one thing and doing another. The minister has stated that the
balance of the payment would be reflected in lower lease and sale
agreements, yet documented cases in Saskatchewan show that FCC
leases and asking prices have risen by as much as 20 per cent.
Will the minister finally take a stand on something and address
this paradox before it is too late?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is obviously
being a bit inconsistent. He invites me to take a stand and every
time I do that he criticizes it because it is not the Reform Party
position. I would remind him that I was elected as a Liberal, not as
a Reformer, and I do not intend to adopt his party's position.
(1440 )
With respect to the arrangements made by the FCC, it anticipates
that in the first year of the adjustment to the loss of the Crow rate it
will pass through to its tenant clients 12.5 per cent of the value of
the Crow payment that it will receive. In the second year it will
pass through another 12.5 per cent. It is fully expected by the third
year that the impact of the freight rate adjustment will have worked
its way through the land pricing system in western Canada and the
benefit of reduced land costs will then be adjusted into the capital
base.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Quebec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the heritage minister.
The heritage minister is attempting to justify the way its
government is apportioning the cuts at the CBC by pretending that
both the French and the English networks will have to make the
same effort.
Can the minister explain why, in 1992-93, according to the most
recent numbers available, the production costs for a one hour
program were $18,000 on the French network and $37,000 on the
English one?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, our colleague does not seem to take into account the
fact that the CBC is an independent corporation. I have the
responsibility to look after its mandate and its overall financing;
the board of directors and the president run the show.
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Quebec, BQ): But then, Mr. Speaker,
why has the minister attempted to justify the way the cuts are being
apportioned at the CBC? Can the minister explain why a one hour
sport program, for instance, costs, for the same time slot, $28,000
on the French network and $70,000 on the English network?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, my colleague would like me to be the accountant and
the auditor for the CBC, which I am not and will not be.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Andy Mitchell (Parry Sound-Muskoka, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for Financial
Institutions.
The pensions and other savings of many present and former Bell
Canada employees and many other Canadians have been
jeopardized by the collapse of Confederation Life. Could the
minister tell us what can be done to help speed up the liquidation
process so that these Canadians receive their moneys as quickly as
possible?
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there are a number of
interested constituents, and I would suggest to Reform Party
16739
members that some of their constituents might be interested as well
in this matter.
The liquidation of Confederation Life is a court supervised
process, in case some members did not know that. Responsibility
for realizing the value of Confederation Life assets has been passed
to a liquidator, Peat Marwick Thorne, under the supervision of the
court.
Accordingly, people affected by the failure of Confederation
Life should be in contact with the liquidator. The liquidator is
responsible for obtaining maximum value for Confederation Life's
assets. Again the liquidator does not wish to proceed with fire sale
prices which would affect this.
There have been many positive developments since the
liquidation began. Many lines of business have been sold and
efforts are being made to sell the others.
* * *
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the government has indicated some concern in the past
about the marketability of the CN shares. It even went so far as to
suggest it may sell part now and then the rest of them later on when
things improve.
Can the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport
please tell the House if he anticipates a total sale of the
government's shares in CN Rail?
Mr. Joe Fontana (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his great
interest in this matter and the question.
As the member will know, this has been the most successful
government issue in terms of privatization in our history. In fact the
stock issue has gone better than expected.
(1445 )
The member will know that as anticipated it has gone so well
that it looks like government may not have to keep any position in
CN whatsoever. It will divest itself 100 per cent.
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, indeed there does seem to be great interest in the stock
offering. Many potential Canadian purchasers have been unable to
buy shares because of the large percentage offered outside of
Canada.
Will the parliamentary secretary please explain to the House and
to Canadians why the government rejected the Reform amendment
to Bill C-89 which would have seen the share offering to Canadians
and Canadian companies only for the first 60 days and would result
in Canadian National Railway's remaining in Canadian hands,
instead of intentionally selling 40 per cent to 50 per cent to foreign
investors.
Mr. Joe Fontana (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the fact that the government
wanted to maximize the price for CN was the reason it wanted
maximum exposure not only in Canada but in the United States and
elsewhere.
We were able to achieve such a good price because of that very
reason. Foreign holdings or foreign shares were capped at 40 per
cent. That Canadians were able to purchase over 60 per cent of
Canadian National bodes very well for the issue.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Health.
In 1989, a Quebec company, BioChem, developed a very
important drug for the treatment of HIV infection, called 3TC. The
American Food and Drug Administration has approved 3TC for
sale in the United States. Because of the administrative slowness of
Health Canada, the Americans are able to profit from this
discovery before we do.
How can the minister explain that 3TC, a drug developed here, is
already approved for use in the United States, while Health Canada
is dragging its feet?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
scientists at Health Canada are continuing their work as fast as they
can. We expect that they will give their approval very shortly.
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I can tell you that the minister will make this year's ``Bye!
Bye!''. I will ask her a supplementary question.
The minister has nice sounding words, but does she realize what
the inefficiency of Health Canada means for the persons infected,
especially when they know that their American counterparts are
able to make good use of that drug, a drug developed here?
[English]
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member must also be aware that while drug approval is
under way, there are ways for people in need of these medications
to have access to them.
We have a number of programs, including emergency drug
release programs. We are doing absolutely everything we can to
fast track approval of some of these drugs. In the meantime we are
also facilitating their access for people who truly need them.
16740
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
President of the Treasury Board told the government operations
committee that the government's much heralded infrastructure
program cost Canadian taxpayers $750,000 for every job created.
Last year the auditor general said the $4.5 billion spent on job
creation by regional development agencies has failed. The number
of jobs created has been fudged, inflated and politically massaged.
Will the Minister of Finance acknowledge the taxpayers had a
bum rap, that the unemployed have been led down the garden path,
and that his own deficit reductions could have been much larger if
he would only acknowledge that this process of job creation does
not work?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, one can speak to
virtually every mayor of every municipality. One can speak to the
executives of the mayors in municipalities. One can speak to the
provinces. They will say the infrastructure program has been a
tremendous success all across the country.
If one reads the auditor general's report, what he does is level a
series of statements as to defects in evaluation, the vast majority of
which occurred under the previous government and have been
cleaned up by this government, which is why the auditor general
congratulated the regional agencies under the Liberal government,
and we are very proud of it.
(1450 )
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I could not
find the congratulations. First we had the national unity cabinet
committee and now we have the job creation cabinet committee
being struck. This is talk, talk, talk and more money flushed down
the drain for a top down, borrowed money, government directed job
creation program that we know will fail.
Will the Minister of Finance recognize and acknowledge that if
he wants a serious job creation program he has to get the
government off the backs of the private sector, reduce the deficit
faster than he has been doing and reduce taxes? Each of these
things is opposite to what the government has been doing so far.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if one looks at the
trend of interest rates since the last budget, one would see those
interest rates have come down and will understand the very clear
linkage between deficit reduction, lowering interest rates and job
creation. That is more than likely one reason that over the course of
the last year and half there have been over 500,000 new jobs
created in Canada.
The President of the Treasury Board told me that the proof the
infrastucture program has been such a great success is that the
member for Simcoe Centre keeps writing to him for more money.
* * *
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Don Valley North, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
On November 21, with the historic signing of the peace accord in
Dayton, Ohio between the warring parties in the Bosnian conflict,
would the Minister of Foreign Affairs comment on any new role
the Canadian government may play in support of the peace process
in war torn Bosnia?
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are all pleased to welcome
the Dayton peace agreement, bringing an end to the conflict in the
former Yugoslavia.
I think I speak on behalf of everyone in the House when I say we
congratulate all of the participants who had anything to with
helping bring about this peace accord.
The peace accord is one thing but a lasting peace, the post-peace
accord period, is sometimes as important or more important than
the peace settlement itself. There will now be a period of
reconstruction, rehabilitation and reconciliation. We will be
monitoring this post-accord period very closely to see what part
Canada can play together with its allies.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister. Last July, the Minister of
Human Resources Development announced a major restructuring
of his employment centre network and decided that the regional
management centre for the Mauricie would be located in
Shawinigan, in the riding of Saint-Maurice, instead of
Trois-Rivières, the regional capital.
Since then, 25,000 people have signed a petition condemning the
government's decision and 40 municipal councils in that region
have adopted resolutions to that effect.
In this context, what is the rationale for establishing this regional
centre in Shawinigan instead of Trois-Rivières when the public
wants exactly the opposite?
16741
[English]
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I take great pleasure in answering the hon. member's question.
What the government of Canada did in that instance was make a
very important and valuable response to the issue of service
delivery. We have basically amalgamated Revenue Canada and
HRD services to provide one stop shopping for Quebecers.
[Translation]
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Mr. Speaker, you
will understand that I would have liked to get an answer from
someone who is familiar with this matter.
Will the Prime Minister dare deny the fact that it is a highly
partisan, arbitrary and illogical decision that the office of the
Minister for Human Resources Development got directly from the
Prime Minister's office?
[English]
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I thank the hon. member for his questions. Anytime he would like
to compare notes on this file, I will be willing to sit down with him.
The Government of Canada has increased points of service for
Canadians from 450 to 750. Through the use of technology we have
reduced the number of days required to file unemployment
insurance claims from eight to two. Similarly, we have increased
points of service for seniors by 400 per cent.
(1455)
If the hon. member would like a further briefing, I will be
available in my office.
* * *
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster-Burnaby, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment.
The Irving Whale salvage feasibility study submitted to the coast
guard in 1992 noted the presence of a heating fluid called Mansanto
MGS 295S. Had someone read the report carefully they would have
discovered that the fluid was Monsanto MCS 295S, a substance
comprised of 80 per cent PCBs.
When the minister asked the RCMP to investigate a possible
cover-up of the knowledge of PCBs, did she ask it also to
investigate her own department to find out who made the mistake?
It was obvious that cover-up was on her mind.
The Speaker: In the formulation of a question we always give
the widest latitude, but we should be very careful not to impute
motive in any way, especially in this particular context. I ask the
hon. member to withdraw the last words.
Mr. Forseth: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the words. I was not
imputing motive.
The Speaker: Thank you. The hon. Minister of the
Environment.
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, on July 6 of this year I
ordered an investigation into the circumstances as to whether and
why the Canadian Environmental Protection Act was violated in
that information regarding PCBs had not been forwarded to my
department.
That preliminary investigation was concluded last week and the
results were serious enough that I have turned the matter over to the
Attorney General of Canada and to the RCMP for further
investigation.
With the investigation in the hands of the RCMP it has the full
latitude to investigate everybody, including me.
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster-Burnaby, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the minister needs to accept ministerial responsibility for
the actions of her own department.
On March 18, 1994 the minister tabled the 1992 report to which I
referred. I would think if the minister tabled the material she is
responsible for its contents. She has known since the tabling that
PCBs were on board the Irving Whale barge.
It is amazing that the environment minister calls for a police
investigation when the fault lies with her. Will the minister accept
the responsibility for the report which she tabled and take the
blame for the mishaps of her department, an open ended cost so far
of $12 million with still no results?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
the Environment, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will accept my full
responsibilities. Under the law of the people of Canada I was
required in July to turn this matter over to an investigation because
there was a possibility that evidence on the presence of PCBs had
been withheld from the department specifically.
If the hon. member is suggesting I should break the law and
ignore the requirement under CEPA to inform of the presence of
PCBs by law, I will not. If he is suggesting I am attempting to
deflect responsibility or am participating in a cover-up I will
categorically deny that.
When I asked for the further investigation of the preliminary
results by the attorney general and the RCMP, I made no bones
about the openness of the RCMP to investigate everybody,
including the actions of all departments of government.
16742
Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina-Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Canadian
Heritage.
The CBC, one of the few remaining ties helping to keep our
country together, is about to snap. The president of the CBC has
warned that any further cuts would so drastically reduce the CBC
that a change to its legislated mandate would be necessary. The
minister, however, earlier today in the House guaranteed that the
budget will fit the mandate, not the mandate the budget.
Does the government really want the CBC to continue to exist?
If it does, will the government rescind the further $123 million in
cuts it has ordered and provide the CBC with multi-year funding as
promised in the red book?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, we are on record as supporting a strong public
broadcaster and supporting the CBC.
(1500 )
We will indeed be looking at the future financing requirements
of the CBC once we have decided on the mandate.
* * *
Mrs. Jane Stewart (Brant, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in my riding of
Brant we are very concerned about the high incidence of low birth
weight babies, about the increasing impact of heart disease on
women, about osteoporosis, about breast and uterine cancer.
What is the minister doing to resolve these concerns and make
good our promises in the red book to attend to the health issues of
women?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the health of women continues to be a priority for this government.
In recent times, especially in the month of November, we have
made a couple of very big announcements. One is the call for
letters of intent for the centres of excellence on women's health.
Another is the announcement that my American counterpart,
Donna Shelala, the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services,
and I will be co-hosting a forum on women's health in March 1995
here in Ottawa.
As well, we have a number of initiatives, including the prenatal
nutrition program and programs addressing women and tobacco
use. We have also been doing a lot of work on ensuring that women
are a part of clinical trials.
In everything we do, we continue to check on the effects on
women and their health.
The Speaker: My colleagues, I wish to draw your attention to
the presence in the gallery of the Hon. Dr. Martin Bartenstein,
federal Minister of the Environment of the Republic of Austria.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, during
question period, in an answer to a question from the member for St.
Albert, in a very feeble attempt to justify the infrastructure
program the finance minister said that it was justified on the basis
that the member for Simcoe Centre kept writing letters requesting
money.
While we cannot call a minister a fibber, I think we have to make
sure that the truth comes out. The truth is that there was one letter
written and it involved the private sector. That is the only letter that
was written.
The Speaker: I think the point has been made.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): With a very short
preamble, Mr. Speaker, I would like to know from the government
House leader what our legislative menu will be.
[English]
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I want to make it clear that I am only going to make one statement
right now.
The weekly business statement is as follows. We will continue
today and tomorrow with Bill C-83, respecting the environmental
auditor general; followed by Bill C-100, the financial institutions
legislation; followed by Bill C-52, the public works and
government services departmental reorganization.
On Monday we will begin with Bill C-108, the housing bill, and
then return to the point on the list where we left off on Friday.
I would add to the list of bills for next week Bill C-99, the Small
Business Loans Act amendments; Bill C-94, the fuel additives bill;
Bill C-101, the transportation legislation; and Bill C-107, the
British Columbia treaties bill.
Finally, Tuesday, November 28, and Thursday, November 30,
shall be opposition days.
16743
(1505 )
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in an earlier
statement in the House an answer that I gave was qualified as
feeble. My point of order is that it was in fact incredibly decisive
and strong. In any event, I withdraw the
s.
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge, Ref.): On a point of order, I
have a question for the House leader of the government with regard
to potential legislation coming before the House.
The Speaker: My colleague, you will recall that last Thursday
we had a very brief exchange on this. Of course I will permit
clarification of whatever is coming up. We do not usually do any
dealing here on the floor, so I know that the question will be quite
to the point.
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge): Could the hon. House leader of the
government indicate whether there is going to be any consideration
with regard to legislation on unemployment insurance on the list he
gave today?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
legislation on that topic was not on the list I read out today.
All I can suggest to my hon. friend is that he keep an eye on the
Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
16743
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
Translation]
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I was
looking forward to speaking on third reading of Bill C-83 because
of the debate we had last Monday on an amendment we tabled that
would have deleted paragraphs (a) to (h) in clause 21(1) of the bill.
I very much wanted to clarify a fundamental difference between
members of the Bloc Quebecois and other members in this House.
We in the Bloc Quebecois are sovereignists and we come from
Quebec. In other words, we support Quebec's sovereignty and are
opposed to any form of intrusion in its jurisdictions, while seeking
to expand those jurisdictions until Quebecers decide to have their
own country.
Obviously we do not have the same outlook as the other
members of this House, who are federalists. When a bill is tabled,
we do not consider or analyze the bill in the same way the Liberals,
Reform members and the remaining Conservatives do, who are
federalists. They still believe in federalism but we do not. They
believe in intrusion and imposition but we do not.
It is only normal that we should see bills like the one we are
discussing today as potential for encroachment on Quebec's
jurisdictions, while the other parties do not see it that way.
The deep-seated convictions of each and everyone of us mean
that our points of view are different. We always try to assess the
short and longer term impact of legislation on the prerogatives of
the provinces. And when we consider the longer term effects, we
feel that Bill C-83 will have a negative impact on the prerogatives
of Quebec and thus on the environment.
From our point of view, the environment must be a provincial
responsibility if we are to protect it, preserve it and, in many cases,
restore it. We think it is clear the provinces have come a long way
and today have most of the responsibilities in this area.
It is up to them to respond to their people and to pass effective
legislation and set up programs and projects to preserve the
environment. Many are already doing so, with good results.
Quebec has assumed its responsibilities and done its homework.
Furthermore, Quebec has led the way in a number of areas,
including environmental assessment.
(1510)
Looking at the federal side, there is not much to get excited
about. The environmental effects are very watered down, and
interest in the environment is not all that high and is a relatively
recent thing. On the other hand, what is most remarkable about the
federal government, the Liberal government in particular, is its
great desire to become the saviour of the environment and to push
aside the provinces more and more. It does this by riding over them
roughshod, duplicating legislation, regulations, programs. The
effects of this desire to interfere and to take over the helm at any
price are very harmful to both the environment and the economy.
Bill C-83 has not escaped this constantly increasing desire by the
feds to throw their weight around in the environmental area, as in a
number of others. I wanted to explain this fundamental difference
between us and the other members of this House because of what
the hon. member for Davenport said about me last Monday. He
wondered, and I quote: ``-is it perhaps that the member for
Laurentides badly needs a psychiatrist to remove her obsession
with federal-provincial relations, her obsession with seeing under
16744
every chair a federal monster, a federal presence which may
disrupt the quiet life of the people in her riding?''
I personally feel that the member for Davenport has defined our
fears very well. I could not have depicted the federal government as
well myself. And if he defines himself in that way, then surely the
definition must be an apt one. Thank you, dear colleague, for that
revealing definition.
You will understand that following such a definition, we will see
the federal monster not under the chair, as you said, but on the
chairs in front of us.
I am rather in a jocular mood today. I have to be, otherwise I
would probably have to see a psychiatrist as the hon. member for
Davenport suggested. As for me, I would never dare to suggest that
my colleague from Davenport consult his geriatrician because of
his retarded and old-fashioned ideas. I respect him to much to make
such a suggestion. Yet, it is obvious that he looks at Bill C-83 with
the eye of a federalist while I see it as a sovereignist.
However, the hon. member goes a bit too far when he accuses us
of being against the health of Canadians, against the integration of
environment and economy, against the protection of ecosystems
and against the prevention of pollution. This is getting close to
demagoguery and intellectual dishonesty.
The Speaker: Dear colleague, you used the expression
``intellectual dishonesty''. Perhaps you could consider using words
that are more appropriate. I wish you would. I a not asking you to
withdraw but simply to reconsider.
Mrs. Guay: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Do you wish me to
withdraw that part?
The Speaker: No.
Mrs. Guay: Very well. Thank you.
We, sovereignists are as much if not more interested in ecology
than most Liberal, Reform and Conservative members, the
federalists in this House. To say that we are against the
environment, in particular against sustainable development,
because we do not support bill C-83 is going a bit far.
We are the ones who initially proposed the creation of a position
of environment auditor within the auditor general's office. The
minister took up the Bloc's idea and introduced the bill.
Besides, the auditor general, Denis Desautels, said in committee
that he was already performing this role and could continue do to so
if given more resources.
This seemed to us the best solution, the most efficient, the least
expensive and the most logical. But the Liberals went overboard on
this. They stuck doggedly to the promise they had made in the red
book and suggested the creation of an independent office of the
Commissioner of the Environment.
They suggested furthermore to renew the mandate of the auditor
general in this area, even to give him additional resources. In other
words, the Liberals wanted two independent offices, two auditors
to perform the same task. What a fine way to manage. The Liberals
wanted to create expensive and inefficient overlaps within the
federal machinery itself.
(1515)
So, if they are advocating creating duplication in their own
house, one can certainly understand our reluctance and concern as
to the commitment of these same people not to interfere in
provincial jurisdiction. One can imagine the chaos and the
administrative mess created by two environmental auditors. Such a
situation would have been intolerable, and detrimental to the
environment itself.
The Minister of the Environment-the best we ever had
according to the member for Davenport, who is very humble since
he himself has been a Minister of the Environment before-was
clever enough to follow through. She introduced Bill C-83 at first
reading stage on April 25. At that time, we were in favour of the
bill.
Later on, in committee, everything changed completely. Eager to
lay it on, the Liberals suggested amendments that clearly
demonstrated their annoying tendency to think that environmental
protection is an exclusive federal role. When these amendments
were tabled, for that matter, they were in for a bumpy ride, in fact it
almost degenerated into a farce. At first, the Liberals moved
amendments and voted on them. Next, relying on a rule rarely
invoked, they cancelled these same amendments only to move new
ones and take another vote. I want to point out that no amendment
moved by the Bloc Quebecois carried.
So, the whole amendment stage was marked by confusion and
turmoil. It seemed that the Liberals themselves could not
understand each other; they appeared to be torn between publics
servants and politicians. That resulted in the Liberal amendment
that modifies the bill by adding section 21.1, from (a) to (h). This
added clause is what had led us to fear increased federal
interference in provincial jurisdiction, and that is why we reject
this bill. Liberals and Reformers are doing their best to convince us
that this is not the case, but we see things differently.
We have been called obsessed, paranoid, we have been told we
have a phobia against federalism. Fine. We have every right to feel
that way, considering the environmental record of the federal
government. We would not want the government to do more when
it cannot even reach its own objectives in its own jurisdiction.
There are examples. The issues dealt with by the Liberals in the
last two years and more clearly demonstrate that they are far from
keeping their red book promises and that the minister, whom the
member for Davenport has been praising for the last few days,
failed on all counts. Indeed, criticism levelled by environmentalists
at the Minister of the Environment, who is so very comptent
16745
according to the member for Davenport, has been getting harsher
and harsher, lately.
Environmentalists, the provinces, experts and reporters are
forthright in their assessment of the minister's work and action.
Disappointment is felt everywhere. The minister's abilities are
regularly called into question. Bill C-83 is itself a telling example
of the government's weakness. The red book proposed an
independent auditor. Liberals in the standing committee proposed
the same. The result is that the minister is meeting them halfway:
half result, half failure. And now the Liberals are bragging about
their minister's accomplishments.
One would have to be really blind or totally soft in the head to
congratulate the minister on this issue. The least we can say is that
the Liberals are a spineless lot.
Another issue is endangered and threatened species. If I were a
Liberal, a federalist, I would find that the minister's position on
this is very poor, and that her plan of action leaves much to be
desired. In fact, the member for Davenport himself has tabled a
private member's bill, Bill C-275, which is aimed at protecting
species. Is the very competent minister supporting this bill? Why is
that legislation not part of the government agenda?
We, Quebec sovereignists, are very happy with the minister's
half measures in this area. In Quebec, we are quite capable of
taking care of our species. But if I were a Liberal, a federalist, I
would not find that the minister's performance in this area is not
very good. The greenhouse gas issue? Another issue where the
minister is incapable of reaching her objectives. The provinces
seem increasingly to want to distance themselves from the minister
on this issue. The same holds true for the whole issue of
harmonization with the provinces.
(1520)
The provinces do not seem to like the minister's
heavyhandedness, as she is more intent on imposing the federal
will than harmonizing. That is another failure of the Liberals and
their very competent minister.
As for the CEPA, the Canadian Environment Protection Act, we
are still waiting for an answer from the minister. She is late, and
that in spite of the fact the committee clearly asked that she meet
the deadline. Is the minister really looking after her
responsibilities? I will let you answer that question. However, to
ask the question is to answer it.
The Irving Whale, MMT, federal BCPs, etc., all these issues
have something in common. Of course, they fall under the
responsibility of the environment minister, but mainly they stand
out as failures or as very sensitive issues whose management can
only be described as incompetent and dominated by petty politics.
Are the members opposite asleep? Are they not aware of all the
mistakes their minister is making and of her inability to run her
department? How distinguished Liberal members, true
environmentalists albeit federalists, unfortunately, can lavish such
praise on the minister is beyond me.
From a sovereignist perspective, Bill C-83, as explained earlier,
poses a very real threat of federal intrusion into a provincial area of
jurisdiction. Looking very closely at clause 21.1, one can see this
clearly.
Dealing at first with sustainable development, this clause refers
further on, through subclauses a to h, to several items that are under
provincial jurisdiction. True, the Liberals claim that these are
merely general goals related to sustainable development. We think
there is more to it than that if you look beyond the words and this
list of goals. Over the long term, these goals will encourage federal
departments to intrude upon the jurisdictions of other government
levels. The fact that a commissioner will measure the performance
of departments against these goals in their programs or projects
will be an incentive for them to do more and to get better results,
even if they overstep their own area of jurisdiction.
Thus, under clause 21.1, a department encroaching on an area of
provincial jurisdiction will get a positive appraisal from the federal
commissioner. There was certainly nothing else to be expected
from the Liberal committee members. True to themselves, they
repeated the same arguments they had put forward when we were
studying the CEPA, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.
Sustainable development, a concept which the Liberals use a
great deal to crowd out the provinces, is an ideal all societies
should strive for.
Let us be clear. What is at stake here is not the validity of this
principle, but the way it is implemented.
The Bloc Quebecois not only recognizes the validity of the
principle, but also the need, not to say the urgent need, to translate
it into concrete measures.
We believe this principle should be implemented by the
provinces because they have the overriding jurisdiction over the
environment. It is up to the provinces to promote the conditions
needed for sustainable development.
In a federal system, the principle of sustainable development
takes on a new dimension, that is respect for jurisdictions and areas
of authority. Obviously, the squandering of both financial and
human resources in order to maintain a dual structure, is in no way
sustainable.
16746
However, clause 21.1 provides for the commissioner to monitor
the progress of the various departments, by taking into
consideration criteria which clearly come under areas of provincial
jurisdiction.
Clause 21.1(a) deals with the integration of the environment and
the economy. In fact, this part of the commissioner's mandate can
turn into subsidy programs for suppliers or targeted purchase
programs. For example, the Department of Public Works and
Government Services can set so-called ``environmental'' standards
for some very specific purchase programs.
(1525)
Let us say that the department wants to buy 10,000 sheets of
plywood, but that the award of this contract is subject to some
sustainable development standards stipulated in the purchase
program. The commissioner comes in, does his job, examines the
purchase program and realizes that the program does not meet
some objectives, such as maintenance of the resource, the wood
fibre used, or that the process used causes too much pollution.
In other words, the environment commissioner assesses the
purchase program and concludes that the standards do not promote
sustainable development. In his report, he then urges the
department to upgrade its criteria.
But, in this case involving the purchase of sheets of plywood, the
whole industry comes under the provincial jurisdiction, thus under
provincial criteria. What will happen if the federal criteria are not
compatible with the Quebec criteria? What will industries do in
such a mess? Who is better able to impose criteria and standards?
The federal minister, under the guidance of the commissioner, or
the Quebec minister?
There is no doubt in my mind that the provinces, which already
have jurisdiction in this matter, are in a better position to manage
their own affairs, that is, in this case, the forest industry and its
pollutants.
This situation could occur in each and every department. One
can easily imagine the jurisdictional problems that such situations
could cause. This kind of back-door underhanded interference is
unacceptable. I would like to hope that federalists will be bright
enough to understand this situation and recognize that it is quite
probable.
Other examples show that the federal government has used its
spending power several times to launch programs or projects in
areas of provincial jurisdiction. In many cases, after a few months,
the federal government withdrew and let the provinces, especially
the province of Quebec, foot the bill or assume responsibility for
cancellation.
Item (b) is about protecting the health of Canadians. That makes
the people on the other side jump and rant on about us, saying that
the Bloc is against protecting the health of Canadians and
Canadians being in good shape.
What we want is for Quebecers, Ontarians and Albertans to be in
good health. Health is a matter of exclusive provincial jurisdiction.
It incumbent upon the provinces to prevent environmental
degradation from threatening public health.
How far could the federal government go with this clause? It is a
question the Liberals should answer.
Once again, duplication of standards and competition with
provincial standards are inefficient and costly, for governments as
well as for businesses and individuals. Again, the federal
government opens the door to further jurisdictional quarrels.
Considering the crystal clear position of provinces on this issue,
it is difficult to understand the attitude of the federal government.
This is further proof that the Liberals have completely failed to
grasp the repeated requests for change made by Canadians and
Quebecers.
Clause 21.1(c) deals with the protection of ecosystems. As
owners and managers of the land, the provinces have jurisdiction
over the management of ecosystems. For example, to support this
role, Quebec has created 17 national parks. It also adopted
legislative tools to ensure the protection of biodiversity.
Provinces that have not done this must take action and meet the
demands of the international community, which, for example, has
criticized, in the OECD report, the environmental performance of
Canada in the protection of ecosystems.
Bill C-98, an act respecting the oceans of Canada, is an object of
concern for the protection of ecosystems. With this bill, the
minister of Fisheries and Oceans, the saviour of our nation and of
our turbot, strips the Minister of the Environment of her
jurisdiction over this area.
(1530)
He says that he wants to take full responsibility for the protection
of ecosystems. We can well imagine the commissioner asking the
minister of Fisheries to impose standards on a municipal waste
water treatment plant because it pollutes an ecosystem where
specific species of fish live. But municipal waste waters fall under
the exclusive jurisdiction of provinces. Is it not a direct
interference with provincial jurisdiction?
Paragraph (d) is about meeting Canada's international
obligations. The majority of these international commitments were
made on behalf of the provinces, which are sometimes the last to be
informed of Canadian positions. That goes to show the contempt in
which the provinces are held by the federal government.
16747
For example, Canada made serious mistakes by committing to
reduce greenhouse gases to an extent far greater than what some of
the most directly concerned provinces would have accepted. These
are a few things that make us doubt the will of the federal
government to respect the provinces. Section 21.1 of Bill C-83 is
evidence of the contrary.
Under the guise of environmental protection objectives, the
federal government is encroaching further on provinces'
jurisdictions. I would also like to say a few words about the
opportunity this bill gives individuals and groups to put pressure
through petitions. Allow me to be sceptical about the effectiveness
of these petitions, which will be treated the same way they are
treated now by the government: they will simply be tabled in the
House. Obviously petitions do not change anything and do not
influence anybody, including ministers.
As I have said before, lobbyists and ministers go hand in hand
and petitions are an exercise in futility. It is ridiculous to claim that
the petition tabling process provided for in Bill C-93 will be a
formidable weapon for the protection of the environment. The
minister has not reinvented the wheel with this idea.
To conclude my remarks, I will say this: the commissioner of the
environment must not encourage or even support this offhand
attitude that characterizes federal interventions as a whole. I would
like to read to you an excerpt from a document on the impact of
federalism, published by the Quebec government in August 1995,
and I quote: ``Quebec's effectiveness and its ability to meet its
objectives are increasingly hindered by the intransigence shown by
the federal government in areas such as environmental assessment,
the inconsistency of its interventions in relation to those of Quebec,
including the sudden elimination of grant program funding and
regulatory duplication in the pulp and paper and mining industries,
the derogatory remarks contained in the report of the House of
Commons Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable
Development, and the fact that the federal government is forcing
the adoption of its strategies in areas that should largely be under
provincial jurisdiction, such as toxic substances, pollution
prevention and sustainable development.''
The role of the commissioner of the environment is not to
promote duplication. On the contrary, he should encourage the
various levels of government to respect each other's areas of
jurisdiction. By giving so explicitly to the commissioner of the
environment the mandate to monitor the extent to which
sustainable development objectives are met, members of the
committee have unduly politicized the role of the commissioner.
We hope that, in the medium term, the use he will make of this
mandate will have no impact on his credibility and his impartiality.
[English]
The Speaker: My colleagues, for the first three intervenors
there will be no questions and comments.
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster-Burnaby, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak today on
Bill C-83, which will amend the Auditor General Act.
(1535 )
Should this bill go on from this House to the other place and be
given royal assent, Canada will be the proud owner of a brand new
environmental commissioner, so it is said. The commissioner will
have all the bells and whistles of the limousine, yet little gas to
drive the wheels. The hands of the commissioner will be tied to the
auditor general, who will ultimately have the final say on
everything the commissioner does.
I want to read a promise from the Liberals' red book on page 64:
Our second task will be to appoint an Environmental Auditor General,
reporting directly to Parliament, with powers of investigation similar to the
powers of the Auditor General.
I want to briefly compare this promise to what is proposed in Bill
C-83. The red book promises that the environmental auditor
general would report directly to Parliament. Bill C-83 has the
commissioner reporting to Parliament through the auditor general
under his office, which is hardly what one would call direct.
Reformers believe that the environment should be protected. We
believe there is a place for critical review of what the government
is doing with respect to the protection of the environment. It is our
wish that this person be objective and independent as well as
critical. It is also our wish that this person fit within fiscal reality.
Some Liberal members across the floor may think I am referring
to exactly what is in Bill C-83, but I suggest that they read the bill a
little more closely.
The commissioner cannot be an independent figure. In fact the
commissioner might as well be a clerk of the auditor general. In
other words, the commissioner is simply a staff member of the
auditor general's office and subject to the larger pressures and
priorities of that office.
I want to reassure members of the House that Reform is not
opposed to the internal structure of the bill. We are simply opposed
to the fact that money is being spent on a lot of status building
trappings for a person whose job is already performed by the
auditor general.
During the environment committee's clause by clause
consideration of the bill, the Reform Party proposed that any
reference to the word ``commissioner'' be dropped and replaced by
the term ``auditor general''. I was not surprised to see that our
amendment was voted down. It would be a cardinal sin, would it
not, for any government member to vote in favour of an opposition
amendment. We know how the petulant Prime Minister likes to
punish his members.
16748
I believe our amendment would have strengthened the bill in
efficiency as well as cost effectiveness. Allow me to explain that
point.
We all know that the auditor general makes reports on how the
government is undertaking certain environmental initiatives. Most
recently, in his 1994 report, the auditor general reported on the
environmental partners fund and the ice services branch of the
Atmospheric Environmental Service. In the 1995 report Mr.
Desautels reported on environmental management systems and
environmental hazardous wastes. Allow me to briefly go through
the report on hazardous wastes from the May 1995 report. The
auditor general cites background information, audit objectives,
observations and recommendations on the storage and destruction
of PCBs.
It is no secret to Canadians that as a country we have a
tremendous problem with PCB waste. We have been stockpiling
the contaminated wastes for years. Now we are trying to get rid of
it at the lowest possible cost. I read recently that Canadian
companies hold a total of 127,025 tonnes of PCBs at 3,216 storage
sites across the country. This number includes 495 federal sites
containing 5,206 tonnes.
This is outrageous. What is even more scandalous is the fact that
the government continues to do little about it. The minister may
talk of studies that are being done, but studies are not going to help
the people of Sydney, Nova Scotia, home of one of Canada's most
polluted industrial wastelands. The Sydney tar ponds are presently
contaminated by over 700,000 tonnes of toxic chemicals, including
PCBs, coal tar, volatile aromatics, acid drainage and raw sewage.
The minister says that progress is being made. Yet to date less than
90 tonnes of waste have been incinerated, not even 1 per cent.
We are not talking about storage sites holding newspapers or pop
cans waiting to be recycled. These are sites holding a substance
banned in Canada in the late 1970s. It is a dangerous toxic site and
it is harmful to health.
In many communities laden with a PCB problem, a steady rise in
the cancer rate is not uncommon. In fact Sydney is now known as
Canada's cancer capital, with a rate almost three times the national
average.
(1540 )
The auditor general's report on managing hazardous waste
outlines the role Environment Canada should play in the
management of PCBs. It states the following:
The Department provides the federal voice at CCME and federal leadership
in the development and implementation of federal-provincial initiatives to
regulate the use of PCBs and the storage and destruction of PCB wastes. The
Department also spearheads the federal part of the national initiative by
co-ordinating the activities of federal owners of PCBs and providing advice to
both headquarters and regional levels on the storage, transportation and
treatment of PCB waste.
In May 1994 the auditor general put forward his report on the
management of hazardous waste. Now, one year and six months
later, what has the federal government done to improve the PCB
problem? Nothing. What is the government going to do? I am open
to hear all the answers; however, I believe they will perhaps
maintain the status quo. Again, the status quo really is nothing. I
doubt that a commissioner will make much difference.
The auditor general clearly spelled out for the government that
PCB sites need to be cleaned up. How much more can I stress the
point the auditor general made? He did not say it would be simply a
good idea to clean up the sites. Rather, he stated that it was
essential in order that the health of Canadians would not be put in
jeopardy.
The government did not respond to the report. Therefore, if the
government is clearly not acting on the auditor general's reports, I
want to know what will be so special about the reports that will be
written by the commissioner that will make the government act.
Perhaps when we have time for questions and comments some hon.
members from the government benches will be able to enlighten
me on how they would be more apt to follow the warnings of the
commissioner when they do not now follow those of the auditor
general.
Bill C-83 will give us an environmental commissioner, which we
are told will whip the government into shape with respect to
environmental issues. That is something the auditor general has
apparently been trying to do.
The bill outlines that the commissioner will have several tasks to
undertake. One of those tasks is the handling of petitions. A
resident of Canada will now be able to file a petition concerning an
environmental matter in the context of sustainable development.
The commissioner would then forward it to the appropriate
minister for whom the petition was intended. The recipient
minister would then be required to acknowledge receipt of the
petition within 15 days. In addition, that same minister would be
required to respond to the petition within four months. In the bill it
notes that the four-month period might be extended by the minister
if the petitioner and the auditor general were both notified that it
would not be possible to respond within the allotted four months.
What the bill is really saying is that we need legislated
permission for someone to write a complaint letter. Maybe with
this new wrinkle the minister might even answer the mail.
Another duty of the new commissioner will be to monitor
whether or not federal departments have met the objectives set out
in their sustainable development strategies. The bill's amendment
to section 24 would require that each federal department prepare a
sustainable development strategy and table it in the House of
Commons. Departments will have to table their strategies within
16749
two years of the bill coming into force. After that, strategies would
have to be updated every three years.
In a nutshell, this will be the job description of the new
environmental commissioner within the auditor general's office. In
my opinion, the tasks themselves are reasonable. The monitoring
of departments in terms of sustainable development makes sense,
especially when the Ministry of the Environment has failed to do
its job on this score. The accepting and passing on of petitions is
good as well. It is essential that constituents know that the petitions
they file are being reviewed and acted on. However, there is a
fundamental flaw in the bill. While the bill creates this high profile
commissioner, it gives the person no independent power. That
option was rejected by the government.
I mentioned that the job description in the bill was reasonable,
and I believe that monitoring may make a difference. However,
there is no need to create a commissioner to follow through on
these objects when the auditor general still has the final say, and his
officials have been doing the job for some time.
I believe that all of the above mentioned responsibilities could
be taken on by the auditor general and be performed effectively and
efficiently on a regular basis if he were given the resources.
However, I can clearly see why the Minister of the Environment
chose to go the route she did. It makes it look as if the government
is moving ahead with its environmental responsibilities and
fulfilling this longstanding promise. I believe we call this window
dressing.
(1545 )
We are in a time of fiscal crisis. The deficit is out of control and
things appear to be getting worse instead of better. We need to be
tightening our belts instead of loosening them. Government
departments need to be amalgamated and consolidated to
streamline services. We need to save money at every turn.
The same applies to the issue we are discussing today in the bill.
While the ideas are reasonable, the process is not. The duties of the
environmental commissioner should be part of the auditor
general's regular duties. The auditor general could easily expand
and juggle his staff to help in the monitoring of government
departments and the transferring of petitions from constituent to
minister.
Such a small ordinary solution would not make the minister look
environmentally green among her international cohorts. The
Liberals overreaching undeliverable promises are now revealed.
This is exactly the fundamental problem with the thinking of the
government. Image seems to be everything.
Let me inform the Minister of the Environment of what I am
hearing from my constituents about how governments should run.
They want government to function without the flare and the
Cadillac style. They want a government that is fiscally responsible
and accountable. They also want an environment minister who puts
environmental results at the top of the agenda within a fiscally
responsible framework.
The bill creates redundancy. I have never heard where
redundancy was a synonym for responsibility.
In May 1994 the Standing Committee on Environment and
Sustainable Development tabled a report entitled ``The
Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development''.
This was the result of many long hours of hearing witnesses and
reviewing documentation. I have highlighted some very interesting
observations, primarily some from the comments made by the
auditor general, Mr. Desautels. He told the committee that his
office has for many years ``been carrying out much of what would
be the main audit responsibilities of an environmental auditor
general''.
The auditor general also stated that the office, referring to the
current auditor general's office, will ensure that in carrying out its
responsibilities it makes a positive contribution through audit to
the protection and improvement of the national and global
environment.
In my reading of the standing committee's report my conclusion
was that the auditor general also thinks that his office could handle
the increased responsibility and assume the role of monitoring the
sustainable development strategies of federal departments.
I want the House to hear the six points the auditor general made
when he appeared before the committee on why his office could
continue to audit environmental sustainable development issues
without any commissioner.
First, there would be no need for a new bureaucracy as an audit
infrastructure already exists in the office of the auditor general. It
would be less costly to the taxpayer as the office already has the
structure in place to provide appropriate training, carry out
research, develop methodology and carry out audit work.
Second, the independence, objectivity and credibility of the
office of the auditor general are already established.
Third, there would be no confusion or duplication of roles as
there might be with a new office of the environmental auditor
general.
Fourth, the principles of sustainable development would be
reinforced in that the environmental issues are audited together
with economic and social ones.
Fifth, one auditor would create less disruption in the
organization being audited if an additional external audit were also
at work.
Sixth, the auditor general's office through its existing
relationships with provincial legislative auditors can promote
concurrent and/or joint federal-provincial audits of
multi-jurisdictional environmental issues. This could help to
overcome some of the
16750
problems related to the division of federal and provincial powers
concerning environmental matters.
There is no question that the auditor general could undertake a
more expansive role. He has said it to members of the standing
committee. More important, if we were to ask the average person
on the street we would discover that the vast majority is totally
opposed to new levels of bureaucracy.
My constituents in New Westminster-Burnaby feel there is
already far too much bureaucracy in government. When they find
out that the government is passing legislation to add another level,
my office phone might ring off the hook.
I refer to another important statement in the committee's report
which reflects exactly what the Reform proposed in clause by
clause consideration in committee:
-it would appear that the Auditor General Act does not need to be amended
in order for the auditor general, on his own volition, to expand his audit
activities in the areas of environmental and sustainable development
auditing.
On the other hand, the act will have to be amended if the government wishes
to make environmental and sustainability auditing a mandatory activity. The
committee members were of the opinion that the Auditor General Act should be
amended to this effect.
(1550)
The Reform Party believes in sustainable development. We
believe that through responsible economic development and the
economic capacity that results, the environment will be sustained
for all Canadians to enjoy.
Let me also say that the Reform Party supports the federal
government taking leadership in developing a new discipline of
integrating economics and the environment. However, while we
support the truest definition of sustainable development we also
support going about change in the most economical and pragmatic
way possible.
Bill C-83 is definitely not cost effective. The installation of the
environmental commissioner could cost upwards of $5 million in
the next few years. We should consider the amount that was spent
by the auditor general's office in 1993. In this year $4.5 million or
7.5 per cent of the entire auditor general's budget was spent on
audits of programs and activities of the federal government.
I do not believe that the activities of the commissioner will need
$5 million to operate. If the auditor general's office were to get just
a portion of that amount, I am sure it would be able to hire the
appropriate staff and perform the functions of the commissioner
very admirably. However, we know it is about prestige and status.
Prestige will be bought with a huge no cut contract for some
so-called superstar and his or her appropriate entourage.
I cannot support a bill that does not take economic matters into
consideration. If the government were serious about doing the right
thing, it would have accepted Reform's proposal to get rid of the
aspect of commissioner and hand over the responsibilities to the
auditor general. Unfortunately such was not the case.
The environmental community and the Liberals when in
opposition wanted a completely independent watchdog of the
government concerning environmental matters. They saw the
policy need and the need related to control, lines of accountability
and the reporting structure. The independent commissioner was to
have meaningful investigative powers and was intended to
embarrass and expose laxity, rule breaking and poor administration
on environmental matters. Now that the Liberals are in government
the red book's high sounding phrases are only phrases. The bill it
has now brought forward as a government is much less than what it
promised.
The decision has been made: no independent commissioner or
environmental auditor general. If we are not to have one, why not
facilitate the auditor general's office with a little more resources
and some enhanced legislative mandate and encourage him to get
on with it? Not the Liberals; they want it both ways.
There will be business as usual but the bill also creates a new
title under auditor general who has a position identified and set out
with legislative status. With a magic wand we have an
environmental commissioner. There are great press release
opportunities, a high profile appointment and international
advertising for the position. I wonder if the superstar contract will
be larger than the boss to whom he reports, the auditor general.
If we have to spend more on environmental auditing, it should
give the auditor general some resources and an enhanced mandate.
It should not try to fool the public into thinking that it has
something that was promised. The government should do one or
the other. I can imagine the morale problems these new favoured
environmental kids will cause in the regular office of the auditor
general.
The bill does not make sense from a public administration point
of view. The whole exercise as constituted is not likely to be good
dollar value. The bill tries to take things both ways, but no one is
fooled. Either we have a real auditor general for the environment or
we do not.
If it is to be a subset and a listed function of the current auditor
general, let us be forthright about it. The expensive optics game of
the bill is out of sync with what the country wants and needs.
Whom are we trying to impress? Is it the public or maybe the
senior deputy ministers of various ministries of the crown who
have failed so far to fulfil their environmental duty under the law?
16751
I am not buying it and I do not think the public will either. When
Reformers are the ministers, the auditor general report will be
regarded and acted on quickly and there will not be any overpaid
superstar commissioner.
Mrs. Jean Payne (St. John's West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise today in support of Bill C-83. The Liberal Party red
book stated that the government would provide national
environment and economic agendas. We also said that one of our
priorities would be to appoint an environmental auditor general
who would report to Parliament directly and would have powers of
investigation similar to those of the auditor general. Bill C-83
fulfils this commitment and does even more.
(1555)
Bill C-83 demonstrates that the government is serious about
environmental and sustainable development, that we are willing to
change the way government does business, and that government is
not afraid to be held publicly accountable for what it does or does
not do.
Federal government policies and operations have an impact on
the decisions of Canadians, on the economy and on the
environment. It is critical therefore that environmental and
sustainable development considerations are integrated in
government decision making. By getting its house in order the
federal government can actively promote the shift to sustainable
development throughout Canadian society. This is what Bill C-83
is all about.
The Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable
Development deserves a large share of the credit for the bill. The
committee examined the government's red book commitment to
establish an environmental equivalent to the auditor general. It
recommended the establishment of a commissioner of environment
and sustainable development. It provided valuable input at report
stage when it made several recommendations to improve the bill.
Bill C-83 explicitly incorporates environmental and sustainable
development in the Auditor General Act. It would also give the
auditor general the explicit legal mandate to include environmental
effects alongside the traditional considerations of economy,
effectiveness and efficiency among the considerations he uses to
determine the observations he will bring to the attention of the
House of Commons.
Bill C-83 will also provide the federal government with
leadership in making the shift to sustainable development. The
amendments will proactively promote sustainable development
across all federal departments.
Under the act ministers will be required to table in the House
sustainable development strategies that include their departments'
activities and plans of action to further sustainable development.
Departments will also be required to update their strategies every
three years and ministers to table updates in the House.
Bill C-83 will authorize the auditor general to forward petitions
on environmental matters from the public to the responsible
ministers. These ministers must respond within a specified
timeframe.
The amendments I have just mentioned are significant in and of
themselves but the bill goes much further. It creates a truly
independent commissioner of environment and sustainable
development. The commissioner will be established within the
office of the auditor general. This will strengthen the role of the
commissioner, ensuring independence and greatly enhancing the
auditing of the government's environmental performance. The
office of the auditor general has clout. It is independent from
government. It is well respected and has solid expertise that can be
put to use at once.
There is another advantage to the innovation. Within the work of
the auditor general issues of environment and sustainable
development will be integrated directly with economic
considerations. This kind of integration is what sustainable
development is all about.
To ensure his independence as an effective critic of government
the commissioner will be appointed by the auditor general. The
commissioner will be the auditor general's right hand person,
helping him perform all his duties in so far as they relate to
environmental and sustainable development.
The commissioner will monitor and report annually to the House
on any aspects of sustainable development, environmental,
economic or social, where they merit attention. These issues would
include the extent to which departments are implementing their
sustainable development action plans as set out in their strategies;
the extent to which these action plans are effective and departments
are achieving their sustainable development objectives; and the
number, subject matter and status of petitions received by
ministers.
The annual green report of the commissioner will not be the only
report to the House on the government's sustainable development
and environmental performance. The auditor general, assisted by
the commissioner, may also report on environmental matters in his
traditional reports to the House.
(1600 )
These amendments are historic and unprecedented. They will
have far reaching implications for the way the federal government
does business. They ensure that no matter who the auditor general
happens to be, environment and sustainable development will have
a high profile in the work of the office. They will provide
leadership on sustainable development by proactively promoting
and operationalizing sustainable development across federal
departments and across economic sectors of the country. They will
hold the government fully accountable to the public for its
leadership and progress in making the shift to sustainable
development.
16752
The government has taken a red book commitment and engaged
Parliament and Canadians in fulfilling it. Contrary to what the Bloc
member who spoke said, it was a commitment in our red book and
not one of their ideas.
I look forward to Bill C-83 becoming law and to the appointment
of a strong and independent commissioner.
[Translation]
Mr. Roger Pomerleau (Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, It is with great pleasure that I rise to address Bill
C-83, an Act to amend the Auditor General Act.
This bill seeks to achieve five specific objectives:
First, to ensure that environmental considerations in the context
of sustainable development are taken into account in the auditor
general's reports to the House of Commons.
Second, to provide for the appointment-as suggested by the
Bloc Quebecois-of a Commissioner of the environment and
sustainable development.
Third, to impose requirements for responding to petitions
received by the auditor general about federal environmental
matters in the context of sustainable development.
Fourth, to provide for monitoring and reporting to the House of
Commons on the activities of departments and the extent to which
they have met the objectives and implemented the plans set out in
their sustainable development strategies, and for reporting to the
House of Commons on petitions.
Fifth, to require that each department's sustainable development
strategies be prepared and tabled in the House of Commons.
From a technical point of view, if this bill is passed, a number of
measures will have to be taken.
First, an adequate definition of what is meant by ``sustainable
development'' will be necessary.
Second, the mandate of the Commissioner of the environment
and sustainable development will have to be properly defined.
Third, we will have to ensure that the process for responding to
petitions will adequately meet the requirements of the citizens who
submit these petitions.
Finally, we will have to ensure that all departments have
sustainable development strategies and that they meet the
objectives set therein. This means that a major structure to monitor
the activities of all departments will have to be put into place.
I said earlier that the first objective of Bill C-83 was to ensure
that environmental considerations in the context of sustainable
development are taken into account in the auditor general's reports
to the House of Commons. In order to achieve this goal, all
stakeholders must agree on a single definition of what sustainable
development really means.
Bill C-83 includes such a definition; it says that sustainable
development means ``development that meets the needs of the
present without compromising the ability of future generations to
meet their own needs''.
It is surprising, to say the least, that the Minister of the
Environment decided to include this definition in the bill to amend
the Auditor General Act, but that she has not yet included it in the
Canadian Environmental Protection Act itself.
In her speech to introduce this bill in the House of Commons on
September 18, the Minister of the Environment said this: ``[-] one
of the first departments the office of the commissioner will be
looking at is my department, the Department of the Environment.
We welcome the opportunity of independent public review because
we believe it will accelerate the integration of the two key
objectives of sustainable development and their integration into the
economy''.
(1605)
I hope that, during this review of the department's operations,
the commissioner will have the opportunity to set the Minister of
the Environment straight about this, because it would indeed not
make much sense if the basic respecting the environment in Canada
was not the first to include a definition of sustainable development.
The only possible explanation for this is the minister's inability
to carry out her responsibilities properly. Several examples come to
mind. The Irving Whale case is a well-known example, where the
minister proved to be unable to deal properly with such a major
issue and such a dramatic one, under the circumstances.
In that case, the office of the auditor general would obviously
have much to do to meet the first objective of this bill.
The second thing that Bill C-83 does is provide for the
appointment of a commissioner of the environment and sustainable
development. To this effect, the duties that the future commissioner
to the environment and sustainable development is expected to
perform are described in clauses 22 and 23.
The following information can be drawn from reading these
sections. First, the commissioner in question will report directly to
the auditor general, assist the auditor general in the performance of
his duties with respect to the environment and sustainable develop-
16753
ment. For instance, the commissioner will assess the effectiveness
of action plans in meeting the objectives set out in departmental
sustainable development strategies.
Second, the commissioner will follow up in the prescribed
manner any petition received from a resident of Canada about an
environmental matter in the context of this so-called sustainable
development.
Third, the commissioner will make any examinations and
inquiries that he deems necessary to monitor the extent to which
each department has met the objectives set out in its own
sustainable development strategy.
Finally, he will, on behalf of the auditor general, report annually
to the House of Commons on the extent to which each department
implemented its sustainable development plan and on anything in
relation to the environment that he considers should be brought to
the attention of the House.
I think it is important at this juncture to repeat to this House the
comments made by Auditor General Denis Desautels when he
appeared before the Environment and Sustainable Development
Committee on October 3.
At that time he said the following-and I shall quote him
extensively because I think that the Auditor General has put his
finger right on the fundamental problem in this matter.
I shall be quoting from several pages of Mr. Desautels'
testimony. He said: ``When I last appeared before this Environment
Committee, I also spoke of the expectations of the interested
parties concerning what it was agreed at that time to call the
`auditor general of the environment', as no name had been found at
that time. The extent of those expectations continues to be of
concern to me'' he continued. ``I feel that there might be a gap
between what interested parties such as the environmentalist
groups want the commissioner to do, or hope that he can do, and
the reality of the mandate and the available funding. In the coming
months, it will be important to take care to reduce that gap as much
as possible. I would, however, like to speak briefly of three areas in
which such a gap might exist''.
``When I came to speak to this Environment Committee in
March of 1994, I stressed the importance of the office's
independence and objectivity, which have justified its credibility
since its creation in 1878''.
``I pointed out that the responsibility for issues such as policy
examination and environmental conflict resolution ought not to be
a mandate of my office, since this might quickly and seriously
endanger the long-standing independence, objectivity and
credibility of the Auditor General''.-I think that we can agree
with Mr. Desautels on that.
``It is generally accepted in Canada that legislative auditors do
not comment on the justification of policies. They concentrate on
the application of policies''-policies defined by others, including
this House.
``I might also add that our contacts with other auditor generals
throughout the world indicate that the majority of my counterparts
elsewhere interpret their mandate in the same way. ``The proposed
amendments to the Auditor General Act contain no provision
authorizing the office to comment on policy, and we will not do
so''.
(1610)
I would like to intervene at this point. We see that the auditor
general made it clear that he will not be involved in formulating
policies but in enforcing policies formulated by others.
Mr. Desautels continued to discuss his role as ombudsman or
what that role would be expected to be: ``Similarly, neither the
proposed amendments nor the current mandate of the office
provide that the office should play the role of ombudsman. To play
that role would be costly and might have an adverse effect on the
credibility of the Auditor General's Office and the commissioner of
the environment and sustainable development''.
He also talked about jurisdictions, saying: ``Finally, the mandate
of the Auditor General's Office, including the proposed duties of
the commissioner of the environment and sustainable
development, is limited to what falls within the purview of the
federal government. Neither I nor the commissioner have or will
have the authority to deal with matters that are a provincial or
municipal responsibility. I think it is important to mention here that
the mandate and duties of the office, including those of the
commissioner''-and I underlined what Mr. Desautels said in my
text- ``cannot be a substitute for firm leadership by the
government and consistent management and accountability on the
part of the department. And this applies both to environmental and
non-environmental programs and activities''.
``It will be up to the department's senior management to
carefully scrutinize programs, and to determine whether they
achieve their objectives, whether they remain relevant, and also
whether there are more efficient ways to achieve the same results.
Such analysis is essential to sound program management and
proper communication of audit information''.
``A Guide to Green Government' published in June this year
indicates that departments are to report annually on progress made
on sustainable development in Part III of the Main Estimates. The
guide also indicates that this regular progress report in the Main
Estimates will require on-going monitoring and self-evaluation. As
part of its responsibilities, senior departmental management, will
have to monitor and evaluate its own progress. This is a
fundamental managerial responsibility, both in the public and
private sectors''.
16754
``The results of our work assessing programs indicate how hard
it is for the government to implement good ways of measuring
efficiency and to communicate practical information in this
regard''.
I think Mr. Desautels explains himself here and will indicate the
thrust of his interpretation of this bill: ``At a time of employee cuts
and restructuring, I fear the challenge may not been taken up''. The
auditor general goes on to say: ``In our experience, for departments
to act positively, they must be given leadership, support and
direction''. ``I think there may be some expectation that we will be
the ones to establish reference points or criteria on which to
measure the government's progress. We would become part of the
day to day business of the government, and thus the traditional
independence of the legislative auditor from operations would
disappear. This could also be seen as a potential conflict of interest,
because we would have to audit something we had developed''.
This is the end of the auditor general's text. I have taken the
liberty of reading much of it, because it is in fact the response of
the auditor general to this bill, which establishes his guidelines and
determines his responsibility. In his opinion, they do not seem to
correspond to people's expectations, and the auditor general
himself says in fact: ``I fear the challenge may not be taken up''.
In short, the auditor general is telling us he cannot meet
Parliament's expectations on the monitoring of activities of the
departments covered by this bill.
(1615)
What in fact are these expectations the auditor general refers to?
During debate at second reading, the parliamentary secretary to the
Minister of the Environment said the following, and I quote:
``Beyond the significant powers of the office, the very existence of
the office of a commissioner of environment and sustainable
development sends a powerful signal not only within the
government itself but beyond the government into the reaches of
Canadian society. They now know there will be somebody there, a
monitor, an ombudsman, who will devote his or her duties to the
environment and sustainable development in making sure the
government itself practices what it preaches''.
The remarks by the parliamentary secretary are somewhat at
odds with those of the auditor general. This is made even more
worrisome by the fact that, in the same speech, the hon. member
for Lachine-Lac-Saint-Louis goes on to say, ``The key issue here
is if this commissioner of environment and sustainable
development will be truly independent and have the necessary
powers, autonomy, independence to ensure that he or she is listened
to and that the public feels that through this office it has a voice and
a say''.
The auditor general's own description clearly shows that his role
depends essentially on the government's real leadership and not on
his own qualifications.
But, as we heard, the auditor general did say that playing the role
of ombudsman could have a negative impact on the credibility of
the auditor general's office and of the sustainable environment
commissioner. During the same debate, the hon. member for
Davenport had this to say about Bill C-83: ``This is not a minor
step. It is a remarkable one. It inserts in the mandate of the auditor
general the importance of monitoring sustainable development
strategy and implementing the meaning, significance and the
interpretation of sustainable development. That is no minor feat''.
Yet, the auditor general himself went to the trouble of toning
down this interpretation of the role that will be played by the
commissioner of the environment and sustainable development.
The auditor general himself said that the proposed amendments to
the Auditor General Act contained no provisions allowing the
auditor general's office to comment on the validity of policies, and
that they would not do so. That is what Mr. Desautels said.
I also want to point out that, in his September 18 speech, the
member for Davenport said: ``The role and the funding of the
commissioner must be ensured so that they do not suffer in times of
budget cuts. I am certain that this matter will be taken into account
fully''.
Let us hope that the reassuring words of the member for
Davenport, who is surely full of good intentions, will be heard by
the Treasury Board Secretariat, because the auditor general
expressed concern in that regard, following his discussions with
TBS. Mr. Desautels said: ``I want to point out that, in spite of the
additional resources made necessary by the amendments to the
Auditor General Act, in 1997-98, the office will have reduced its
budget by some $7 million per year''. Again, there is a
contradiction.
There is another provision in the bill which should be looked at,
namely the requirements to be imposed for responding to petitions
received by the auditor general about federal environmental
matters in the context of sustainable development. Clause 22 of the
bill states how these petitions will be dealt with. That clause reads
as follows:
(1) Where the Auditor General receives a petition in writing from a resident
of Canada about an environmental matter in the context of sustainable
development that is the responsibility of a category I department, the Auditor
General shall make a record of the petition and forward the petition within
fifteen days after the day on which it is received to the appropriate Minister for
the department.
(2) Within fifteen days after the day on which the Minister receives the petition from
the Auditor General, the Minister shall send to the person who made the petition an
16755
acknowledgment of receipt of the petition and shall send a copy of the
acknowledgment to the Auditor General.
(3) The Minister shall consider the petition and send to the person who made
it a reply that responds to it, and shall send a copy of the reply to the Auditor
General, within
(a) one hundred and twenty days after the day on which the Minister receives
the petition from the Auditor General; or
(b) any longer time, when the Minister personally, within those one hundred
and twenty days, notifies the person who made the petition that it is not
possible to reply within those one hundred and twenty days and sends a copy
of that notification to the Auditor General.
(4) Where the petition is from more than one person, it is sufficient for the
Minister to send the acknowledgment and reply, and the notification, if any, to
one or more of the petitioners rather than to all of them.
(1620)
I would have much more to say on petitions, Madam Speaker,
but you are signalling that my time is up.
To sum up, I would like to say this. We will be voting against this
bill for very specific reasons, in spite of the fact that we had
originally requested that a position of commissioner to the
environment be established.
The auditor general tells us that his basic problem is that he does
not believe that he will be able to fulfil this mandate adequately. He
also tells us that the government's leadership in this matter is more
important that his. And so far, on every issue-whether it is the
Irving Whale or the Berlin agreements on greenhouse effect-the
Minister of the Environment has failed to show the leadership
required to allow us to believe with any degree of certainly that the
commissioner of the environment would have any real power.
Third and last, I note also the very clear picture that my
colleague the hon. member for Laurentides has painted for us in her
quite accurate analysis of clause 21.1, which does invade areas of
provincial jurisdiction.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): 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 Brampton-unemployment.
Mr. Boudria: Madam Speaker, the speakers on this bill from
here on in will speak pursuant to Standing Order 43(2). In other
words, they will be sharing their time.
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am
truly delighted to rise to speak in support of Bill C-83, an act to
amend the Auditor General Act. This act will create for Canada a
commissioner for the environment and sustainable development.
I am particularly delighted in this case because this is a clear
example of us fulfilling a commitment we made to Canadians in
the red book, which was the basis of our election campaign. We
said then that we would move Canada toward sustainable
development. This bill is a very concrete step in that direction.
In the red book we recognized that there is no separation
between a national environmental agenda and a national economic
agenda. Since assuming office we have tried to implement that
belief wherever possible. We have implemented it in our approach
to planning and decision making within government. We have tried
to integrate economic matters, social matters and environmental
considerations. We understand that all these aspects of sustainable
development can and must be co-ordinated to give Canadians what
they want: a prosperous and healthy country in which we, our
children, and our children's children can work to achieve our
aspirations.
Environmental sustainable development must be an integral part
of decision making in all federal departments. That means that
decisions on new policies, programs, regulations, and laws as well
as decisions on existing ones, must take that into account. It also
includes decisions on how departments manage their buildings,
facilities, and operations.
Strategies of sustainable development are a key part of Bill
C-83. These strategies will take sustainable development from a
concept to a real practice across all federal departments. Each
minister will be required to table a sustainable development
strategy for his or her department in this House within two years of
the coming into force of this legislation.
By legal definition, sustainable development strategies must be
results oriented. Each strategy will include the department's
objectives and plans of action to obtain those objectives. Every
minister will in fact become a sustainable development minister.
We all now realize that sustainable development is not the sole
responsibility of the environment minister. It is the responsibility
of all ministers and indeed of us all as Canadians. As the
parliamentary secretary said earlier, in an ideal world we would not
need a Ministry of the Environment to monitor sustainable
development in Canada because it should be the concern of all of us
and of all ministries.
(1625)
These departmental strategies will also assist the new
environmental and sustainable development commissioner in
monitoring and reporting on the government's performance. The
stated objectives and action plans will serve as meaningful and
measurable benchmarks against which to assess each department's
performance in making the shift to sustainable development.
Departments are committed to developing their sustainable
development strategies and establishing their goals and action
plans in an open manner, working with all interested parties. This
16756
will help to ensure that the departments establish meaningful and
challenging targets.
In June the government released a guide to green government,
which was endorsed by the Prime Minister and all ministers. The
guide will assist federal departments and their stakeholders in the
preparation of their sustainable development strategies.
Federal government departments differ in their mandates and in
their abilities to influence Canada's sustainable development
prospects. As a result, their strategies will differ, but clearly
together they must present a coherent and consistent government
approach to sustainable development.
Sustainable development is an evolving concept. Indeed, our
understanding of sustainable development has evolved
considerably in the past few years and it will continue to evolve as
we grasp a further understanding of what it means as we move to
operationalize it.
The guide I mentioned provides core concepts and principles
underlying sustainable development as a starting point. The
concepts and principles will likely continue to evolve over time and
perhaps new concepts and principles will emerge.
Bill C-83 requires departments to update their sustainable
development strategies and requires responsible ministers to table
the updates in the House every three years. This allows the
evolving nature of sustainable development and the lessons learned
from operationalizing it to continually be incorporated into the
strategies.
Another key aspect of Bill C-83 is the appointment of a
commissioner of the environment and sustainable development
within the office of the auditor general. The commissioner will
assist the auditor general in performing general auditing duties. He
or she will also report annually to the House on any matter
concerning sustainable development that he or she considers merits
the attention of the House. The commissioner will not only
strengthen the work of the office of the auditor general on the
environment and sustainable development, he or she will also
enhance the federal government's accountability for its actions or
its inaction on the environment and sustainable development.
We are the first major country to build sustainable development
into our economy in this way. It is becoming increasingly clear that
those economies that take environmental costs into account are in
fact the most efficient of modern economies.
In conclusion, Bill C-83 establishes a framework for
sustainability across all federal departments and enhances the
government's accountability to the House for its progress on
sustainable development. We are not afraid of being held
accountable in this way because we are building a record of
accomplishments, a record of which we are proud.
Bill C-83 will have far reaching implications within the
government and within our society as a whole. It will move Canada
forward along the path from talking about sustainability to acting
sustainably. I look forward to the speedy passage of this important
legislation.
Mr. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am
pleased to speak on Bill C-83.
The Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable
Development took on the task of examining the government's
commitment to establish an environmental equivalent of the
auditor general. This was in fact a key red book commitment. It is
an idea that has been discussed and debated for many years. It is
also an idea the government is making a reality in short order.
(1630)
The committee heard from many stakeholders representing a
wide range of interests and opinions. Their testimony provided
important insights into what must be done for Canada to achieve
sustainable development.
The committee in preparing its report and the government in
proposing Bill C-83 have paid careful attention to the message of
stakeholders. The committee submitted its report in May of last
year and the government responded just over a year ago. Its
response was aimed at integrating economic, environmental and
social factors in federal planning and decision making across all
departments, just what the stakeholders had asked for.
Key aspects of that response include the amendments to the
Auditor General Act with which we are involved today. The
amendments would provide openness, transparency and leadership
by government on sustainable development and continued action to
make sustainable development a real practice throughout the
federal government. Bill C-83 is central to integrating the
environmental and sustainable development in government
planning decisions across all federal government departments.
Last year I had the pleasure of being part of the Special Joint
Committee for the Review of Canada's Foreign Policy. For the first
time as part of a review of foreign policy one of the areas we
looked at was sustainable development and the environment. We
can see more and more these days how much environmental issues
are international matters.
The hon. member for Peace River is here today. He was also a
part of that review. It was a very interesting process. I was pleased
that for the first time as a committee we recognized in our report
that the federal government should include as a major plank of its
foreign policy the promotion of sustainable development around
the world.
16757
Why is it important for us to make environmental matters and
sustainable development more of a priority in government? One
reason is that we live in a world of limited measurable natural
resources.
I asked a friend of mine, a professor of geography in Halifax, if
we could measure the atmosphere, the amount of air around the
world. He checked with a friend in a specialized area who was
more knowledgeable on the particular topic and told me there were
approximately five quadrillion tonnes of atmosphere around the
world. That is about one one-millionth of the total mass of the
earth. Twenty-one per cent of the atmosphere is oxygen.
It is measurable and finite which means that it is limited. There
is not always lots more where that came from. We have to
recognize therefore that if we can measure it and if we can limit it,
we can also destroy it. We can damage it. That is a very important
point to realize in thinking about the environment and the world we
live in.
This is the only planet we know of that will sustain and support
life. That is an important point too. If we damage this one we do not
have another one to go to. It is unrealistic to think we can choose
some other world or that we will have some way to transport
billions of people to some other planet where we can survive if we
damage this one.
There is a very narrow range of conditions in which life can
exist, particularly human life. Is it possible for us as human beings
to actually alter or change the conditions which sustain human life?
It seems to me the answer to that question is yes. We now have
solid evidence that we actually have changed the conditions. We
are having an impact on the conditions.
This year 2,000 leading world experts on climate change came to
the conclusion and agreed, after years of debating it and not being
ready to agree, that human activity contributes to global warming.
We are affecting climate change. We are moving in the narrow
range within which we can actually sustain human life. We should
be aware of that very important point.
(1635)
The planet has a limited ability to support human life.
Researchers at Cornell University in the U.S. determined in a study
that the earth's biosphere could only produce enough renewable
resources, food, fresh water and fish, to sustain about two billion
people at European standards. That is not North American
standards and we should know the difference. If members know
much about how Europeans live, they will know they are less
wasteful of resources. They tend to follow the three rs of reducing,
reusing and recycling a little more than we do. They have done it
for quite a while. They have a head start on the three rs that are so
important for the environment. I hope we can follow their example
and catch up quickly.
Not only in Europe but in North America we have to change our
practices to try to follow the three rs of reducing our consumption;
reusing our receptacles for pop, bottles of various kinds and other
containers; and reducing the amount of packaging of products.
Often we buy products with a lot more packaging than is required. I
understand marketing problems but somehow marketers have to
take into account environmental issues and find ways to market
with less packaging.
The whole issue of sustainable development is a new issue in
foreign policy and newer one in domestic policy. Today it must be a
core issue in our domestic as well as foreign policy. Sustainable
development is about integrating environmental, economic and
social values into decision making. That is very important for our
future. If we do not include all three in deciding what will be
sustainable for us in the future, how we will live in a sustainable
manner and how we will support social and other programs in a
sustainable manner, we have big problems. We need to think about
how much we value the environment, society and the people in it
and the economy. We must consider all these points and not one at
the exclusion of others.
When thinking of the environment we must think about how
much are interests are endangered. If we realize that we live in a
very narrow range of conditions that can support human life and
that we can actually affect those conditions, change them and move
them outside that range, we realize our interests are in danger.
One great problem for us is to determine how to move toward
goals of greater employment that are so important and at the same
time deal with tremendous challenges in the environment. That is a
major challenge of the next 50 years but I hope we manage to deal
with it sooner than that.
Should we increase our emphasis on sustainable development?
Clearly the answer is yes. We have done it in foreign policy. We are
now doing it by creating a role within the auditor general's office
for a commissioner who will report directly to the auditor general
and will file a report annually on how the government and all
departments are doing in environmental matters. It is very
important to keep the government's feet to the fire on
environmental matters to make sure it lives up to its
responsibilities to promote sustainable development in every
aspect of its activities.
I was very pleased to speak on the bill and I urge all members to
give it speedy passage.
Mr. Boudria: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
A while ago I invoked Standing Order 43(2). It is my
understanding that the member for Davenport would perhaps like
to speak slightly more than 10 minutes, if the House has no
objection, with the understanding that it would conclude the
speakers on the government side.
16758
Perhaps he will speak more than 10 minutes. On the other hand
there will be no other speakers so the effect will be the same, if
the House agrees.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(1640 )
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Madam Speaker, the
debate this afternoon has developed along five major areas of
discussion as raised by opposition members.
The first area is whether the independence of the auditor general
is in question as a result of the bill. The answer to that question is
that it is not. The independence of the auditor general is
maintained, is reinforced and is in full tradition developed by the
House over the decades.
The second area concerns whether the bill adds an additional
layer of bureaucracy and a cost that is unwarranted. Again the
answer is no. It is actually a recommendation. As some members of
the opposition have indicated, the bill reflects the
recommendations made in committee by several members of the
opposition to the effect that the measures should be as tight and as
task oriented as possible with no unnecessary bureaucracy added to
the existing one.
The third area is whether there is intrusion into provincial
jurisdiction. This concern has been raised by different speakers this
afternoon. The answer is simply no, there is no intrusion
envisioned. No passage of the bill can be interpreted as an intrusion
into provincial jurisdiction. I will elaborate on that later.
The fourth area raised deals with whether there is an ombudsman
role for the proposed commissioner of sustainable development.
The answer is probably yes for reasons I will elaborate in a
moment.
The final area is whether the bill is in harmony with
federal-provincial relations. The answer is also a very positive yes.
The member for Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies referred to the
appearance of the auditor general before the committee. He did us a
good service because he reminded us of the important and delicate
role the auditor general has to perform. He has to examine the way
in which policies are implemented but he does not comment on the
policy. We fully agree with that interpretation of the role of the
auditor general, as the hon. member for
Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies has stressed. The bill correctly
provides for the power to check on the manner in which policies are
carried out but not on the content of the policies. The distinction is
extremely important and we all agree on it.
What will this commissioner do? The commissioner will
measure the performance of each federal department's plan. The
commissioner will seek and request that the plan be updated every
three years.
Who will prepare the plans? It will be the departments
themselves. Some will prepare advanced plans. Presumably the
Department of the Environment will want to prove that it is the
best. Others will produce less ambitious plans. However the role of
the commissioner will be to measure performance against the plan
prepared by each federal department.
The word federal cannot be underlined a sufficient number of
times. We are talking here about federal jurisdiction and no other
jurisdiction. As I said, the plans will be updated every three years
to improve their quality. We will learn to walk before we are able to
run.
The parliamentary secretary was quoted by the member for
Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies as having said in the earlier debate
that the commissioner would act as an ombudsman. The answer is
yes. The commissioner will monitor the minister's replies to
petitions. In that sense the commissioner will perform the role of
ombudsman. The commissioner will also monitor the extent to
which departments implement the action plans and departmental
strategies, as I mentioned before, and report annually to the
Chamber.
(1645)
In that sense alone the commissioner on behalf of the public will
report to the public through the Chamber; a beautiful role and the
quintessence of democratic accountability.
The member for New Westminster-Burnaby started his
intervention by saying his party supports the general concept but
criticizes it because ``this will be money spent on status building
trappings''.
The reality of Bill C-83 is that it is exactly the opposite. This
commissioner will not be a status building bureaucrat. This
individual will be the right hand of the auditor general and will
report to the auditor general. The commissioner will be functioning
on all matters related to sustainable development within the office
of the auditor general. Therefore the commissioner will be
performing in the best sense of the word by doing the most with the
least possible budgetary requirements. Instead of creating a
separate office the commissioner will be performing and expanding
a role which the auditor general has initiated in recent times.
When he appeared before our committee the auditor general did
say that some 7 or 8 per cent of his activities and budgetary
resources are already devoted to environment and sustainable
development matters.
The commissioner will somehow strengthen, widen and build on
this role that evidently needs to be given statutory recognition and
some resources in order to perform a job which the auditor general
cannot perform with the resources available at the present time.
We have somehow come up with a very clever solution that does
accommodate the desire to keep budgetary expenses to a minimum
and at the same time permits us to assume an additional role,
16759
ensuring the federal jurisdiction does implement its commitment to
the sustainable development goal we all have heard about.
Does Bill C-83 add new levels of bureaucracy? The answer is no.
Is Bill C-83 a cost effective piece of legislation? Most definitely
yes. Will the commissioner be as independent as he or she should
be? The answer is yes because the commissioner operates within
the independent office of the auditor general. Therefore political
pressures are out of the question.
The criticism, which we always take seriously, saying Bill C-83
tries to add bureaucracy and is costly and politically oriented is not
founded. Therefore it is important we set the record straight.
Then we come to the member for Laurentides, evidently
preoccupied with federal-provincial relations. I do not know
whether I could convince her, even if I were to repeat until
midnight that there is no provincial interference in this bill.
Evidently we have reached the point at which this argument can no
longer follow a logical path.
(1650 )
I assure the hon. member for Laurentides there is no danger of
interference. There will be neither short term nor long term
negative effects on Quebec. There is no danger to the environment
of Quebec.
The government does not want to impose itself on provincial
jurisdiction. The province of Ontario, which has already an
equivalent commissioner for sustainable development, not only did
not object to this initiative, it sent its commissioner to appear
before the committee. She gave the committee good advice.
If Ontario does not object, why should Quebec? No other
province has objected. No other jurisdiction has said anything. I do
not recall receiving a letter from the Government of Quebec
objecting to Bill C-83 not only during the debate but since the bill
was introduced in the House.
The hon. member for Laurentides said her party was far more
concerned with the environment than the Liberal Party. I am glad to
hear that. If that is the case, I invite the Bloc Quebecois to support
the bill, a bill to protect the environment. A good member of
Parliament from the province of Quebec should be glad to see any
measures which improve the overall quality of the environment
because, as we know, environmental issues know no boundaries.
The better the entire North American continent performs in
economic and environmental matters and in their integration, the
better will be the health of the entire population. There is
everything to be gained.
With respect to duplications, to my knowledge there is no
duplication to be afraid of. On the contrary, there can be a very
substantial and significant integration between the role of a
provincial commissioner for sustainable development who
operates within provincial jurisdiction and the federal
commissioner.
Evidently the hon. member for Laurentides is blind to the fact
that there is a federal territory. There is the north. Therefore the
commissioner will be responsible for what happens on federal
lands. Federal lands are quite extensive north of 60.
It is unfortunate both members of the Bloc Quebecois could not
resist the temptation to launch personal accusations against the
Minister of the Environment. It has now become a permanent habit.
I do not want to comment further on the matter except to say what I
said on Monday, that we have the best environment minister we
have ever had. She has taken very courageous stands. She is the
first environment minister who has taken the matter of the Irving
Whale to heart and begun to do something about it. I do not recall
an initiative by the leader of the Bloc Quebecois when he was
Minister of the Environment with the previous Conservative
government.
I found it amusing when the hon. member for Laurentides
objected to section 21(1). She went over each of the points which
outlined the purpose of the commissioner. When she reached point
(d), meeting international obligations, she said the provinces are
never consulted or told about Canada's commitments. That is not
true. The provinces are always consulted before the government
makes an international commitment. Not only that, in almost every
Canadian delegation travelling to an international gathering there is
a representative of Quebec or representatives of more than one
province. In almost every international delegation the member for
Laurentides will not be able to prove that Quebec is not
represented.
(1655)
The amusing part on the point she objected to so much about
international obligations, which has to do with the question of the
commitment taken by Canada on carbon dioxide, is that it was her
leader, the leader of the Bloc Quebecois in 1991 in Bergen, who
committed Canada to the question of reducing carbon dioxide
emissions. It was he who did it on behalf of Canada.
Today we have this absurdity of the hon. member for Laurentides
objecting to an initiative taken by her own leader in 1991. What a
sham.
Let us move to point (a) of 21(1). The member for Laurentides
says the integration of the environment and the economy will work
against the provincial jurisdiction because of procurement policies.
This is quite an acrobatic leap of logic, if it can be described that
way. The integration of the environment and the economy will be
measured within the performance of that particular department.
16760
The member for Laurentides was not a member of the
committee when we wrote that report, that is true, so one cannot
expect her to know the report well. At least she should know how
the bill applies in practice. It will be applied within the
performance of a plan prepared by the department. That plan will
be submitted to the House of Commons every year for comments.
To bring in this red herring of procurement policies is an unusual
feat of imagination.
The member for Laurentides also objects to the second principle,
the one of protecting the health of Canadians. The health of
Canadians is not just a provincial responsibility. We protect the
health of Canadians at the border. We protect the health of
Canadians in interprovincial matters. No one has the monopoly,
and the role of the provinces is extremely important and
complements the federal jurisdiction.
It is quite interesting that three weeks ago in Jakarta, Canada
managed to obtain the acceptance of Montreal as the winning city
in a competition for the biodiversity commission, a remarkable
breakthrough in relation to the acceptance and the reputation of
Canada abroad in matters related to the environment.
Time is running out and therefore I am not able to deal with the
other items that have been objected to by the member for
Laurentides in sustainable development. I can only confirm that
from preventing pollution to promoting equity, these are not the
monopoly of the provinces. These are not the monopoly of the
federal government. These are broad concepts that can be adopted
by any level of government for the benefit of the public and for the
long term benefit of the population, no matter where people live.
Let me put on record, since our international reputation was
criticized earlier, what the OECD said in its report a couple of
weeks ago. It praised the environmental assessment process. It
praised the environmental analysis of legislation we carry out from
time to time. It praised the round tables on the economy and
environment. Last but not least, it praised the proposed
commissioner of environment and sustainable development.
This bill has made it as far as Paris and it has received the
support of the international community. It cannot be that bad.
(1700 )
If the Bloc Quebecois members want to live with their heads in
the sand and ignore the reality of life in the larger world, that is
their choice, but it certainly does not project a proactive, open, and
intelligent aura.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is the House ready for the
question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): All those in favour of the
motion 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 yeas
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Call in the members.
And the bells having rung:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Pursuant to Standing
Order 45(6), the division on the question now before the House
stands deferred until Monday, November 27, at the ordinary hour
of daily adjournment, at which time the bells to call in the members
will be sounded for not more than 15 minutes.
Mr. Boudria: Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I believe you
would find unanimous consent to further defer the said vote until
Tuesday, November 28, at the conclusion of Government Orders.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is there unanimous
consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Boudria: Madam Speaker, if you were to seek it I believe
you would find unanimous consent to call it 6.30 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Is there unanimous
consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
16760
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed
to have been moved.
Ms. Colleen Beaumier (Brampton, Lib.): Madam Speaker, this
government's foreign policy includes the commitment to create
jobs for Canadians through international trade.
From time to time the government grants export credits to other
countries in order to promote investment in Canada. This is a very
aggressive means of creating Canadian jobs through international
trade. Such a bold policy must be carefully monitored.
16761
As Edmund Burke once wrote, ``It is the nature of all greatness
not to be exact, and great trade will always be attended with
considerable abuses''. It is the role of government to identify and
minimize these abuses. My purpose today is to identify one aspect
in the administration of Canada's trade policy that has led to the
loss of many valuable Canadian jobs.
Through the Government of Canada Canadian taxpayers gave an
export credit in the order of $200 million to Guangdong province
during a visit by a delegation to Ottawa in April 1993. In November
of 1994 Nortel announced that it had finalized an agreement with
Guangdong province to manufacture and install switching
equipment in China. The value of the contract was $200 million.
The impact of this agreement was swift and devastating. In March
of this year Nortel announced that it was laying off 580 Canadians
at its Brampton plant, which brings the total number of jobs lost
since 1994 at that plant alone to 1,300. At the same time, Nortel
announced it would add 3,000 manufacturing jobs to its plant in
Guangdong province over the next three years.
I want to be clear that my quarrel is not with Nortel. Although I
am not at all happy that 1,300 jobs have been lost in my riding, I
recognize that Nortel's concern is ultimately the bottom line. Its
present circumstance confirms it is reacting to market conditions,
as Canadian sales have declined while export sales have increased
dramatically.
(1705 )
A recent issue of ``Report on Business'' described the countless
hours Nortel invested in winning this contract. Even the first
challenge faced by Nortel was a difficult one.
After signing a memorandum of understanding in December
1992, Chinese officials became upset that Canadian
parliamentarians were expressing their concerns about human
rights violations by the Chinese government. Chinese officials
threatened to walk away from further negotiations. Nortel
responded by telling Chinese officials that they were with Nortel
U.S., not Nortel Canada. Having distanced themselves from
Canadian parliamentarians, Nortel finalized this deal a little less
than two years later.
This is a valuable case study for parliamentarians. It clearly
demonstrates that export credits must be accompanied by
assurances that jobs are created in Canada rather than in low wage
economies. The focus of job creation through international trade
must remain fixed on Canada. The government must move swiftly
to ensure strong Canadian labour content in export assistance
programs. A strong first step would be to reverse the recent
reduction in the Export Development Corporation's Canadian
labour content requirements.
We made a commitment to Canadians that we will promote job
creation through international trade. This is a commitment we must
keep.
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): The
Canadian telecommunication equipment industry is one of the
shining stars in Canada's high technology galaxy. It accounts for 21
per cent of business enterprise research and development
undertaken in Canada and is a major employer of university
scientific technology graduates. It is a major earner of export
revenues. Typically, the small to medium sized enterprises in this
business export 90 per cent of their products.
World wide, the industry is dominated by a small number of very
large corporations that were established on the basis of serving
national or regional markets. With the fundamental changes that
are taking place in the provision of communications services world
wide, the equipment industry is undergoing massive changes of
globalization and restructuring. Canada is fortunate that one of
these developing global players is based in Canada and maintains
its headquarters and large portions of its research and development
and manufacturing here. A consequence of these benefits is
constant restructuring.
I am certainly sympathetic with the plight of the workers being
displaced by Northern Telecom's decision to transfer
manufacturing out of its Bramalea facility and convert it into the
corporate world headquarters. I know the important role these
workers played in building the product that was responsible in large
part for the modernization of the Canadian telecom infrastructure
and for taking Canada's reputation as a source of quality advanced
telecom equipment around the world. I wish them the best as they
adjust to their new circumstances. I am pleased that much of the
work done in Bramalea is staying in Canada and that job growth is
continuing in other areas of the industry.
Sustained success in this business for Northern Telecom and for
other firms that comprise the Canadian telecom equipment industry
is through access to foreign markets. It is important that we in
Canada provide a competitive environment from which to supply
the world market.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Pursuant to Standing
Order 38(5), a motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have
been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until
tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 5.11 p.m.)