CONTENTS
Monday, November 20, 1995
Bill C-275. Consideration resumed of motion forsecond reading 16511
Division on motion deferred 16515
(The sitting of the House was suspended at 11.35 a.m.) 16515
The House resumed at 12.03 p.m. 16515
Bill C-96. Consideration resumed of motion for secondreading and
amendment 16515
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood) 16517
Mr. Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing) 16533
Mr. Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury) 16533
Mr. Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine) 16534
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 16536
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 16536
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yellowhead) 16538
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yellowhead) 16538
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 16542
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 16542
Mr. Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing) 16543
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 16543
Mrs. Stewart (Northumberland) 16544
Mr. Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing) 16546
Bill C-96. Consideration resumed of motion for secondreading and
amendment 16548
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood) 16558
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral 16559
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 16563
Division on the motion deferred. 16566
Bill C-83. Report stage 16566
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac) 16572
(Motion negatived.) 16573
Division on motion deferred 16573
Mr. Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing) 16574
16511
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Monday, November 20, 1995
The House met at 11 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
The House resumed from June 20, 1995 consideration of the
motion that Bill C-275, an act respecting the protection and
rehabilitation of endangered and threatened species, be read the
second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, not long ago Bill S-7 was
introduced through the back door by the government and passed
into law without serious thought about its long term consequences.
With Bill C-275 we again see Liberal environmental policy
being brought to the House surreptitiously. Why do I say this? By a
curious coincidence, a discussion document issued by Environment
Canada last winter contains, almost verbatim, material now
incorporated into Bill C-275.
For example, section 9 provides for the prohibition or restriction
of any activity deemed threatening to an endangered species on
privately occupied land under federal jurisdiction or, with
provincial consent, on any provincial lands.
That clearly threatens grazing and timber leases in western
Canada. Also, according to the definition in the bill of provincial
lands it threatens any private lands registered under provincial law.
So much for property rights.
What evidence would the environmental bureaucrats need to
designate a species as endangered and its habitat as protected?
Pursuant to section 4 the minister would have the arbitrary
authority to declare a species endangered. Page 26 of the discussion
paper recommends that scientific uncertainty should not be used as
a reason not to act.
I will read briefly from this document:
In cases when high quality scientific data are not available for a candidate
species, methods involving estimation, inference and projection are acceptable.
The effect of current or potential threats may be extrapolated into the future as
long as it can be reasonably supported. If estimates about the status of a species
vary, it is appropriate to choose the one that leads the listing in the highest risk
category as a precaution.
The sorry state of science in 1995 is that witch hunting
bureaucrats are forthrightly recommending that the scientific
method be discarded. I think the envirocrats are smoking
something and it is not environmentally friendly.
That pamphlet refers to public consultation work shops to be
held in cities across Canada. Consultation with whom? Certainly
not with the people most likely to be affected, Canada's farmers
and ranchers and their municipal councils which brought this
matter to my attention.
This document and the bill spawned by it illustrate the typical
attitude of Canadian urbanites that rural Canada is their
playground, unfortunately cluttered up by all those quaint rustics
who do nasty things like cultivating land and producing cheap,
wholesome food for Canada and for the world.
Much of rural Canada is lawfully owned by those who live on it.
Urbanite nature lovers looking for pleasant places to have picnics,
build fires, ride dirt bikes and dump their beer cans should consider
the convenience of doing these things on the lawns of the hon.
member for Davenport or the hon. member for Hamilton East.
Perhaps then those members would have a more sympathetic
attitude toward our much put upon farmers.
Farmers do not have much clout in today's Canada. They made
up 30 per cent of the population in 1931 but account for only 3.2
per cent today. They are the real endangered species because in the
eyes of Liberal politicians and bureaucratic whiz kids they are
irrelevant.
Rural people are as powerless to stop this bill as they were to
stop gun control Bill C-68 which the House shoved down their
protesting throats last June with no significant input from them.
With their feeble numbers they do not matter to a government
preoccupied with the electoral map. Like Napoleon, Liberals
measure the importance of a group by the size of its battalions.
Legislation of this nature can be counterproductive because it
casts Environment Canada in an adversarial role. For example, any
farmer with burrowing owls in the pasture would have to be
demented to report their presence to anyone. I do not think that we
in Canada will ever reach the point that has been reported in
16512
Oregon where it is claimed that some woodlot owners shoot spotted
owls on sight. When someone's livelihood is threatened, who
knows?
Most rural Canadians, especially ranchers in the west, have been
very good stewards of the land and most are appreciative of the
wildlife which sometimes grazes on their crops and competes with
them for native forage. As a result, wildlife populations in the rural
west, especially in my riding, are immeasurably larger than they
were 50 or even 20 years ago.
(1110 )
Canadians like to poke fun at the endangered species lunacies of
our friends south of the border. It has been 17 years since the
Tellico dam project in Tennessee was stopped to protect the habitat
of the snail darter, a species remarkably similar to scores of others
which, in the fullness of geological time, has become extinct. The
silliness took place because under the stringent conditions of the
U.S. endangered species act the regulators had no choice.
If that act had been literally applied the deliberate international
extinction of the smallpox virus could have led to fines or jail
sentences for the public health officials who so wantonly and
cruelly destroyed the species.
Tens of millions of dollars have been spent down there to
preserve the habitat of various rodents, including the
Choctawahatchee beach mouse in Florida and the kangaroo rat in
California.
When the U.S. fish and wildlife service learned of the presence
of kangaroo rats on 800 acres of Cindy Domenigonis' California
farm it would not allow her to work her land for three years. That is
the direction in which Canada will be heading if this so-called
private member's bill becomes law.
Bill C-275 epitomizes the Liberal propensity to regulate, control
and run roughshod over individuals who do not have big battalions
at their command. I oppose it and I urge anyone who believes in
sound science, effective conservationism and the rights of rural
people to oppose it as well.
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Waterloo, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if there is
doubt whether a species is going to be extinct then we want to make
sure we make the right decisions and err on the side of caution. I
am pleased to speak on Bill C-275, sponsored by the member for
Davenport, the chair of the environment committee.
The paddlefish, the swift fox and the blackfooted ferret have one
thing in common: they no longer exist in the wild in Canada. The
Labrador duck, the sea mink and the blue walleye have one thing in
common: they no longer exist at all.
The eastern cougar, the salish sucker, the right whale, the white
prairie gentian and the spotted owl are all endangered in Canada.
The white-headed woodpecker, the blue ash, the western Atlantic
harbour porpoise and the spiny softshell turtle are threatened. The
polar bear, the eastern bluebird, the orange spotted sunfish, the
pugnose minnow, the prairie rose, the blue whale and the trumpeter
swan are vulnerable.
Two hundred and forty-four species of wild fauna and flora are at
risk in our country. They suffer from loss of critical habitat,
overharvesting, the introduction of foreign species, climate change
and contamination from toxic substances.
The time has clearly come for the federal government to set
legislation to protect endangered species. The protection of
endangered species is the responsibility of all sectors of our society
and all citizens in our country. We need legislation in which all
Canadians feel a vested interest.
Legislation would call for regulations on the killing, wounding,
capturing, collecting or distributing of endangered plants, fish,
mammals and embryos. Legislation would also call for Canadian
controls on the buying, selling and international trafficking of
endangered species.
Canadians want us to throw the book at anyone who tries to
make a fast buck from illegally importing or exporting endangered
species.
The committee on the status of endangered wildlife in Canada,
an arm's length scientific body, would assess species at risk on an
annual basis. The Minister of the Environment would be required
to establish a list of the species at risk in areas of federal
jurisdiction. Response statements outlining planned actions would
be mandatory. Recovery plans if required would be prepared within
two weeks for endangered species and within three years for
threatened species.
(1115)
Legislation would also permit emergency measures to be taken
to conserve and protect species requiring the equivalent to
emergency ward treatment. Legislation would authorize the
Minister of the Environment to establish funding for conservation
agreements with other governments, organizations and private
landlords in partnership efforts to preserve endangered species.
Legislation would also authorize tough enforcement and severe
penalties.
The federal government has a responsibility to set a benchmark
for effective endangered species legislation in all of Canada's
jurisdictions. That is not enough. We have a responsibility to work
with the provinces, the territories and aboriginal people to ensure a
comprehensive national approach to the protection of endangered
16513
species in all parts of Canada. The federal government is
committed to doing its part in this shared enterprise.
Acting alone, the federal government cannot come close to
solving all the problems. I want to congratulate Manitoba, Ontario,
Quebec and New Brunswick for already passing legislation on
behalf of endangered species. I also want to congratulate Alberta
which has committed to introduce legislation. I particularly want to
congratulate wildlife experts, environmentalists, farmers,
fishermen, foresters and the mining, pulp and paper and petroleum
industries. They are the people on the front lines. They have acted
in good faith despite their often divergent interests.
Farmers and aboriginal people, the stewards of the land, must be
treated fairly by the new legislation. The maximum number of
Canadians must participate in protecting endangered species. We
must have a national safety net for species at risk.
As we move toward new endangered species legislation, a very
large part of the credit must go to young Canadians. Students from
throughout the country have kept the pressure on the government.
They have collected petition after petition and they have sent to the
Minister of the Environment thousands and thousands of carefully
considered individual letters and drawings. We want the continued
help and support of Canada's young people in preparing a final bill.
The government's proposed legislation is already on
Environment Canada's green lane on the Internet. We look forward
to receiving feedback. We want the best possible law to achieve
economic growth while preserving the diversity of genes, species
and ecosystems that are the biological foundation of the world. We
owe that to the endangered species. We owe that to future
generations of Canadians.
Ms. Maria Minna (Beaches-Woodbine, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am very pleased to support this bill today.
Canada has a strong reputation in the world in matters of the
environment. Indeed, Canada is involved in many international
projects to help save the environment, the ecosystems and the
species which allow people in the rest of the world to live decent
lives in a rich environment.
[Translation]
People in other countries are convinced that our actions show
leadership in protecting the planet's biodiversity and species.
The fact is that human beings with whom we share this earth are
counting on Canada to show them the way. We must ensure that our
actions are up to our reputation.
[English]
People in the rest of the world have faith in Canada's
fundamental decency and commitment to protecting planetary
biodiversity. The world believes that we care and that we are
acting. Quite frankly the world does not know that Canada is one
of the few countries in the world without federal legislation on
endangered species.
We have also been moved by Canada's kids. They know we do
not have federal legislation and our children through their program
``There Otter Be a Law'', have been a driving force in pushing
Canada to do what it needs to do to protect endangered species.
In my riding I have a classroom of kids who have worked very
hard in the last year to protect the bowhead whale. They have sent
petitions. They have written letters to the Minister of the
Environment and to myself. I have made statements in the House.
In fact today we have a sanctuary for the bowhead whale which is
absolutely wonderful. These children have been extremely
gratified. When I met with them this week in my riding to tell them
what had happened, they felt they had had a wonderful impact on
the issue. This is great for them because they learn a little about
democracy. They also felt that it is possible to fight with facts and
they felt very gratified. To me it was very worthwhile.
(1120)
Since we began looking at protecting endangered species in
federal legislation, we have received more than 5,000 individually
written and carefully thought out letters from students calling for
swift action to protect endangered species.
The classes are in every riding. There is a class also in Iqaluit
working on the issue of the bowhead whale. In fact the class in my
riding is hooked up to the Internet to work with the class in Iqaluit
to discuss the issue of endangered species.
This is a wonderful way to connect Canadians across the country.
These children are working for the future of their environment and
their space. They have started now connecting and talking to one
another in parts of the country. That is one of the most worthwhile
things that we can encourage.
Therefore we, as the adults of this country, can only but follow
the example. We can no longer leave it up to the children.
In every province and territory and in communities big and
small, when we meet with public and high school students, they
want to know what governments, businesses, environmentalists,
farmers and scientists are doing to ensure a bright future for the
beluga whale, the prairie rose, the porpoise, the whooping crane,
the leatherback turtle and the polar bear.
[Translation]
We all know, I think, that the future of endangered species has
become a major concern not only for young people but also for the
whole Canadian population. Canadians clearly understand federal
responsibilities with respect to cod and halibut, as well as the
economic consequences of the extinction of marine species.
16514
[English]
In the last few weeks every Canadian watched as our skies filled
with migratory birds leaving Canada. That rite of fall is part of
Canada's psyche. Canadians love those species and regard them as
part of what makes us a country.
Canadians understand that when a species disappears, it
disappears forever. They do not want Canada to be responsible for
making that happen. Canadians understand that when a species
disappears, the world loses and when the world loses, humanity
loses.
When we deal with the world's environment, we speak of
common but differentiated responsibilities. We need to find a
means to fulfil both our common responsibilities and our
differentiated responsibilities.
For our part, that means we must push for a solid, co-ordinated
and co-operative national approach to ensure the survival of
species. That is our common responsibility. It also means that the
federal government must fulfil its differentiated responsibilities by
showing legislative leadership in areas of federal jurisdiction.
Every jurisdiction and every landowner have common but
differentiated responsibilities. Each of us must show the maximum
leadership possible in our own sphere. We do not need to point
fingers at each other. We need to point ahead.
The Deputy Speaker: There being no other members wishing to
speak, the hon. member for Davenport is entitled under our rules to
briefly sum up.
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I wish to
make two points. It is customary to thank colleagues on all sides of
the House for their intervention, particularly the member for
Bourassa, the member for Madawaska-Victoria, the member for
Kindersley-Lloydminister, the member for Simcoe North, the
member for Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies, the member for
London-Middlesex, the member for Comox-Alberni, the
member for Laurentides, the member for Brandon-Souris, the
member for Bramalea-Gore-Malton, the member for Brant, the
member for Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington, the
member for Beaches-Woodbine and the member for Waterloo.
The intent of this bill is to protect biodiversity. That has been
repeatedly indicated by those who want to accept what is its real
intent. It aims as well as we can through words and proposed
legislation to identify, protect and rehabilitate threatened and
endangered species of flora and fauna.
(1125 )
We cover the Canadian territory as we know it. We are well
aware that nature does not respect political boundaries. There is a
distinct responsibility for any government that flows mainly, as
some members have recognized, from the fact that Canada was the
first nation to ratify the biodiversity convention in Rio de Janeiro in
1992. As many members have quite rightly pointed out there is a
responsibility at the provincial level, at the municipal level and at
the federal level because of federal lands, interprovincial
movements and international commitments.
Therefore the three levels of government together could do
something useful for the benefit of future generations and for the
benefit of nature, wealth, for the benefit of le patrimoine, as they
call it in French, in terms of protecting threatened and endangered
species of flora and fauna.
We know that species when severely threatened disappear from
the face of the earth. There is a tremendous concern about the
rapidity of this trend. This bill cannot go beyond the scope and the
jurisdiction of the federal government. I would like to allay the
fears of some members who had spoken earlier about this aspect.
It must be stressed that the bill is being examined by Parliament
at a time when the member for Lachine-Lac-Saint-Louis and the
delegation he led to Indonesia has managed to bring Canada to the
forefront of global efforts to protect biological diversity. As we all
know, last week Canada won a competition in Jakarta. Montreal
will be housing the United Nations secretariat on biological
diversity. It is a tremendous development for which we are all
proud and for which we would like to congratulate our colleague
for Lachine-Lac-Saint-Louis.
The secretariat will monitor the 1992 biological diversity
convention. It should be remembered and stressed that it has been
signed and even ratified by some 150 nations. We are moving
ahead with other nations, as well we should. The goal of the
protection of the earth's plant and animal species is becoming an
urgent item on the agenda.
To conclude, I would like to again thank the members of the
House who have participated in the debate and have endorsed the
initiative which aims to ensure strong federal legislation on
endangered species and preserve biological diversity as it is
prescribed by the convention ratified in 1992. It aims at showing
respect for other living organisms and ensures that we maintain a
rich and diverse ecosystem for the benefit of present and future
generations.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, a point of order. Prior to you putting
the question, I believe you will find unanimous consent for the
following. I seek the unanimous consent of the House that any
recorded division that may be asked for later this day, in other
words in very short order, on Bill C-275, be deferred until the end
of Government Orders on Tuesday, November 21.
16515
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
(1130)
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to the unanimous order made a
moment or so ago, the division is deferred until Tuesday,
November 21, at the expiry of the time provided for Government
Orders, at which time the bells to call in the members will be
sounded for not more than 15 minutes.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I think you would find consent to
suspend until twelve o'clock noon, at which time we will
commence Government Orders.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to suspend
the sitting until noon?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(The sitting of the House was suspended at 11.35 a.m.)
_______________
The House resumed at 12.03 p.m.
16515
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed from November 10 consideration of the
motion that Bill C-96, an act to establish the Department of Human
Resources Development and to amend and repeal certain related
acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee; and of
the amendment.
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to put before the
people of Canada what I consider to be one of the most
disconcerting aspects of the financial situation our country finds
itself in today.
Make no mistake that what is happening in Canada today is a
result of circumstance. It has far more to do with circumstance than
it has to do with ideology. We are talking about how to go about
getting the country out of the financial mess it is in. As everyone
knows, we are in a financial mess federally and provincially.
(1205)
As was so clearly illustrated in the Globe and Mail on Saturday
in an excellent article on individual and family debt, Canadians by
and large are in a financial mess personally. The Globe and Mail
article stated that the average family consumer debt in Canada
equals 88 per cent of disposable income. This is up from
approximately 60 per cent 10 years ago.
The net result is that our federal debt is up, our provincial debt is
up, the debt in most municipalities is up and individual credit card
debt is up. We find ourselves paying more and more for less and
less. All we have to do is add zeros to see that the financial
situations of the country and the provinces really are no different
from the financial mess most citizens are in.
I can speak with some assurance in saying that most Canadians
and certainly those Canadians with whom I am familiar find
themselves in an increasingly difficult financial situation. Our
incomes have remained fairly stagnant but the cost of living has
continued to escalate, even though it is escalating more slowly. We
find ourselves being pinched and businesses are being pinched for
profit.
What do we do? How do we go about extricating ourselves from
this horrid mess? One way the federal government is doing it is
definitely a step in the right direction. It is amalgamating the
various cash transfers from the federal government to the provinces
which are paid in support of people. The transfers used to be
separate under education, health, welfare, et cetera and were sent to
the provinces with strings attached. These moneys which were
transferred to the provinces had to go to individuals specifically
and we could track where the money was going.
That was changed in the last budget. Under the Canada health
and social transfer act, this money was pooled and is being
16516
transferred to the provinces with strings attached. The strings are
rather tenuous and not direct. It is pretty difficult for the federal
government to tell the provinces: ``We gave you the money. These
are the national standards to which you must adhere in order to get
the money''. I do not think the federal government has any right,
responsibility or place to send this money to the provinces with
strings attached. Who does it think it is kidding? It is our money
anyway and it is just being recycled by the federal government.
At any rate, the Liberal government opposite finds itself in the
situation where it will be transferring to the provincial
governments and then to the people, $7 billion less this year than it
did last year. If we think that is tough, wait until the next budget.
We still have at least $20 billion to go in the reduction of transfers
before we get to a neutral position and we stop going further into
the hole. This is the first scratch, the first attempt at fiscal
responsibility in the country.
Some provinces in Canada, most notably Quebec, have yet to
cross that rubicon. Quebec is still going along blissfully without
considering its provincial debt which is $5.7 billion in deficit this
year. Just wait until Quebec begins to address that problem.
We recognize the necessity of addressing the debt problem
responsibly on federal, provincial and personal levels. How do we
go about making sure that the most vulnerable people in our society
are protected? That is what I would like to speak to. There has been
built in this foundation the necessity for objectively and
realistically looking at what we can do to ensure that those who are
the weakest and the most vulnerable are protected and looked after
in the true Canadian spirit. This is one of the values which is
pan-Canadian, a value we all share regardless of our political
persuasion.
(1210)
We share the value that the weakest and most vulnerable in our
society should be and will be protected. We are also very much of
the understanding that the most privileged in our society are going
to have to pay a premium to ensure that those who are the weakest
are protected. That is the way it works and that is how we get social
order. The only way we are going to have a society that works is if
we are prepared to share. I do not think anybody seriously
questions that.
What is being seriously questioned is whether or not people have
a right to say: ``We have always done it this way and therefore, we
are always going to continue to get it this way''. We are going to
have to change things dramatically in order to make sure we are
able to live within our means nationally. Recognizing and
understanding this and accepting the fact that we are going to
accept change, that we are going to have to work with it, how do we
go about making sure that those who are least capable of looking to
this change and the most vulnerable are protected?
I have looked at this very carefully over the last few months as a
member of the Standing Committee on Human Rights and the
Status of Disabled Persons. The government has seriously fallen
down in its fiduciary responsibility to make sure that the most
vulnerable people are at least to a modicum consulted before
change happens and that they feel some sense of confidence that
when this necessary change takes place they will be protected.
To my knowledge, the government has not convened one single
solitary meeting with the provincial governments responsible for
delivering the programs to those persons with disabilities; people
in wheelchairs, people confined to their beds, people who cannot
get around, people with learning disabilities, people with mental or
physical disabilities, motion disabilities. These people who are the
most vulnerable have not been consulted through the provinces
which are responsible for delivering the care and the services.
The national Parliament has said that in the total basket under the
Canada health and social transfer $7 billion less is being
transferred to the provinces than was transferred last year. That
money has to go to education, welfare, a whole myriad of purposes.
One of the purposes is persons with disabilities.
People with disabilities already feel vulnerable. Imagine how
people with disabilities feel when they see that funding is going to
be reduced by such a substantial amount. They are the most
vulnerable of the people in the categories to which the funding is
going to be reduced.
The federal government has not done a thing. There has not been
one meeting with the provinces to say that it recognizes the
relationship between the federal government, which is responsible
for funding, and the provincial governments, which also fund, but
in addition to delivering the programs deliver the bulk of the
money necessary to support these programs. How do you suppose
vulnerable people feel if the federal government has not convened
one meeting with the provinces to say: ``We recognize there are
changes coming in the way we fund these programs. Things of
necessity are going to change, but let us work together with the
consumer groups in the disabled community to make sure the
people are protected''.
Over the last couple of months witness after witness after
witness have come to the committee. They said that because of
funding cuts there are people in our country today who are mobility
impaired, who cannot get out of bed by themselves, and have been
lying in bed in their own waste for hours and hours and hours.
There is no funding for people to come in and help them change
their linen or even get to the bathroom. This is happening in our
country.
(1215)
We as parliamentarians have a fiduciary responsibility. How we
treat the least among us is a measure of the worth of society, the
greatness of society. We must look to the most vulnerable people in
16517
society and ask how we are treating them and, if we were in that
position, how we would want to be treated.
When speaking to people in wheelchairs in the disabled
community we realize that any one of us as Canadians could be in a
wheelchair tomorrow morning. We need to think about how it
would be for us if we were in that position. We must give some
extra thought to the absolute necessity of reducing funding to
people and transfers to people from all orders of government so
that we protect the weakest and the most vulnerable among us.
I appreciate the opportunity to put these comments on the record.
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to
participate in the debate on Bill C-96, an act to establish the
Department of Human Resources Development.
I was quite taken by the member's remarks about looking out for
the most disadvantaged. I have stated repeatedly in the House the
essence of government. We in the Chamber should not be spending
most of our time ignoring the advantaged because they form a very
important part of the economic equation of the country. However,
we in the House are supposed to be the people who speak for the
most disadvantaged. That is the essence of why we are in the
Chamber.
I was touched when I heard the member for Edmonton
Southwest talk with caring, sensitivity and compassion about the
most disadvantaged in the country. I should like to put a question to
him and expand my thoughts that are driven by the set of core
values of caring, compassion and approachability. I am sure the
member believes the same set of principles should apply to young
people who are out of work or anyone who is out of work in the
country.
Could the hon. member consider building on that same
traditional value system by saying that maybe as a government at
this moment in time our focus has been too much on the right wing
agenda, too much on the cutting, the slashing and the tight fiscal
framework to a point where we have basically lost sight of the most
disadvantaged? In this case I focus on people who do not have the
dignity of getting up in the morning and going to a job, of having
enough money in their pockets to pay for their kid's hockey stick or
their daughter's clothes or food. Perhaps as a Chamber we should
review our right wing agenda and go back to looking after the
disadvantaged in a more aggressive way.
(1220 )
Mr. McClelland: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member
opposite for the question. I assure everyone here that it was not a
set up question. I appreciate the question because it strikes at the
heart of what is the difference between members on this side and
members opposite. We virtually share all the same values but we
do not share how we go about achieving them.
From discussions with members opposite I know the vast
majority of representatives in the House share common values.
How do we go about providing the kind of society the hon. member
for Broadview-Greenwood is talking about? How do we get
young people working? Why is it that kids cannot play hockey?
Why cannot their parents cannot afford it even if both parents are
working? Why is it so expensive? How do we go about ensuring
that everyone can participate in our wonderful nation?
The root cause of the problem can be found in The Canadian
Global Almanac for 1996. It shows the per capita accumulated
federal debt. In 1975 it was $849 and the interest per capita was
$139. Today, 20 years later, the debt per capita is $17,381 and the
interest per capita is $1,299. If we multiply that by four members
of the family, it does not take very long to realize that we do not
have any money.
We could then consider provincial debts and at our credit card
debts as families. It costs 15 per cent, 16 per cent or 17 per cent to
service credit card debt. We have the situation where most of us as
a country, as provinces and as individuals are using today's income
to pay for what we have already consumed in the past. Therefore
instead of the money being used to purchase goods and services it
is being used to service debts.
It makes us wonder when we read the paper today and see that all
five of our national banks have record profits. They have $5 billion
worth of profit. How do they get that money? They get it from the
interest on the debt. The debt goes up and the interest goes up. The
amount of interest goes up in real terms even if the rates do not
increase. The banks get richer. The rich get richer and the poor get
poorer.
People who are able to make financial investments get more
money through investing in passive capital investments where
there is no risk than people who risk everything they have to start a
new business. They put every nickel they have including their
homes and everything else into a business to get it going. And what
happens? They pay tax after tax after tax.
I sat next to a person travelling from Vancouver to Ottawa
yesterday in an aeroplane. He is in the garment business. He is also
in the sports and recreation business. He has a fitness business. He
is getting out of the fitness business. He said the problem was that
it cost $33 a month for people to come to work out. People do not
even have $33 a month that they can spend. It has to be dragged out
of them. People just do not have any money any more.
Why do we not have the ability to create employment, especially
entrance employment for young people, generation X? If they are
not gainfully employed they will waste their time, get involved in
crime and all other social ills. It is that people do not have enough
16518
money to invest in anything other than necessities. Therefore
businesses cannot sell, manufacturers cannot manufacture and
shippers cannot ship.
Until we deal with the root cause of the problem, which is that
we are all broke because we are paying interest on money we have
already spent for goods and services, we will not get ourselves out
of this mess. We cannot borrow our way out of this mess. If
spending money we do not have worked, everybody would have
five jobs.
(1225 )
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood): Mr. Speaker, I should
like to pursue this thought with the member because I obviously do
not see it the way he does.
I have a difficult time understanding the derivatives section of
the Royal Bank of Canada. I use the expression its private casino
where they play with derivatives and sometimes even bet against
the Canadian dollar. I have a difficult time understanding how the
derivatives section of a bank can find an average of $30 billion a
day to play with and make money. That is one bank. It is said that
the derivatives game in the world now involves a trillion dollars a
day. This money is being pushed. It is paper pushing all over the
world. There is no production related to that trillion dollars a day.
I find it difficult to accept that our largest bank can find $30
billion a day to gamble in pushing paper alone. Yet the small
business float for a whole year for the entire small business sector
is only $28 billion. And I am only talking about one bank.
The issue is not that we must eliminate waste and watch our
spending. When we talk about debt we should not avoid talking
about the tremendous assets in the country: our resources, our
water, our infrastructure and our educated people. We are talking
about human resources. Our human resources are recognized as the
best on the planet. We have to measure that into the economic
equation.
Would the member not agree that when we talk about getting at
root causes we must talk about who is controlling all the capital,
who is pushing all this capital around the world and preventing a
sufficient amount of it from being distributed into the economy
where there is true production in the manufacture of goods and
services? Does the member not think that is a debate we should
have in the House?
Mr. McClelland: Mr. Speaker, I do not pretend to know enough
about the derivatives market or international finance to be able to
respond thoughtfully to the question.
I have a general sense of unease and malaise about the lifeblood
of our economy. I do not know it well enough to speak to it so I
will not. However I know what makes business work, particularly
small business, entrepreneurial business, because that is my
background. What makes people start a business, what makes
people risk a business, what makes people get up in the morning
and provide employment, is a chance to make some money, a
chance to be one's own boss.
I was out with one of my sons on the weekend. I said: ``Always
do the best job you can when you are working. You owe that to your
employer. But you will never get rich working for somebody else.
If you want to get rich you have to work for yourself''. Not
everybody will do that, but one will never get rich working for
somebody else or being a member of Parliament, for that matter.
What makes people get up in the morning, risk everything they
have in life and start a new business is the expectation that they will
make some money at it. The problem is that it is getting more and
more difficult to make money at business or even to do it. Once one
has established a business and sells it what happens? How much of
the money does one get to keep after paying all the taxes? It is
relatively little.
We can look at the difference between passive investment, for
instance investing in bank stock or investing finances with no risk,
and investing in an entrepreneur with a lot of risk. What do most
people do? In my case I could make a decision to invest in stocks,
bonds or mutual funds at virtually no risk or I could make a
decision to invest in people, which is high risk. I can invest in the
people. Because of my tax situation I get virtually no return on it. I
can invest in stocks and bonds and get essentially the same return
but I have no risk.
(1230)
Investing in people is by far the best way to go. It is what we
need to do for our country. It is what I am going to do as well. I
have a situation right here in Ottawa. A person who works with me
in my office is from Edmonton. She is unilingual. She has moved to
Hull. She lives and is working in Chelsea. She has taken over as a
unilingual anglophone a little cafe, the Cafe Meech, in Hull near
the Gatineau Park.
She has to raise the capital independently because it is not a very
bankable deal. She has the fire in her belly that she is definitely
going to make it work.
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood): Derivatives.
Mr. McClelland: The point the hon. member for
Broadview-Greenwood raised is so important to what we are to
do as a country to get people back to work, for first time
employment for all our young people so that they have something
to look forward to, so that they feel part of the community, so that
they have something rather than standing on the sidelines looking
in.
The debate the hon. member opposite has suggested is a good
one. It is timely. How do we go about doing that? How do we go
about getting someone to risk their capital, to get their idea in gear,
to get that sense of drive and ambition so they will start a little
16519
widget manufacturing business or a service and will hire one or two
people?
That is the way we will get the country working. That is the way
we will get unemployment insurance premiums down. That is the
way we will take off the dependence on government and make the
country work. We have to re-establish that sense of purpose and
entrepreneurialism and zeal on a personal basis. country.
The Deputy Speaker: The time has expired for questions and
comments, as have the five hours of debate. We are now into
10-minute speeches.
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I remind the House that we
are debating Bill C-96 but we are also debating the amendment to
the bill put forward by the hon. member for Mercier.
That party objects that the bill does not give full and alone
jurisdiction over human resources development. That phrase
frightens me. Again it shows that the official opposition is pushing
its hidden agenda of separating so that it has full powers, full
control over human resources and other things.
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. It is through
bills such as this that hopefully through provincial federal
co-operation we can get more people to work.
Last week I had a town hall meeting. There was a qualified
veterinarian in the audience. He was from another country. Sadly,
he is on social assistance. He does not have a job in Canada.
Two weeks ago I saw a switch from the official opposition to the
Reform Party when the member for Calgary Southeast debated this
bill and said very little about it. She talked about pensions and
everything else.
I was pleased to hear the member for Edmonton Southeast at
least talking about the purpose of government being to help the
most vulnerable people in society. He talked about the disabled.
The Deputy Speaker: I am sure the member meant Edmonton
Southwest. The member for Edmonton Southeast is the chair
occupant and does not participate in debate. This small correction
will not come out of the member's time.
(1235 )
Mr. Flis: Thank you for the correction, Mr. Speaker.
I was pleased that the member talked about the disabled because
it was this government in the early 1980s that set up a special task
force across the country to look at how obstacles could be removed
for the disabled. The work of that task force is benefiting many
handicapped people today. By removing the obstacles they are no
longer handicapped.
The Reform Party criticizes the bill because it does not solve any
problems with the Canada pension plan, for example. We all agree
there are problems with the plan. The Reform Party knows
perfectly well the government takes these problems seriously. I
object very strongly to the Reform Party's suggestion that the
Canada pension plan is about to collapse.
The government is preparing a working paper which will set out
options for reforming the CPP. We will present those options to the
provinces which share responsibility in this area. With their
goodwill we will negotiate a new and better plan which will meet
the needs of seniors not only today but in the future.
Bill C-96 is not about pension plans. It is an administrative bill
to establish a department. The Reform Party then takes advantage
of this debate to decry the federal plan for gender equality. We
make no apology for advancing women's equality by examining
initiatives related to economics, autonomy, poverty, employment,
education and training. However, this has nothing to do with Bill
C-96 which is an administrative bill to establish a department.
The Reform Party members criticizes this bill because it does
not radically transform post-secondary education into its strange
vision of the future. However, it knows full well that Bill C-96 is
not about changes to post-secondary education at all. It is an
administrative bill to establish a department.
The Reform Party criticizes Bill C-96 because it does not change
the Constitution and prevent the federal government from fulfilling
its responsibilities for labour market programs. Even if we wanted
to do that, the Reform Party knows full well that one does not
amend the Constitution through an administrative bill to establish a
department.
The Reform Party and Bloc Quebecois criticize the bill for
intruding into provincial jurisdictions and then complain that the
bill does not radically alter areas such as education where the
provinces do have jurisdiction. Opposition knows full well this has
nothing to do with Bill C-96.
Opposition members can try to side track the debate on this bill,
throw up smoke screens and parade their own pet theories on every
issue under the sun, but lets us keep one thing clear. It has been said
many times that Bill C-96 deals with consequential amendments to
a variety of legislation related to the reorganization of government
departments. That is all it does. It is not intended to change the
world.
16520
This does not mean the world does not need changing but let
us keep a proper perspective on the task at hand. The task at hand
is providing Canadians with a department that supplies them with
essential programs and services, a department that has been
remarkably successful over the past few years in bringing our
labour market and social programs out of the past and into the
21st century.
Bill C-96 is about the department that launched one of the
biggest grassroots consultations on social programs ever seen in
this country, with more than 100,000 Canadians taking part.
It is this department that made the first major changes to the
Canada student loans program, changes the Reform Party seems to
have ignored. As a result of these changes over 13,000 high school
students are getting special grants to pursue their education. One
hundred thousand underemployed graduates, twice as many as
before, are getting expanded interest relief. The program is costing
taxpayers less while students are getting a better service.
It is this department that is pioneering an approach that puts
programs and services into the hands of local communities with
tools and resources that can be customized by communities to meet
their needs.
It is this department that is building the most decentralized
service delivery network in any government moving from 450 to
700 points of service, moving it to rural communities across
Canada; people can get help where they live.
It is this department that is providing Canada's seniors with four
times as many offices where they can get personal service. This is
what Bill C-96 is about. It would be useful if the Reform Party and
the Bloc Quebecois would talk about the bill and look at what is
really going on in the department.
(1240)
When the member for Calgary Southeast complains that the bill
does not eliminate overlap and duplication between federal and
provincial services, she should look at the real progress the
department is making in building new partnerships with the
provinces, with the private sector, with communities across the
country. Look at what we are doing in the real world; the work with
provinces on pilot projects that test the joint delivery of federal and
provincial programs. These are designed specifically to improve
efficiency and eliminate overlap and duplication.
Let us get constructive and talk about moving forward that
effort. Let us encourage the provinces to join with us in the new
agreements that will clarify roles and responsibilities, as we have
invited them to do. Let us look at the very essence of Bill C-96, the
focus on a better integration of programs and services that is so
critical to this effort. By passing Bill C-96 without delay we can
move on to address these concerns more efficiently.
Let us not hold up change on the pretext that change is not
happening fast enough to suit the Reform Party. Let us not pretend
that change is not taking place right now. Everyone in the House
knows that real reform in our social and labour market programs is
taking place and will continue to take place.
Bill C-96 does not do everything but it is an important step
toward getting the architecture right, establishing a department that
can provide the highly integrated, focused programs and services
Canadians need.
Of all the comments on Bill C-96 from the Reform Party, I can
find only one based on fact. Bill C-96 does not require an annual
report to be tabled from the Department-alleluia.
Members of the Reform Party appear to be equivocating on this
issue. For example, they praise the decision to eliminate the annual
report from the department of public works as a move towards
greater efficiency, and yet they condemn the elimination of annual
reports from Heritage Canada. Let us hear some consistency from
the Reform Party.
The government's own view is clear. We want to handle the
question of annual reports in the most efficient manner. Section
157 of the Financial Administration Act calls for the elimination of
annual reports when the information they provide is duplicated in
public accounts or the estimates. That applies in this case.
Members of the House will still have access to the information they
need to monitor departmental spending through these other
resources.
For a party that professes to want grassroots control over
programs, the members opposite seem surprisingly tied to the old
ways of doing things, or to doing nothing. Bill C-96 is not a
defence of the status quo or of outmoded ways of doing things.
The government does not pretend that by passing this bill it can
achieve everything it wants to achieve overnight. It is one step
along the way. It would be foolish to hold back, to block this
important step forward simply because it does not do everything at
once. It would be equally foolish to block this step forward because
we are afraid of change.
Whatever the Reform Party may think, Canadians want change.
We saw that in the referendum, we see it post-referendum, and the
government has addressed this. The old ways no longer work. By
bringing about change, it does not mean it has to be constitutional
change. The way we share services with provinces is a good place
to begin.
16521
The government is giving Canadians change, not just rhetoric.
With this bill we can move forward. With this bill we can get on
with the real challenge of building a more efficient, effective form
of government for Canada.
I remind the official opposition and the Reform Party of the
realities of today. When I was seeking a job in 1956 after I finished
teacher's college, there were about a dozen boards of education that
wanted my services. One board was hiring 600 teachers at a time;
another, 500 teachers. Boards were recruiting teachers in England,
in Australia, in New Zealand. Today teachers graduating with much
higher qualifications than I had cannot get a teaching position.
They can hardly get their names on the supply list.
(1245)
There was a time when teachers complained because they did not
pay unemployment insurance. The government of the day insisted
that teachers should pay unemployment insurance. As a teacher, I
supported that move because you never know when you might be
unemployed and this is an insurance scheme. Teachers then started
paying UI. Today many teachers are benefiting from that.
Because of the changing nature of the workforce and the
competitiveness, more and more workers are going to have to move
from province to province and require training and retraining. I
hope we can count on the official opposition and the Reform Party
to give this bill speedy passage.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilbert Fillion (Chicoutimi, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to speak on Bill C-96.
As you probably know, barely one month has gone by since the
Quebec referendum and already another federalist mask is
dropping. Bill C-96 is one of those masks. This government waited
till after the referendum to bring this bill back and try to go ahead
with it.
Far from signalling the federal government's withdrawal from
manpower training, this bill will allow even greater interference in
a provincial area of jurisdiction. This government is going over the
heads of the provinces. Quebec has been asking for many years to
be given full and complete jurisdiction over manpower training. In
December 1990, labour and management partners in Quebec joined
in a co-operative effort and unanimously took position in favour of
repatriating all federal funding for manpower training. There is a
consensus in Quebec, and a rather telling one at that. Even the
Liberal Quebec government in office at the time agreed with its
partners. So, this is not a separatist initiative but rather an opinion
shared by the public at large.
Why then does the federal government not listen? Because this
government has only one thing in mind: to gain total, perfect
control, up, down and sideways. It wants to have all of the powers,
even in an area like this one, in which its poor performance is
legendary. This is just one more stepping stone.
This government should know that all its centralizing actions
ultimately affect people of course. And it is with people in mind
that consistent policies should be developed, and for people that
manpower training is offered, so as to increase our manpower's
performance.
(1250)
Here is more good news: last Friday, the Chicoutimi-Jonquière
region, in my riding of Chicoutimi, was once again declared the
winner because it has the highest unemployment rate in Canada.
How nice. How very nice. This shows how incapable this
government is when it comes to manpower training.
People in my riding are increasingly tired of winning this
dubious award month after month, year in year out. What can the
government do to help our economy get out of this mess? It must
provide a consistent manpower policy. When faced with
unemployment, people must know where to go, and not only to
claim UI benefits. I am referring to employment centres, which
have now become places where people go to claim UI benefits.
People are well aware of that. However, they do not know where, in
the future, they will go to find jobs.
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.
Bill C-96 will certainly not settle this issue once and for all, far
from it. Given the way things are going right now, people in my
riding will be even more concerned. In addition to giving powers to
the minister, this bill bypasses the provinces. It will give Ottawa
the required judicial and legal basis to justify interfering in and
encroaching upon the area of manpower training.
This is confirmed by clause 20, which provides that the minister
may enter into agreements with a province or group of provinces,
financial institutions, municipalities and such other persons or
bodies as he considers appropriate. Since the minister is in charge,
will financial support follow, or is this just a ploy from the federal
government to shift its problems?
This bill does not make it compulsory to reach an agreement
with the provinces. Again, the number of stakeholders is being
increased, at a time when joint action is taking place in that sector.
The bill will make things even more complicated for those
involved. Dividing budgets among a variety of groups, chosen
goodness knows how by the minister, is not the way to establish
some degree of cohesion in training programs.
16522
Will these groups have the necessary expertise? And when will
the single window approach materialize? This is not the first time
the Bloc has brought up one-stop service. As it now stands, Bill
C-96 does not guarantee it.
(1255)
I believe that is what could make the difference. The single
window approach is essential. It would ensure that the reform
would be focessed on the individual. Making the individual the
focal point of the reform cannot help but be beneficial from the job
creation point of view.
It is also beneficial for our young people, who do not always
know what training would be best for their future. For years
Quebec has been demanding full jurisdiction over manpower.
There is plenty of proof that the federal government has missed the
boat in the way it has managed this.
Mr. Speaker, you are indicating to me that I have only a few
seconds left, so I shall close with the following remark. Last
October 5, in response to a question on this bill from the leader of
the official opposition, the minister stated-and his words are
recorded-that we ought to have read the bill.
Let me assure you, Mr. Speaker, we have read the bill. And not
only Quebecers have read it, moreover. The Minister of Human
Resources Development should-and these are my closing
words-redraft his bill. I shall vote in favour of my colleague's
amendment.
[English]
Mr. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to speak this morning on Bill C-96.
Clause 3 of the bill states:
There is hereby established a department of the Government of Canada called
the Department of Human Resources Development-
Perhaps the most remarkable part of the bill is the very name of
the department it creates: ``Human Resources Development''.
Those three words stand for one of the most critical challenges and
also one of the greatest opportunities facing Canadians today. They
stand for one of the most basic beliefs underlying the government's
commitment to Canadians.
We believe that Canada has enormous potential, economically
and socially. We believe that people, our human resources, are the
key to unlocking that potential. It is the talents and skills of people
that have made this country one of the most prosperous nations on
earth. It is those same skills and talents that will secure for Canada
and Canadians a prosperous future.
By investing in people, by developing our human resources, we
want to ensure that every Canadian has a chance to take part in the
future. We want to ensure that every element of the social
programs works toward that goal. That focus is what the new
department is all about. It is about helping the people who need
help the most, by giving them the tools they need the most, by
giving them a chance to overcome the barriers of poverty, a chance
to gain access to good training and skills and a chance to get good
jobs.
Throughout the social security reform consultations we have
been asking Canadians how to focus our social programs better to
achieve that goal. It has been going on throughout the Department
of Human Resources Development over the past year as
departmental officials have worked to sharpen the focus of
programs and services to make them more effective. It is going on
right now as we develop the new human resources investment fund,
which will lead to greater decentralization in this area. We will be
working more with our partners at the local level and will be
reducing the 39 current programs to a handful which can be hand
tailored to local needs.
Social security reform will continue to evolve as the government
prepares legislation to refocus the UI program and integrate the
lessons it has learned from consultations into departmental
operations.
If members want to see social security reform in action as an
example of focusing resources on investing in people, they can take
a look in my riding at the Bedford Professional Training Services.
With this program each project consists of a mix of classroom and
on the job training in modern office management. Many of the
trainees are older workers who have been displaced from their
former employment. In addition to learning new skills, they must
deal with low self-esteem, grief, embarrassment and frustration
which accompany a midlife job loss, as we all know well. A strong
counselling component is built into the training package to address
these issues.
(1300)
The co-ordinator of the program, Fran Hill, is to be commended
for her excellent work. In fact the placement rate for this program
in its first two projects was 90 per cent. Ninety per cent of those
people who were actually in the program were placed in jobs. That
is excellent and is to be commended. One former trainee has
successfully started her own business and is now employing
another of Fran's graduates.
These people do not want handouts from the department. They
want jobs and they want help getting the tools and skills they need
to get on with their lives. That is what they are getting at places like
Bedford Professional Training Services. They are getting a second
chance at education and learning skills for new jobs. That is just
one example of the strategic initiatives we are undertaking to
refocus the department's resources away from the status quo
toward real, productive and meaningful change.
16523
I will give another example. Let us look at the communities of
Lucasville and Upper Hammonds Plains which are two minority
communities in my riding of Halifax West. These communities
have benefited tremendously over the past two years working
closely with the Bedford Canada Employment Centre.
Through a section 25 program a UI recipient prepares a strategic
development plan. Right now they are arranging for community
consultation on this plan but they will soon begin the initial stages
of implementation. Part of that plan involves tutoring programs
which have already begun and have been very successful.
Through the Youth Services Canada summer program, students,
including eight from the summer program and four in the career
placement program, did two activities. The first involved
recreation services in the communities. The second involved
renovations of homes, churches and community centres in those
communities but according to priorities which were established at
the local level by the people in those communities. That is a very
important point.
The curriculum they used was developed with funding by the
delivery of systems project of the department. The curriculum
works to improve educational standards. It gives the area the
capability as a remote learning centre. It will actually start in the
middle of this month.
There are many examples like these across the country that
reflect the new focus and direction of the department. We can see it
in the assistance that thousands of Canadians receive every day in
our network of CECs, Canada Employment Centres, across the
country. Thousands of Canadians who need help to get the training,
the jobs and income support they need are helped in these centres.
We can see it in the hard work and dedication of some 30,000
departmental employees. I want to mention one in particular with
whom I worked over the past couple of years and who retired this
summer. Keith Cameron was the manager of the Canada
Employment Centre in Bedford. I was very impressed by his
commitment to his community and his commitment to his work.
In fact on Canada Day in 1994 I visited Upper Hammonds
Plains. There on a day off was Keith Cameron coaching the local
ball team. If that is not commitment to a community that needs
assistance and needs involvement, I do not know what is. To me
that shows the kind of dedication and commitment of many of the
employees of the human resources development department. It is
an excellent example for others to follow.
Day in and day out, people like Keith Cameron and other
departmental employees are working with people who are looking
for jobs. They help mediate labour disputes. They help
communities with economic development. They help young people
get started in the world of work and help seniors benefit from
income support programs.
This new focus of the department is an integral part of the human
resources investment fund established in the last budget. They
work closely together. The whole point of this fund is to make the
most flexible use possible of our resources to ensure that people get
the support and services they need to find jobs, jobs that they want
desperately.
(1305 )
For example, this fund will support the government's
commitment to child care, a crucial measure to help unemployed
parents find work and get training. We made a commitment to
co-invest with the provinces in child care and we will live up to that
commitment.
We are also working to improve the child care that is available to
aboriginal peoples. Our officials are working with a team from the
First Nations. Together we are making good progress. The
government hopes to have a new program in place this fall.
Additionally the department has launched the child care visions
fund with $5 million annually. The money will be used to help
support new research and development in this area which is so very
important to Canada's future human resources potential.
These are some of the ways the new focus of the department is
reflected in concrete action. In the immediate future one of the
government's top priorities will be to integrate this focus into the
unemployment insurance program with a major overhaul of the
program.
A few weeks ago the Minister of Human Resources
Development spoke to the human resources standing committee
about the direction this overhaul is going to take. A key objective
of the overhaul is to transform the UI program to focus on
re-employment not unemployment, on jobs not joblessness. This
means finding ways to remove disincentives in the program that
hamper job creation and discourage workers from returning to the
workforce. It also means simplifying the system for both workers
and employers, making it easier to work with and less costly to
administer. It means integrating the UI program with a variety of
tools to help people get back to work.
The government will introduce legislation to reform UI in the
next few weeks but the department is already working on the basic
operational changes needed to make the integrated employment
program work and succeed. This means streamlining the current 39
separate programs and services that are delivered through CECs
across the country and integrating them in a way that allows the
communities to implement them in different ways. That seems to
be very appropriate.
16524
The objective is to ensure the department's energies are driven
not by program rules but by the needs of individual Canadians in
different parts of the country. There will be much more room for
discretion and judgment at the local level which is important. If
we want to tailor re-employment programs to fit local needs, we
must have that kind of local discretion.
Bill C-96 does not in itself accomplish these changes. What it
does is it consolidates the administrative framework for changes
that have taken place, are taking place now and will continue to
take place in the future. It reflects the basic focus that underlies the
government's approach to social and labour market programs. It is
this focus that will help to develop Canada's human resources
giving those who need help the most the tools they need to work
and prosper in the future.
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Okanagan Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
it is with pleasure that I join the debate on Bill C-96, a bill which
sets up the Department of Human Resources Development. I would
certainly hope the kinds of remarks and words my hon. colleague
across the way has just expressed will come to fruition, at least in
part.
This bill, which is a structural kind of bill to set up a department,
takes place in the environment we find ourselves in as far as
Canada and the world is concerned. It deals with things such as the
fact that we live in an information society. Taking place around us
is a technological revolution toward a knowledge based economy.
There is the globalization of politics, industry and trade. There is a
move toward the devolution of power to individuals. There is a
gradual recognition that the past is not a model for the future.
There is an express need now for a new federalism. We are very
well aware of that having just experienced the referendum in
Quebec. All of society must be involved, not just the elite. This
hinges on a very major part. We need to recognize that if we are
going to have real change in our country, it is going to come from
the rank and file. It is not going to come from the top down. We
have had enough of that. That model is not working, has not
worked and will not work in the future.
(1310)
What do we need? This is where the bill lacks a lot of its input
for Canada's society and for the government. Canada needs the
development of people. We need an innovation and technology
orientation. We need to have an infrastructure in science and
engineering. I will only deal with those three areas. Many more
ought to be addressed but those are the three I will limit my
remarks to this afternoon.
If we are going to develop people successfully, the number one
requirement as we move from the old society to the new
information and knowledge based society is the ability to change.
Individuals will have to have the willingness and motivation inside
them to learn continually and to do so in all aspects of life.
I was rather impressed with the Electrical and Electronic
Manufacturers Association which has a very interesting set of
requirements for people who need to be up to date in their
particular industry. The association says that some of the best
programs are those developed by the industry on the shop floor as
the best learning takes place on the shop floor.
Those are the two elements: the ability and willingness to change
and subsequently the willingness to learn and to do so on a
continuing basis. It goes beyond that. We need to develop people
who have the ability to handle the technological and social aspects
of living and working. We are developing some very competent
people in the technological area. We are not developing them as a
balanced position in terms of handling their social and other
situations.
Let me alert the House to the findings of Maclean's magazine
which just did a poll ranking all the universities in Canada. It
became pretty obvious on listening to various people that what
individuals require today is the ability to do technical work very
effectively and at a very high level. However at the same time they
need to be able to balance their home life and their primary
relationships with other people. We need this balance in people but
we need more than that. We need particular technological
development in areas that are not presently being developed.
It was rather interesting to listen to some of the captains of
industry say that they need particular emphasis, willingness and
ability in people who deal with computers and the skills required to
do that successfully.
Today there is the breakdown of our families. If there was ever a
need for the family to be strongly structured it is in this situation
where constant learning is required. When there is a need to change
there has to be a place where there is quiet, comfort and security.
That comes from strong interpersonal relationships which are best
found within the family. As we develop these other aspects, the
high technical skills, we need to develop the reason and the basis
for strong families and strong primary relationships.
In order to achieve that what is necessary? We need a balanced
education system, one that encourages an entrepreneurial spirit
which shows people how to be entrepreneurs. We live in a culture
that encourages entrepreneurship and rewards the risk taking that is
incumbent upon those who venture out in their own businesses. We
then need to develop that skill and ability for people to blend
economic and management awareness with science and
technology.
It is so easy to become focused in a very narrow area of a
particular science or technology and forget that unless we can
16525
manage people it does not matter how good we are at running
machines or computer programs. We have to learn to manage
people. In the new high tech industries that seems to be the area
which is most in need of development.
It goes beyond that. We need to have a balance among
educational institutions. There are hundreds of universities in this
country. They seem to spring up all over the place. It seems to me
that parents want their kids to go to university. That is the best. The
summum bonum of all education aspirations is graduating from
university, preferably with a Ph.D. That is not necessarily the
requirement for technological development. We need to balance
our institutions so we focus on the highly academic skilled people
but also develop the person who can do the actual technical stuff of
putting a computer together, of writing a computer program, of
recognizing the interrelationships of computer networks and things
of that sort.
(1315)
We need more than just university institutions. We need other
post-secondary institutions. We have technical institutions such as
BCIT, the Northern Alberta Institute of Technology and institutions
of that nature, but we need a group that goes in between those as
well, which brings a level of sophistication and understanding of a
Ph.D. but that is not a Ph.D. in the academic sense, but rather in the
technical and science sense, as contrasted with existing university
programs.
There are two specific suggestions I now draw to members'
attention. The first is it is necessary for us to examine, validate and
help diffuse or reject research studies prepared by other
organizations and build on valid work by undertaking or
commissioning research to study the linkages between education
and the economy, the forecasting of skill requirements,
international comparisons, quality of education and training,
gender and equity policies, student learning styles and core
curriculum.
The second is to facilitate linkages between all levels of the
education system: business, labour, government, the community,
social services, non-governmental organizations. If we move into
that kind of an environment we will do away, or at least certainly
reduce, the town/gown conflict that exists now between the
university professor on the one hand who rests primarily on his
seniority to maintain his position rather than on new ideas. We have
some wonderful professors who have great seniority and who rest
on that particular thing. A lot of them need to change their lifestyle
and have a new orientation.
We also need to develop a receptivity among our companies, our
various industries, that they will take and integrate into their
operations the best practice technologies. Then we can play the
leadership role that Canada is capable of in the development,
commercialisation and marketing of technology. The challenge is
ours. We can do that.
Another area I draw attention to is developing the science and
engineering infrastructure. We need to again emphasize the
excellence required in education, the excellence in skill
development and a vibrant research department.
The complexity of the relationships among research, education,
skills training, innovation and competitiveness is not to be
denigrated. It is extremely difficult and it is the one area where we
have not done a good job. This bill should have addressed those
kinds of things. It did not.
Universities, community colleges and technical institutes must
re-examine their missions, establish clear goals and improve the
mobilization, allocation and management of their resources to
achieve these goals.
Consideration should be given to the complementarity between
the program offerings of colleges and universities as well as to
greater differentiation between the roles and missions of each
institution. Concurrently there must be a review of post-secondary
funding in view of redefined missions. This review should result in
a clear definition of goals, outcomes and increased accountability.
Hon. Jon Gerrard (Secretary of State (Science, Research and
Development), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and a pleasure
to be here today as the member for Portage-Interlake in Manitoba
and speak about Bill C-96, the act which will formally establish the
new Department of Human Resources Development, a department
for which my close colleague and fellow Manitoban, the hon.
member for Winnipeg South Centre, is responsible.
Some might ask why the Secretary of State for Science,
Research and Development would be particularly interested in
talking on Bill C-96. There are several reasons. First and foremost,
the bill brings together people and resources in a new way, a way
that will position the Government of Canada to play a more
effective role in human resource development.
The bill is central to a redefinition of the role of government in
Canada, a role that improves the ability to form partnerships, to
share resources, to enhance local and national understanding of the
issues and to use national networking and research to ensure
effectiveness and accountability.
(1320)
It is a paradox perhaps of our age that governments, like
computers, must cost less and do more at the same time. Sharing
powers through partnerships, bringing groups and resources
together at the local level is the process this bill enables, a process
essential to meet the challenge of our times.
16526
The process is now operating in many locations across Canada:
at the new Learning Centre in Portage la Prairie, at the Learning
and Life Centre in London, Ontario, at le Centre de resources
humaine de Matagami in Québec, and in many other areas.
Sectoral partnerships like the Automotive Repair and Service
Council, the Canadian Steel Employer's Council, partnerships with
industry leadership, are further examples of sharing, decision
making and resources through partnerships.
[Translation]
Decentralization and a sharing of powers through partnerships, a
regrouping of stakeholders and resources locally, this is what the
DHRC is about and this is what Bill C-96 will enable us to continue
doing.
[English]
We now live in the knowledge age, a time when an
understanding of science and technology is vital for the
development of human resources. This has happened for several
reasons. More and more of the employment and the business
opportunities of today depend on a knowledge of science and
technology.
Over the last five years there has been a net gain of more than a
million jobs for those with a college or university education but a
net loss of more than 600,000 jobs for those with only high school
training or less.
Employment in some science and engineering based areas,
computer science, software engineering, advanced materials,
biotechnology, environmental technology, are now and continue to
be among the fastest growth areas for employment. Just being able
to use a computer well in one's job has been estimated to provide a
15 per cent additional income benefit compared to a similar worker
without such skills.
Science and technology are important as well because they are
increasingly essential for the efficient delivery of government
services. In Portage-Interlake constituents have historically often
had to travel long distances to get to the nearest Canada
employment centre.
Constituents from Ashern, Gypsumville, Dauphin River, Peguis,
Fisher River, Jackhead and many more communities have had to
travel two, three, four hours one way to get to the nearest Canada
employment centre.
Fortunately due to the advance in technology and the foresight of
the Minister of Human Resources Development it will not be long
before employment kiosks are much closer so that increasingly
constituents will be able to receive effective service in their own
communities, as the citizens in Stonewall in my riding already do.
We look forward to the day when such service will be provided
cost efficiently over the Internet to all people in their own
communities. The government's community access program is
providing rural communities across Canada the opportunity to get
connected and to be served effectively at home.
Science and research are also increasingly essential to the design
and the implementation of programs through the human resources
development department.
As the National Advisory Board on Science and Technology
emphasized in its report ``Health, Wealthy and Wise'', all levels of
government need to evaluate the effectiveness of their programs
and the efficiency of their delivery. They need to begin to
understand the underlying causes in order to reduce the overall
demand for remedial social programs.
NABST further emphasized that social science humanities
research may be the key to responding to these issues. NABST
singled out the self-sufficiency project of the human resources
development department as an example of the sort of critical action
research needed, testing by doing.
Numerous strategic initiatives now being undertaken by the
human resources development department follow in the same
fashion. Examples include the taking charge initiative in Manitoba,
helping single parents on social assistance, and the improved
access to child care initiative in British Columbia, a four-year
project to test new ways of delivering and developing child care
services.
(1325)
[Translation]
The Government of Canada is not taking the lead in any of these
initiatives. We do not want to take the lead. It is the results of these
partnerships that interest us.
[English]
It is the creation of the human resources department in its
present structure and the leadership of its present minister which
have allowed the effective integration of sophisticated social
science and program design so that we can expect to see for the first
time with the upcoming reform of the unemployment insurance
system an overhaul which has effectively used science based
testing to ensure a better and far more effective program.
Science and technology in the development of human resources
are only effective to the extent that they are used wisely and are
balanced by the ability to develop critical human elements, ethics,
discipline, creativity, hope, courage, self-esteem, compassion,
tolerance, diversity, co-operation and team work.
It is also these elements which are important and can be nurtured
within the focus of the new department which is focused on
co-operation and partnerships, sharing resources and decision
making, targeting these particular values. Our bottom line is that
we must advance in the development of human values even as we
advance in science and technology for economic purposes. To
make wonderful developments in science and technology for
16527
economic goals alone but to fail to make the same developments in
social and human sciences would be like a see-saw with all the
weight on one side.
In this context it is appropriate to mention today, national child
day, the important role the newly developed human resources
development department can and is playing in nurturing the
children of Canada.
Let me use an example of an effort in my riding of the newly
opened learning centre in Portage la Prairie. It offers technology to
help provide citizens with an alternative learning mode, including
self-directed computer based learning, for all levels from grade 4
through first year university. The facility is of particular relevance
to single mothers and their children.
As noted in the statistics reported last week, some 56 per cent of
single mothers in Canada live in poverty. These mothers and their
children deserve and need our attention. At the Portage learning
centre they are receiving it. It is coupled with a day care facility
which enables single mothers to be full participants and to learn
new skills and to enhance their success in the participation in the
job market and to enhance their income.
This example and many others like the improved access to child
care initiative I mentioned earlier are important building blocks for
our society and our children tomorrow.
Let me now return briefly to the theme I began with, a new
department with a new approach, decentralized in that it shares
resources and decision making in the most effective ways. This
approach allows the rapid emergence and development of creative
local initiatives to respond to local needs, and yet at the same time
provides a nationally networked department which can share
experiences, best practices and test results from new initiatives
from one end of Canada to the other.
[Translation]
Today, the government has begun an in-depth reform of our
labour market and social security programs, by creating a system of
employment for the 21st century.
[English]
As a government we started the process of reform from the
ground up. We have engaged almost 100,000 Canadians directly in
deciding how to deal with unemployment insurance, how to deal
with job programs, how to deal with issues like employment equity
and child care.
The result will be a job system built by Canadians for Canadians.
The result will be a system preoccupied not with turf wars but with
results and getting things done. The result will be a system run by
partners who can get those results. The result will be a system that
favours the creation of employment in the wealth creating private
sector rather than enlarging the government sector.
That is what Canada needs and that is why the government is
creating through Bill C-96 a new Department of Human Resources
Development and ensuring its mandate.
(1330)
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Mercier (Blainville-Deux-Montagnes, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, as soon as the all clear sounded on October 30, the
government rushed to release a flood of centralist and/or antisocial
bills. These bills had been ready for some time, but it would have
been poor timing to table them before the referendum and in the
process cause many voters in Quebec to turn away from that great
and beautiful Canada of ours in the privacy of the voting booth.
It was a close call for Ottawa, but now that it has managed, just
barely, to negotiate this rocky stretch, the government can at last
heave a sigh of relief and calmly pursue its usual goals. Can a
leopard change its spots? Of course not. So, full speed ahead,
towards an even bigger and more beautiful Canada which,
according to this government, means even more centralized and
antisocial.
The promises to decentralize, made in a prereferendum panic,
are now gone with the wind of victory, slim though the margin was,
and too bad for the believers who naively voted no.
Remember the last days of the referendum campaign, when the
polls made them break out in a cold sweat and federalism's big
guns sang the hymn to decentralization. They understood what we
wanted, they chorused, and they loved us. Time would tell. From
now on, provincial jurisdictions would be respected. If we voted
no, there would be no more wicked ministers trying to graze in the
greener pastures of provincial jurisdictions.
After the majority voted no, the very first thing this government
did, as if to make it abundantly clear to those who had not yet
understood how they had been tricked, was to table the bill before
the House today. A real masterpiece of centralization and
leap-frogging over the heads of the provinces. The no side won,
which means there is no longer any incentive for Ottawa to respect
us. Here comes the first wave over the damn, Bill C-96, loaded
with new powers Ottawa has the effrontery to assume in the field of
manpower training, thus ignoring not only its own promises but
also a general consensus in Quebec including even the Liberals.
Until now, the minister could not sidestep the provinces
altogether in this area, to enter into agreements with financial
institutions, persons or bodies, as the minister considers
appropriate. This was of course intolerable. It was high time the
referendum was over with so the government could finally do
something about this. Otherwise, people would start thinking that
Ottawa respected the powers of the provinces.
16528
Some will say that one swallow does not a summer make. One
centralist bill is not necessarily a harbinger of all out
centralization. It is true, but, believe me, you can trust the
government, a whole flock of swallows is on the way. Bill C-96
is merely a forerunner, Bill C-95 is already peeking out from
behind it. This bill not only gives birth to the Department of
Health, it is giving it as a christening gift comfortably broadened
ministerial powers.
Before long, we will also be seeing Bill C-98 with which the
government is giving itself environmental control over the oceans
and also the waters that flow into the ocean. Now, since all waters
flow into the ocean-
In short, ever shrinking transfers to the provinces and ever
expanding involvement in provincial jurisdictions. Pay ever less
and control ever more: this is the incredible policy of our
colleagues opposite. How long, we wonder, will the other
provinces meekly go along with this little game.
(1335)
If they accept another round of cuts to their rights without
flinching, it makes little sense to me, but, after all, it is their
business. However, this steam roller of a centralizing and antisocial
legislation whose rumblings we hear, this campaign that they have
just boldly launched against provincial prerogatives now that they
have nothing more to fear, this bellicose rumour arising from the
ranks of the Liberals, can you see how clearly it is revealing the
intentions of the Prime Minister when he talks about unearthing old
legislation that has fallen into disuse?
The aim, as everyone will see, is to prevent Quebecers from
holding a third referendum when the time is right. All the
Quebecers who were misled into voting no because they believed
in the promises made are very likely to change sides, do you not
suppose, and vote yes after the steam roller has gone by. At that
point we will be able to assess the damage done to the social safety
net and to provincial jurisdictions. What kind of reaction can we
expect from Quebecers faced with the inflated arrogance of the
federal government as it sports the new powers it has snatched
from the provinces like new plumage?
One day we will be sovereign, because one day a majority of
Quebecers will understand. Believe me, they will not be misled
again by excessive flattery before the referendum only to be pistol
whipped after. This is why those opposite want nothing to do with a
new referendum. Bill C-96 will at least begin to open the eyes of
the half of Quebecers who have yet to understand.
[English]
Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos (Saint-Denis, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is a
pleasure to speak to Bill C-96, a bill which talks of partnership, of
collaboration between the federal and provincial governments, of
the need to develop our greatest asset, human resources.
I know firsthand from my constituents in Saint-Denis that we
must develop efficiently this important resource in order to meet
the challenges facing Canada in the 21st century.
Questions have been raised about the powers granted to the
minister in this bill, specifically with respect to clause 6, which sets
out the mandate of the department. They suggest that somehow this
clause allows the federal government to intrude on matters of
provincial jurisdiction. I find myself puzzled by some of those
questions. I wonder if we are all reading from the same bill or do
some members opposite have their own private version that they
would like to share with us.
In my copy of the bill, clause 6 has a very important and I think
very clear phrase that puts definite limits on the minister's powers.
It limits those powers to ``matters over which Parliament has
jurisdiction''. What part of that phrase is unclear?
By some kind of hocus-pocus, members opposite read that
phrase and it comes out ``matters over which the provinces have
jurisdiction''. That is just plain nonsense. It is not what the bill
says. It says just the opposite.
[Translation]
In fact, Bill C-96 does not affect federal and provincial powers in
any way. It does not give the minister any extra powers or
undermine those he already has. All the powers now granted to the
minister under the law will remain the same.
Bill C-96 does not create any new programs or bring any
substantial changes to those that already exist. All programs and
services in effect the day before this bill is passed will remain the
same.
There is no ambiguity in this. There is no doubt whatsoever.
Whichever way you look at it, this bill does not grant any new
powers. This encroachment exists only in the fertile imagination of
those who would like to see such an encroachment.
[English]
Perhaps some members would be more comfortable if clause 6
spelled out in laborious detail all of the specific programs offered
by the government. That is certainly an option but it is an option the
government decided would be ill-advised and counterproductive.
We are dealing with a very large department and with a wide
range of programs and services. Enumerating all of those programs
point by point would take pages and in the end nothing very
positive would be accomplished.
(1340 )
The whole direction of the department, of the government, of
governments at all levels and indeed most business organizations is
to stay flexible and ready for change. At a time when flexibility,
16529
streamlining and efficiency are so important, it makes sense to set
out the responsibilities of the department in a better way. That is
what clause 6 does. It sets out the basic objectives of the
department: enhancing employment, encouraging equality and
promoting social security. These objectives are very clear. They are
very important and are within the jurisdiction of this Parliament.
The people who use our programs every day, whether they are in
Newfoundland, Quebec, Manitoba or British Columbia, do not
want the federal government to shirk its responsibilities. I trust that
no one in the House is suggesting that we do so.
At the same time, we all recognize that there is room for more
productive partnerships between all levels of government. We
recognize the need to clarify roles and responsibilities in labour
market development. That is why we have made it very clear that
as we proceed with social security reform, as we put a new
unemployment insurance program in place, as we develop a new
human resource investment fund and the Canada health and social
transfer, we are open to change.
We are willing to take a hard look at who is in the best position to
deliver programs and services most efficiently. It may well prove
that some programs managed now at the federal level can be better
managed by others: the provinces, private sector partners or
community groups.
The federal government wants to work with Quebec and all
provinces with an open mind. We are really not interested in turf
wars. We are interested in working with our partners in a
constructive way to meet common goals and serve Canadians.
[Translation]
Let us consider the agreements already concluded between
HRDC and Quebec: the interim Canada-Quebec agreement on
certain manpower development measures; the agreement on the
implementation of a deal affecting welfare recipients; the
Canada-Quebec agreement on agricultural employment; the block
funding granted Quebec under the Canada student loans program,
to name but a few.
These umbrella agreements may not be perfect, but they work.
They directly affect the lives of thousands of people in that
province.
[English]
The whole thrust of HRDC activity is to strengthen those
partnerships and to decentralize power away from the centre to the
local level. Labour market programs and services are already
among the most decentralized of all federal programs. We are
decentralizing them even further with a new, modern service
delivery network firmly rooted at the local level in communities
across this country.
The federal government is also committed to working with the
provinces to provide the most flexible services possible to
Canadians.
[Translation]
For example, the Canada transfer for health and social programs
will give Quebec another source of funding for measures such as
the parental wage assistance program or PWA, which cannot be
funded under the old system; the provincial sales tax rebate to
welfare recipients, which does not come under the old system; a
nutrition program for disadvantaged children, which cannot be
funded under the old system either; as well as transportation
services for handicapped people, without having to assess the needs
as would be required under the old system.
[English]
Because clause 6 of Bill C-96 sets out the department's mandate
in terms of general objectives rather than the minute details of
existing programs, we will have this kind of flexibility. It provides
a basis for a more efficient department and clears the way for
continued evaluation and reform down the road.
[Translation]
Diverting the debate on this bill by inventing jurisdictional
problems-by finding in clause 6 words that are obviously not
there-is doing a disservice to thousands of Canadians across the
country who benefit every day from the services provided by the
Department of Human Resources Development.
It is doing a disservice to the million Quebecers throughout that
province who rely on and use this department's services, to the
people who come to our human resources and student employment
centres, who register in our employment programs, who receive
unemployment insurance, who benefit every day from the $14
million that HRDC spends in Quebec on an annual basis.
(1345)
[English]
Canadians are entitled to the best possible services. They
deserve the kind of integrated, focused, practical programs that
HRDC is working to deliver, and Bill C-96 is important to that
effort.
Let us not sacrifice good, productive service on the altar of
rhetoric. In the end all levels of government are striving for the
same goal: to help people find and keep good jobs. That is what is
important. That is what we promised as a party and that is what we
are delivering as a government.
I have numerous examples in my riding of programs that work.
Young people who had no future, who had no hope for the future,
are now in programs financed by the department. I have the
16530
example of 13 young high school dropouts who are now in a
program that is a collaborative effort of the federal government
and the private sector. All 13 of them will have jobs the minute that
program ends.
We need to consolidate the progress we have achieved in
integrating social and labour market programs and sharpen the
focus on developing Canada's human resources. More important,
we need to clear the way for further progress as we launch the new
employment insurance program, as we develop new programs and
services under the human resource investment fund, as we work to
improve programs for seniors, and as the department continues to
re-engineer and streamline services to Canadians.
It is important to clear up the administrative tangles left over
from earlier times. It is important to establish a clear identity and
coherent mandate for the new organization to function properly. It
is important to ensure that as the department looks to the future
there is a solid foundation to build on. As I said earlier there are
numerous programs by which we want to build a solid foundation
for the young people of the country. For instance, the youth
services program in my riding has helped a number of young
people have hope for the future, as I said earlier.
Bill C-96 provides that foundation. We need to pass the bill and
get on with the work of serving Canadians.
Mrs. Daphne Jennings (Mission-Coquitlam, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to speak to the government's Bill C-96, an act
to establish the Department of Human Resources Development.
The bill basically does little more than transfer legal powers
from the former Ministry of Employment and Immigration to the
new department. In summary, the enactment establishes the
Department of Human Resources Development with a presiding
minister to be appointed by commission under the Great Seal of
Canada, with the powers, duties and functions as therein set out,
and a deputy minister to be appointed by the governor in council
with provision for employees. It also provides that a minister of
labour may be appointed and that a deputy minister of labour may
be designated. That is it.
With all the huffing and puffing the minister of human resources
did regarding his intentions for social reform, Bill C-96, all 44
pages, does very little but change the name of the department and
continue as usual.
I will comment on a few clauses I take issue with before I
address the need for social reform especially for our seniors. I fear
clause 6 means the government will continue to interfere in the
provincial areas of social programs, in other words entrench the
status quo that causes overlap and duplication.
Clauses 20 and 21 enable the minister to enter into negotiation
with any group including the provinces and municipalities. The
provinces are waiting for less interference in social programs.
Reform would support real decentralization with the provision of
power going directly to the provinces to administer at their
discretion.
Then there is the matter of government accountability. If there is
no annual report from the department how will Canadians have full
knowledge regarding its administration and cost to the taxpayers?
We are also kept in the dark about staffing in the new human
resources department. Will it increase or decrease?
Canadians have waited a year for the discussion paper to come
out. It seems we are still waiting. Once again the government, in
this case the Minister of Human Resources Development, has
failed Canadians. There is no meaningful social reform in the bill,
no decentralization as the provinces have been asking for.
As Reform's deputy critic for human resources I must look at
seniors' concerns. I must tell the House that seniors are so
concerned about the future of their pensions that Canada's usual
seniors groups have joined to create a coalition of seniors for social
equity. The coalition consists of five major national seniors groups
concerned in a large part about the future of income security
programs for the elderly. It is hoped that by giving seniors a strong
voice the coalition which claims to represent 500,000 seniors
across Canada will ensure that government considers the wishes of
seniors. The paper was written a year ago. I must consider the
remarks of one senior spokesperson who stated:
When our coalition was formed, we set ourselves some rigid criteria. We
decided that we, as seniors' organizations, have to face the hard facts. We have
to recognize that the deficit and growing government debt are real. We have to
recognize that the elderly population is growing faster than the population as a
whole and that government expenditures on the elderly are increasing.
We recognize that seniors, like others in society, may have to pay higher
levels of taxation and receive lower levels of government services. The seniors
of today have always paid their fair share to society and will continue to be
willing to do so. What they object to is being singled out to pay more than their
fair share. Seniors recognize that, with due consideration and consultation,
some changes may be necessary to the income security system for older
Canadians.
(1350)
They stated their major concern as follows:
When change is necessary, people who can adjust must be given enough time
to plan and adjust, and those who cannot must have benefits continued.
People have to know what to expect when they retire so they can prepare their
financial affairs well in advance.
It is interesting to note that others in society, especially the
financial experts, say the same thing. Most Canadians recognize
that due to the country's changing demographic profile Canada's
pension system is facing a cash flow crisis.
16531
The Canadian birth rate soared after World War II, producing
a baby boom generation that will start to retire around the year
2010. The number of pensioners per working Canadian will more
than double by the year 2031.
This would not be a problem if Canada's government
administered pensions were funded, that is if each person's
contributions to the CPP were placed in an individual account and
invested. Instead the CPP is funded on a pay as we go basis. For
example, the funds collected from today's workers are paid out
immediately to today's pensioners. Thus every time the ratio of
retirees to workers increases the per capita cost of the system to
workers increases in lock step.
Canadian politicians have shown little creativity in addressing
the pension funding crisis and seem to believe that the rise in
pension demands can be dealt with only by cutting benefits to
pensioners or by raising taxes for working Canadians. If the first of
these two options is chosen, pension benefits will have to be cut by
over 50 per cent by the year 2031 to keep payroll deductions for
CPP at their current levels.
If the second option is chosen, taxes on working Canadians will
be driven to unprecedented heights. To maintain CPP benefits at
their present levels payroll deductions will have to be increased
from the current level of 5.4 per cent to 10.28 per cent by the year
2011 and eventually over 14 per cent. That source is from the
Canada pension plan 15th statutory actuarial report of February
1995.
Health and Welfare Canada in ``Charting Canada's Future'',
1989, stated:
The term ``demographic aging'' refers to an increase in the relative weight of
the elderly in the total population. The aging of the Canadian population has
come about largely because of declining fertility rates and, to a lot lesser degree,
because of an increase in average life span.
By the time the post-second world war baby boomers retire
roughly one in every five Canadians will be 65 years of age or
more, compared to approximately one in ten today. What is more,
while senior citizens will form an increasingly large proportion of
the population the percentage of young people will decline.
It is wonderful news that our seniors are living longer and
healthier lives. However with this fact comes the realization that
our social programs must change.
Unfortunately, although the Minister of Human Resources
Development promised change to our social system two years ago,
we are still waiting. Why is he still compiling evidence when our
government's experts have had papers written on the subject for
years now? Is he hoping that through more and more consultation
he can stall any meaningful change until after the next election?
I wonder when politicians will realize that Canadian voters only
expect their politicians to do their best while spending the
Canadian taxpayers' dollars wisely. If the government starts to
show that responsibility and accountability are major
considerations in any social reforms program the government
initiates, the Canadian public will be supportive. If politicians do
their job there is nothing to fear from voters. When politicians do
not do their jobs, force unwanted legislation on Canadian voters,
appoint friends and party faithful to high positions, keep Canadian
citizens dependent rather than helping them to be independent and
productive, Canadians lose faith in their politicians.
(1355)
Our human resources minister said it in his article ``Breaking
Down Barriers'' in The Hill Times of August 31, 1995:
By changing nothing, we are condemning people to the same old rut, the same
old cycle of dependency which has been holding people back for years. And
what is worse by ignoring fiscal imperative, it won't be long before the
international financial community is going to come in and dictate those changes
for us.
If he thinks this way, why is he doing nothing? The Liberal
government promised that by the fall of 1994 it would implement
comprehensive reform of Canada's social programs. Instead, in
October 1994 the Minister of Human Resources Development
issued a paper ``Social Security in Canada''. To date no meaningful
legislative changes have been introduced. The minister has also
promised that a comprehensive paper on aging including pensions
will be issued by the end of 1995.
The Reform Party has a proposal for seniors to look at. It is
responsible social reform, taking a look at reforming the Canada
pension plan to secure retirement years for all Canadians.
We recognize and listen to all the experts, including the chief
actuary for Canada who states that CPP will be exhausted by 2015.
He predicts that CPP will be gone in 20 years. What is to become of
the millions of Canadians at that time who are currently
contributing to the unsustainable black hole? What happens to the
next generation with no hope of receiving its benefits?
The groundwork for the Reform Party's revision of Canada's
social policies was outline in the taxpayers' budget of February
1995, a blueprint for achieving both fiscal and social security for
Canadians in the 21st century.
I wish there was time to go over Reform's four-point plan which
addresses the seriousness of the upcoming pension crisis in
Canada. Basically it deals with protection of seniors' benefits,
recognition bonds, super RRSPs and survivors' benefits.
The Speaker: It being 2 p.m. we will now proceed to Statements
by Members.
>
16532
16532
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay-Atikokan, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this year marked the 35th anniversary of the Medical
Research Council of Canada. Over 35 years the MRC has played a
key role in establishing one of the most influential and efficient
biomedical research communities in the world.
Canadian medical achievements are numerous, including the
discovery of a gene linked to Alzheimer's disease, progress in the
understanding of muscular dystrophy, and the development of an
innovative approach to reducing the side effects of aspirin.
The Medical Research Council of Canada is a vast network of
people seeking better care for Canadians, a fairer distribution of
health care resources, new knowledge and more effective medical
and surgical interventions.
The Medical Research Council is an organization truly worthy of
continued federal government support.
* * *
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, a short
time ago I had the opportunity to visit Prince Edward Island. Aside
from the beauty of the Island and the friendliness of the people I
could not help but notice the political oppression of the system in
Atlantic Canada.
Politicians use their positions to garner support through
patronage and threats. For example, one day I met a provincial
cabinet minister and informed him of a public meeting planned for
later the same day. The minister appeared that night not to attend
the meeting but to find out who else was attending. More than one
person turned and walked out the door when they saw the minister.
If the people of the Island cannot openly express political beliefs
and attend a meeting without fear of reprisal, we must challenge
the system under which Islanders live.
The Reform Party is offering Atlantic Canadians a positive
alternative, an alternative that will allow them to break free from
the system of political oppression they are now forced to endure.
* * *
Mr. John Godfrey (Don Valley West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
statistics are staggering. One and a half million Canadians are
diabetic. The disease grows at a rate of 6 per cent per year. By the
year 2004 experts predict that one in four Canadians over the age of
45 will have developed the disease.
November is Diabetes Awareness Month in Canada. Most people
do not realize that diabetes is the leading contributor to heart
disease, stroke, kidney failure and blindness. Furthermore, most
people incorrectly believe that insulin is a cure. Across Canada we
spend $200 per person annually to treat diabetes and diabetes
related illnesses. That totals $5 billion in government health
expenses alone.
I commend the Juvenile Diabetes Foundation for its efforts in
this, the 25th year since its formation, for continuing to fight for a
cure to this disease.
During Diabetes Awareness Month let us all do our part to raise
awareness and dollars to make sure that the slogan of the 1990s is
achieved and truly make this the decade of a cure.
* * *
Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen (Windsor-St. Clair, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, 1995 is the 50th anniversary of the United Nations. On
Wednesday of this week the Secretary-General of the UN, His
Excellency Boutros Boutros-Ghali, will be in Ottawa to
commemorate this event.
It is fitting today to remember that Canada is a founding nation
in this great institution. For me it is also fitting and a great honour
to recall the contributions of my predecessor from Windsor-St.
Clair, the Right Hon. Paul Martin, Sr., who was committed to the
success of the United Nations and who was there at its inception.
I know that all members will join me in welcoming His
Excellency Boutros Boutros-Ghali to Canada and in wishing
continuing success to the UN.
* * *
Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke-Lakeshore, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, today we commemorate the adoption of the UN
Convention on the Rights of the Child.
In 1989 Canada and other member countries of the United
Nations gathered together to develop a set of formal obligations to
the world's children. At that time a standard was set for nations
with the best interests of the child being the primary concern in all
actions relating to children.
The government takes seriously its responsibilities to better the
lives of Canadian children. As Canadians we must be vigilant to
ensure that the values and guarantees in the Convention on the
Rights of the Child are respected.
16533
Let us today, on National Child Day, renew our commitment
to the promises we have made to the many hungry and neglected
children who are depending on us to ensure their future is as bright
as it can possibly be.
* * *
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Okanagan Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
last week I spent some time knocking on the doors of constituents.
I asked people what was of concern to them now, halfway
through the mandate. Three issues were stated most frequently.
Several seniors said: ``I'm afraid to go out on the street alone in my
neighbourhood. Several years ago I felt no threat for my own safety
as I walked to see my neighbour. Today I either take a cab, my car
or ask someone to come with me. Can't you do something that will
discourage the criminals?''
The second issue was: ``When will the government get its
spending under control? I am worried that when I reach retirement
age there won't be any money left for me''.
The third issue came from a 16-year-old. He quoted Winston
Churchill: ``Democracy is the worst system ever invented except
for all the rest''. He talked about the problems of the Quebec
referendum balloting and said: ``We need to tell the government to
do everything it can to punish the guilty ones and to make sure that
we take all possible precautions to prevent it from ever happening
again''.
That is what the people are saying. I challenge the Prime
Minister and every MP to get on with the Canadian agenda.
* * *
Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, last Thursday I had the honour to be invited by the
Metis Nation of Saskatchewan to join them to commemorate the
110th anniversary of the hanging of Louis Riel, a most important
date on the Metis calendar.
That the Metis community would come together to mark one of
the gravest crimes ever committed by the Canadian government
against one of its leaders says a lot about the determination and the
patience of the Metis people.
To some degree history has put Riel's contributions to Canada
into perspective. The House has pardoned him of the crime for
which he was executed and now he is rightfully recognized as a
Father of Confederation. While we have made some retribution to
Riel's memory we have failed as a nation to properly recognize the
role that the Metis have had in building this country and their
rightful role in its future.
Riel was twice elected to sit as a member of this House and it is
an honour to be in the same House as someone whose commitment
to justice and to the west was so firm.
Last Thursday's ceremony was a reminder of the continuing
struggle for justice that the Metis people are waging and the need
on the part of Canada to redress the years of injustice. Each of us in
this House has an important role to play in that struggle.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Gérard Asselin (Charlevoix, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is
becoming increasingly obvious to anyone listening to the
conflicting remarks made by ministers of this government that they
cannot honour the promises made in the final days of the
referendum campaign.
(1405)
Unable to develop a policy that meets the traditional demands of
Quebecers-demands that they had been denying for years-the
best that these ministers can think of is to disguise their failure to
act by striking one committee after another.
First, they announced the establishment of a phoney committee
on national unity, but the ministers who were to sit on this
committee did not know that they were members of the committee.
They did not even know what their mandate was.
Then, a shadow committee on economic growth and
employment was established. Two years after taking office, the
federal ministers have decided that the time has come to start
tackling the problem of unemployment. More committees and still
no action. This reeks of improvisation.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Andy Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in March 1993 the Government of Canada designated
November 20 as National Child Day.
The enactment of National Child Day was a culmination of
efforts by Our Kids Foundation in Ottawa which convinced the
government to designate a special day for children.
The adoption of the Convention on the Rights of the Child and
National Child Day reflects the growing recognition that children
are important in their own right and valued members of our society.
It also provides us with the opportunity to reflect on the special
needs of children and the matters that concern them.
I have been collecting letters from children across the country
who urge the Prime Minister to remember the promises made at
the World Summit for Children in 1990 to reduce poverty and
16534
illiteracy. I have received over 100 heartfelt letters from children of
all ages.
We need to work together to improve the well-being of children
from all nations as they are truly the future of the planet.
* * *
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to recognize in the House this country's greatest asset, our
children.
In March 1993 the Government of Canada designated November
20 as National Child Day. To mark this occasion, communities
across Canada are hosting a variety of activities and events to
celebrate children and their families.
In the words of Dr. Benjamin Spock ``children are made to
love''. Parents love children because they remember being loved so
much by their own parents. And despite all the hard work, taking
care of children and seeing them grow and develop into fine people
gives most parents their greatest satisfaction in life. To reflect on
children we see that this is creation, this is our visible immortality.
Today is National Child Day. It should serve to remind us all that
every day is a good day to love our children.
* * *
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay East, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, since the
Liberal government took office two years ago, the Prime Minister
has made 12 patronage appointments to the Senate. This is
complicity in the degrading politics of an undemocratic,
unaccountable institution.
The other place consumes over $40 million a year from hard
pressed, taxpaying Canadians. Does it actually serve a purpose or is
it just a rubber stamp for bad legislation?
In the last few days the justice minister has stated that he will not
accept any amendments to Bill C-68 which might be proposed by
the Senate. A few weeks ago he also said that Senators should get
on with their function and pass the legislation. The government
cannot have it both ways.
Either the gun control amendments will be coming back from a
powerful, unelected body of partisan failures, flatterers and
pleaders for special interests or it is a legitimate part of Canada's
legislative process.
I ask again: Does the Senate serve a purpose or just act as a
rubber stamp for bad legislation?
[Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to mention that November 20 is National Child Day. Today,
and for the third consecutive year, we are taking the time to stop
and recognize the rights of children from coast to coast.
To recognize that our children have rights is to recognize also
that we have a responsibility to ensure that they are raised in an
adequate environment conducive to proper growth and
development.
In Canada, a country that calls itself the best in the world, more
than one million children live in poverty. For a child, to be born
poor also means facing higher risks of emotional and physical
health problems because it clearly makes them more vulnerable to
the consequences of poverty.
Let us take this opportunity to reflect on the future we are
preparing for our children, and particularly on the impact that the
actions we take today will have on them tomorrow.
* * *
Mr. Patrick Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, November 20 marks the third anniversary of
the National Child Day. That date was chosen to recognize two
historical events, namely the UN ratification of the Declaration of
the Rights of the Child and of the Convention on the Rights of the
Child.
(1410)
[English]
This convention is aimed at ensuring the survival, protection,
development and participation of all children and was ratified by
Canada in 1991.
[Translation]
We have a responsibility to preserve the well-being of those
children who could be victims of criminal acts, abuse or neglect.
By investing in child care from the early stages on, we will ensure
that children do not have to go through some of the adjustment
problems associated with the teenage years. This, in turn, will have
the effect of reducing the financial burden associated with welfare,
crime prevention and remedial education.
In conclusion, I invite all Canadians to join us in celebrating this
day.
16535
[English]
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today is
National Child Day, a day when we celebrate our children, a day of
happiness, a day when every child should wear a smile.
Children are our future. As a society we must do everything we
can to ensure their happiness and their ability to lead full and
productive lives. Childhood is a most critical stage of life. It is
during this period that we must provide proper nutrition, good
health care, complete education and above all encouragement and
guidance to our children.
I invite my colleagues to join with me in celebrating our kids and
our future at the Cherish the Children Gala tonight at 7 p.m. in
Room 200, West Block, here on Parliament Hill.
Also, join with me in wishing all those who are born on this day
a very happy birthday.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Réjean Lefebvre (Champlain, BQ): Mr. Speaker, people in
Quebec and in Canada are not surprised by recent statements from
the Prime Minister, who is experiencing a severe panic attack. We
now know that if the yes side had won the referendum, the Prime
Minister would have rejected the democratic choice made by
Quebecers.
The Prime Minister also said that he would take all necessary
means to ensure that Quebecers are no longer consulted through a
referendum on the issue of sovereignty. These two statements alone
confirm an absolute lack of political ethics on the part of the Prime
Minister and his entourage. But the Prime Minister went even
further when he said that CBC's information services do not
comply with their mandate, which should be to actively promote
Canadian unity.
The Prime Minister's lack of respect for the public consultation
process and for those who hold different views clearly confirms
that he turns his back on democracy when it takes a direction with
which he does not agree.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Finance has not cut spending by a single penny. In fact,
spending is up by $2.8 billion this year over last.
The one thing that saved the Minister of Finance and allowed
him to meet his deficit reduction target was that he squeezed
Canadian taxpayers for another $7.3 billion; $2.8 billion of that
was applied to the ever-rising cost of servicing our debt and $4.5
billion was used to reduce the deficit.
Is it the intention of the Liberal government to balance the
budget on the backs of the taxpayers? If it is, taxpayers need to
know the costs. Their taxes will double in the next 10 years in order
to pay for the ever-rising cost of the debt while reducing the deficit
to zero.
By that time, the government will have killed the goose that laid
the golden egg and the rich will have joined the ranks of the poor.
* * *
Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today,
November 20, Canadians all over the country will be celebrating
National Child Day.
The Government of Canada designated this special day to pay
tribute to children and everything they offer us today and in the
future.
November 20 also marks the adoption by the United Nations
General Assembly of the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
That convention is important because it deals with every aspect of
the life of children and youth. The convention provides a
framework to value and respect children and youth as full-fledged
human beings.
In this International Year of Tolerance, we encourage all partners
to pay special attention to issues such as equality, integration,
sharing and understanding, especially when these issues relate to
children and youth.
Today I call on all members of the House to join in the
celebration of National Child Day. We must listen to our children
and youth and treat them with compassion and respect. In doing
this we build stronger communities and a prosperous nation.
Remember, children are important because they are Canada's
future.
_____________________________________________
16535
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
(1415)
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the government, if there is still one over there.
Having already implied that he did not intend to respect the
outcome of the referendum, the Prime Minister stated a second
16536
time that he wanted to stop Quebecers from holding a second
referendum on the future of Quebec if they wished to. In a repeat
performance later, he criticized the CBC's lack of partisan
involvement in the referendum campaign. The CBC was too
impartial for the Prime Minister's taste during the referendum.
My question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister or
whoever might be so kind as to reply. Are we to understand that the
Prime Minister wishes not only to stop Quebecers from deciding
their future on another occasion they deem appropriate but also to
control the information they will get from the CBC?
Hon. Sheila Finestone (Secretary of State (Multiculturalism)
(Status of Women), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I believe that we need to
stress that the Prime Minister may perhaps be completely right in
this, but with respect to the comment from my colleague, he is also
aware that CBC President Perrin Beatty has set up a committee to
examine our Prime Minister's comments, which I feel are clearly
justified, and the response will be forthcoming in due course.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, since the
hon. secretary of state does me the honour of a reply to my
questions, I shall ask her another.
Since Perrin Beatty, in keeping with the operating provisions of
the CBC, has set up a committee to assess the professional conduct
of CBC and Radio-Canada journalists and the manner in which the
news was presented, does she not think that the Prime Minister
would have been wiser to wait before nailing the CBC?
Hon. Sheila Finestone (Secretary of State (Multiculturalism)
(Status of Women), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as my colleague must be
aware, the mission of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and
Radio Canada International is, and I quote:``[-] to reflect major
current events and contribute to the exercise of
democracy''-something you and others need to learn about-``to
the affirmation of the sovereignty of the country and to helping the
various regions to come to know more about each other, and to
more accurately reflect the national identity''. This has not been
denied by our Prime Minister and this is how we promote all of our
undertakings.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the hon.
secretary of state is rather surprising. She indicates to the
opposition that we ought to be learning what democracy is all
about, while what is at issue here is the behaviour of the Prime
Minister, who finds that the CBC was too impartial in the
referendum. Amazing. Amazing.
Does the hon. secretary of state not consider, when a Prime
Minister initially indicates his intention not to recognize the
outcome of a democratic exercise, then tells us that he want to see
no more democratic consultations in Quebec, and then again
decides that the CBC ought to stop being impartial when
broadcasting information, that these are three somewhat
disquieting actions within a democracy?
[English]
Hon. Sheila Finestone (Secretary of State (Multiculturalism)
(Status of Women), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, when it comes to talking
about democracy, when it comes to talking about how language
should be understood or one's accent, when it comes to discussing
who has the right to vote and the weight of that vote, I do not think
there are any exercises in democracy that need to be taken by this
side of the House.
(1420)
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister.
Last week, the Deputy Prime Minister clearly established a link
between the funding received by Radio-Canada and its news
coverage. She said it did not make sense for us to pay the cost of
running the corporation when there was no commitment to
Canadian unity.
Are we to understand that the government wants to tie
Radio-Canada's budget to a partisan performance with respect to
news coverage?
[English]
Hon. Sheila Finestone (Secretary of State (Multiculturalism)
(Status of Women), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it might be very helpful if
my hon. colleague would recognize we are in a significantly
changing environment with respect to telecommunications,
broadcasting, film distribution, marketing, et cetera.
The government spends in excess of $1 billion for
Radio-Canada, CBC, Telefilm Canada and the National Film
Board. Perhaps that money could be spent more succinctly, more
successfully and in a more focused way. It is for that reason that a
committee was set up by the minister responsible for Canadian
heritage. We should know its response very shortly.
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I would really like to know how the secretary of state can
justify-since she used the word focus-the government's
blackmailing Radio-Canada?
[English]
Hon. Sheila Finestone (Secretary of State (Multiculturalism)
(Status of Women), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, CBC Radio-Canada's role
is to reflect our society, the people within our society. It has
journalistic freedom, which is within its mandate.
16537
I suggest the impartiality and the responsibility journalistically
speaking will be determined in the report to be submitted byMr. Perrin Beatty and that committee.
* * *
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Airbus scandal provides yet another example of what happens
when a government buries its head in the sand. The most
outrageous aspect of this Airbus scandal is not Brian Mulroney's
$50 million lawsuit, nor is it the righteous indignation coming from
his Sherbrooke sidekick.
The most outrageous aspect of this entire thing is that it took
articles in a Swiss newspaper and a German magazine to convince
this government to take action. None of these are new allegations.
The RCMP was investigating this matter back in 1989. Paul
Palango was naming names in 1994 and the CBC was uncovering
new and damaging evidence as recently as this March.
My question is for the Minister of Justice. Why did it take the
work of a German newspaper to get this government to act on the
Airbus scandal?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the RCMP has been active for months, as it has confirmed, in
looking into these allegations. It has been doing its job. I hope the
hon. member in her questions will express support for the work of
the RCMP rather than this unjustified scepticism.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
support the RCMP, especially in its guarding of 24 Sussex, part of
its job.
Not all governments have been asleep at the switch in this
scandal. According to the federal government and in contrast to it
the American embassy has been hard at work, having already
accumulated a fat file on this subject which includes actual names,
timelines and Swiss bank account numbers.
It seems to me the Minister of Justice could save Canadian
taxpayers a great deal of time and money by simply walking across
Wellington Street and asking the Americans for a photocopy of
their file.
In order to help get to the bottom of this matter will the Minister
of Justice make a formal request to have the American government
share all relevant information and material it has gathered on the
Airbus deal?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I am sure the RCMP will do everything necessary to pursue its
inquiries. I suggest the hon. member do more in constructing her
questions than to base them on the Insider column of the Ottawa
Sun.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, there is
more at stake here than some sort of hilarity from the solicitor
general. Things have been bad enough in that department already
these past couple of weeks. If anyone is being facetious here it is
he.
The Canadian people deserve better from the Liberal
government. What we have here are all the makings of a Stevie
Cameron sequel. In writing about this Prime Minister's approach to
governing, she might entitle that sequel ``I am not aware of
anything''.
(1425)
The members opposite were aware of the Airbus scandal for five
years when they were in opposition and have been aware of it for
the two years they have been in government.
Will the government commit to making public, totally public at
the earliest possible date, every relevant aspect of this smelly
Airbus deal?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
as the hon. member has confirmed, the government has been,
through the RCMP, properly looking into these allegations. This
began after it took office.
With respect to making matters public, surely the hon. member
does not want to prejudice the investigations and inquiries already
under way. If she wants to have these inquiries and investigations
properly carried out, she should not suggest that things be done
which might prejudice the success of those inquiries.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Jean-Marc Jacob (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, first
of all I want to thank the Minister of National Defence for his
friendly comments in recent weeks.
By refusing to specify a certain percentage of Canadian content
in the contract for search and rescue helicopters, the Minister of
National Defence has paved the way for a procurement policy that
from now on would eliminate any Canadian content requirements
from purchase contracts for military equipment. In so doing, the
government is directly jeopardizing the existence of the defence
industry in Canada and Quebec.
What explanation does the minister have for the fact that barely
two months ago, he awarded a $2 billion contract, without tender,
to a company in Ontario and that now, in the case of the search and
rescue helicopters, he will call for tenders without a Canadian
content requirement, when the aerospace industry happens to be
concentrated in the Montreal region? Another example of the
double standard at work.
16538
[English]
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member is unaware of what I stated in my press conference two
weeks ago.
While the government will no longer make acquisitions solely
on the basis of regional industrial benefits, those benefits will be
one criteria considered as part of the specifications and process in
the acquisition of these helicopters. The member should get his
facts straight.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Marc Jacob (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I was
aware of this as well in the contract for armoured personnel carriers
which was awarded to Toronto without tender.
At a time when the government still refuses to put in place a
genuine defence conversion program for the industry, does the
minister realize that by getting rid of Canadian content
requirements, he is directly jeopardizing the existence of the
defence industry and in this case the aerospace industry which is
concentrated in Quebec?
[English]
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, a couple of
weeks ago I was asked the same question. The hon. member
obviously does not have faith in the very innovative, excellent
aerospace industries in Quebec right now which I am sure will
compete well in this whole contractual process.
* * *
Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz (Yellowhead, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
minister of agriculture has stated he will not recognize the outcome
of the wheat and barley plebiscite currently taking place in the
province of Alberta.
Why is the minister ignoring the democratic rights of farmers to
choose how they want to market their wheat and barley for export?
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, what I have said is I do not regard
this plebiscite in Alberta as the be all and end all on the issue of
wheat and barley marketing. I say that for the obvious reason that
grain marketing of this kind is under the jurisdiction of the federal
government. It involves farmers in British Columbia, Alberta,
Saskatchewan, Manitoba and in some cases in portions of a corner
of Ontario.
The issue by definition cannot be resolved by one partial
plebiscite in one province alone.
Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz (Yellowhead, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
Prime Minister during the 1993 election campaign promised a
producer plebiscite on marketing barley and promised he would
honour that result.
Right after the election the minister of agriculture said he
favours giving farmers a voice through plebiscites which are, to
quote the minister ``the most appropriate vehicle by which to
determine what farmers' preferences are''.
Why did the Prime Minister and the agriculture minister promise
producers a democratic voice when it is clear they had no intention
of honouring that promise?
(1430 )
Hon. Ralph E. Goodale (Minister of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, obviously we have not ruled out
the notion of a plebiscite in due course if that turns out to be an
appropriate vehicle to resolve this particular issue. At the same
time we have observed the difficulties that flow with plebiscites
which can in fact make a difficult situation even more divisive
rather than resolve a problem.
With reference to the remarks made in 1993, both the Prime
Minister and I indicated that the jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat
Board should not be altered in the absence of some kind of voting
mechanism among producers. That is a far cry from advocating a
change in the Canadian Wheat Board.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of National Defence.
While today, here in Ottawa, the families of the École
polytechnique shooting victims are organizing a press conference
in favour of firearms control, the Minister of National Defence is
still refusing to reconsider the promotions of soldiers who, on at
least two occasions, appear to have celebrated this sad occurrence.
How can the Minister of National Defence justify his
stubbornness in maintaining the promotions of soldiers who
apparently took part in celebrations in honour of Marc Lépine?
[English]
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, unlike the hon.
member, I base action on the facts.
16539
At this point in time no evidence has been unearthed that
supports the contention that this particular dinner occurred. In fact
documents which related to the investigation were turned over to
the commission on Somalia and we have not found anything
documenting the dinner. Investigations are going on. Obviously
if such an event happened-and I have expressed in the House
how abhorrent that would be if it did happen-the fact is that
matter would not have been sanctioned and therefore there would
be no record. To actually confirm that it took place will require
some time because it will require interviews, depositions and
investigations by the military police.
[Translation]
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ): Mr. Speaker, is the
Minister of National Defence aware that his obstinate defence of
these soldiers against all attack discredits not only the entire
Canadian armed forces but also the government itself?
[English]
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, again the hon.
member has raised a matter that has not been proven. Once we have
actual proof that it took place, then we can act.
In the hypothetical, I have stated in both languages in this House
that such an event, were it to have taken place, would have been
totally offensive, abhorrent and contrary to Canadian forces
regulations.
* * *
Mrs. Daphne Jennings (Mission-Coquitlam, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice.
In my riding the police are investigating a report of sexual
assault against an eight-year old girl by two boys under twelve.
Because of their ages the Young Offenders Act does not cover these
crimes, nor do Bills C-41 and C-37.
On this morning's news, probably because of National Child's
Day a priest in Ottawa spoke of his concern about the younger and
younger ages of Canada's young offenders.
What does the minister intend to do about it, to hold children and
their parents responsible for their children's criminal actions?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, just this morning I had occasion to
appear before the House committee on justice and legal affairs. I
was the first witness in a comprehensive review of the Young
Offenders Act the committee is now undertaking. We spoke exactly
to this issue, the question of the age of the children to which the
Young Offenders Act applies. I invited the committee to examine
how we should deal with the cases of crimes by children younger
than 12 to determine how best to ensure that the interests of those
children in society are taken into account.
I am not certain that the answer is simply to extend the
application of the Young Offenders Act because we are dealing
with children of a very young age. I have asked the committee to
look at the evidence, to hear from witnesses and to make
recommendations on how best to deal with this, if only by ensuring
that in the provinces, between us, the levels of government have
appropriate ways to respond to these situations, look after these
children, deal with the families that produce them and ensure
public safety.
(1435 )
Mrs. Daphne Jennings (Mission-Coquitlam, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, if we do not deal seriously with these young offenders, we
are not helping these young offenders. It is a horrific crime.
Canadians are sick about this happening in their communities.
When we ignore the crimes of children, we ignore their victims.
We ignore those children who are committing the crimes and we
ignore helping them.
Is the minister in favour of changing the ages in the Young
Offenders Act to make young offenders responsible for their
criminal actions?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, two of the hon. member's
colleagues are on the committee before which I appeared this
morning. I have expressly asked the committee to consider the very
question she has raised. I want the committee to hear the evidence,
consider that evidence and make recommendations that the
committee believes are in the public interest.
I must also point out in answer to the question asked that this
government has already acted to strengthen the Young Offenders
Act. With Bill C-37 which comes into force 10 days from now, the
Young Offenders Act will be strengthened to deal more effectively
with serious crimes of violence that most concern the public.
I remind the hon. member of those important changes. There are
more to come.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
On April 5, the Dima family, Romanian refugees, was expelled
to the United States, where it had originally filed a proper
application to immigrate. Despite assurances by his department
that the file would be processed quickly, this family, which was
integrated into Quebec society, is still awaiting the response of
federal immigration officials, seven months later. It now faces
possible deportation from the United States.
16540
How does the minister explain the governmental red tape the
Dima family has had to go through, while it waits in the United
States and continues to live with the Christian Brothers in
Plattsburgh?
[English]
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question by the
hon. member which involves one specific case. I am not aware of
all the last minute details surrounding the case. The member should
also know that with respect to making independent applications to
the province of Quebec, the province of Quebec has sole
jurisdiction.
[Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would
point out that two other Romanian families have had their case
settled in a matter of days or weeks: the Malaroi and the Garda
families.
The Government of Quebec issued a certificate of selection on
June 14. Why is it taking the minister so long to assume his
responsibilities, he who was in such a hurry to issue 15,000 new
certificates of citizenship just before the referendum?
[English]
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank members for the
applause. I would do it all over again the same way.
I am not sure what the immigration critic is actually advocating
with respect to individuals who want to acquire citizenship to the
Canadian family. Is he suggesting we should have dragged our
heels in terms of processing? Is he suggesting that those
individuals should not have had the right to vote? Exactly what is
the hon. member advocating?
On the one hand the member is asking for an expedited
processing for one family and I will look into the latest matters
surrounding that family. On the other hand he is suggesting very
softly somehow that he did not appreciate the fact that those 15,000
individuals voted in the last referendum.
* * *
Mrs. Dianne Brushett (Cumberland-Colchester, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, on the day of the great unity rally in Montreal, I had the
tremendous pleasure of officially opening the Nova Institution for
federally sentenced women in Truro, Nova Scotia on behalf of the
solicitor general. This institution marks a new era of federal
corrections in Canada.
(1440)
Could the solicitor general tell the House how Nova Institution,
housing incarcerated women, differs from the Kingston prison?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
a basic difference is that it is one of a series of prisons for women
spread across the country rather than having federally sentenced
women confined to one, single, outmoded facility in Kingston,
Ontario.
By having this series of regional prisons women will be closer to
their families. The women will also have greater access to
appropriate programming. In short, we believe the result will be a
better outcome in terms of women not reoffending, thereby
providing greater protection to the public and a savings in money
for the taxpayers who will not have to keep housing these people
over and over again.
* * *
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans is practising for a new job: minister of
taxation. His new access fees will dramatically increase licence
costs, in some cases from $30 a year to $9,000 a year.
Does the minister not understand that his new access fees pose a
far greater threat to fishermen than Spanish trawlers? The Spanish
will go away, but these taxes will be here forever.
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I would certainly hear the view of the hon. member on
what he thinks the access fees should be because the Reform Party
consistently tells the House that the government has to do more to
responsibly control expenditures to get the deficit under control.
There are fishermen today-
Mr. Harris: Cut the spending.
Mr. Tobin: Hon. members want to hear and I know the Reform
Party is truly interested in a responsible exchange.
There are fishermen today who pay $10 for a licence and make
upwards of $1 million in income. Is the hon. member suggesting
that is reasonable? Others pay $30 for a licence fee, the case in
point which the hon. member mentioned, and make incomes of
$500,000, $600,000, $700,000 and $800,000.
We in this party believe that if a person's income is low, the
access fee should be low, and if their income is high, they should
pay fair rent on the privilege of the income.
16541
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, any fishermen
who are making the profits which the minister is talking about are
paying income tax.
Every year the minister plans to suck another $50 million out of
Canadian fishermen by these access fees. This intolerable tax
increase will lead to the extermination of family owned businesses.
Not just the little fish, but the little fisherman is hanging on by his
fingernails. Will the ``taxinator'' trash the tax?
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, when it comes to hanging on to a shred of credibility,
the hon. member has no fingernails.
When it comes to presenting a fair licensing regime to ensure
that fishermen who are in difficult circumstances are not impacted,
we brought that forward. We put in place a licence freeze for all of
those affected by the groundfish crisis. We have already said to the
fishermen in British Columbia who have been affected by the
decline in salmon runs that there will be no dramatic increase in
fees. We are saying to those who make very large incomes in a way
which is progressive and fair that they ought to pay a little more for
the privilege of those very large incomes.
If the hon. member is serious about speaking with authority for
fishermen, he ought to do a little more homework on the wharf
before he comes here to make a fool of himself in the House.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister.
Last week, a former employee of the Communications Security
Establishment shed some light on the centre's dubious spying
activities. According to Jane Shorten, the CSE targets the
communications of our trading partners, including, Mexico and
South Korea, and in so doing, spies on Canadian citizens.
Would the government confirm Ms. Shorten's allegations to the
effect that the CSE eavesdrops on the communications of friendly
countries and the telephone conversations of Canadian citizens?
(1445)
[English]
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as the hon.
member knows, the government does not comment on allegations
with respect to national security or intelligence.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, it is not the first time this has happened and the
government has been questioned on the subject, but we always get
the same answers.
How can we believe government statements on the subject when
there is no mechanism for parliamentary oversight of CSE
activities, as exists, to a minimal extent but at least it exists, in the
case of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service?
[English]
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, a motion put
forward by the member for Scarborough-Rouge River to create a
parliamentary oversight mechanism for the CSE was passed by the
House.
We have been holding consultations on that with interested
parties and we hope to move very quickly to implement the
contents of the motion.
* * *
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in
addition to slapping the fishing industry with outrageous tax
increases, the minister is planning to rake further millions into his
department by taxing the users of Canada's ice free ports for
ice-breaking services.
Will the minister today assure the people of Saint John and
Halifax that he will not tax them for services they do not need?
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans that has the
responsibility for coast guard is currently engaged in a broad
consultative process to ensure that fees for service are imposed on a
fair and reasonable basis.
For the member to stand to single out one or two harbours and to
ask for a response today in advance of the end of the consultation is
not only not useful but not a fair way to proceed.
The Canadian Coast Guard will go on doing an excellent job for
Canadians who require the services and will do so in a manner in so
far as fees are concerned that is a fair and reasonable, and the
member knows that.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
minister is hardly being fair and reasonable with Atlantic
Canadians. He says he wants Atlantic Canada to prosper yet he now
proposes to tax away the critical commercial advantage of ice free
ports.
Will the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans deep six any proposals
to rob Atlantic Canadians of this important economic advantage
and axe his tax?
16542
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, there is a Newfoundland expression that means you
have a lot of nerve: you have to have the face of a robber's horse
for a Reform Party member to stand and pretend to give a whit
about Atlantic Canada.
This is the party that would be overly happy if we could give
everybody in Atlantic Canada what it would call a national deficit
fare. It wants to give everybody a one-way ticket to somewhere
else.
We are bringing in policies that generate productivity in Atlantic
Canada, create new wealth, treat people fairly and are designed to
ensure the population is maintained and grows. The Reform Party
has no lesson to give those of us on this side of the House about the
reality of Atlantic Canada.
Mr. Derek Wells (South Shore, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is also for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. The
Reform Party appears to be protecting fishers making a huge
income from paying their fair share. I am interested as well in
smaller inshore fishermen.
In instances where the fee is shown to be inequitable, would the
minister be prepared to make changes?
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, unlike members opposite who bellow from several
thousand miles away, I happen to know that this member had a
round table in his constituency on the future of the fishery. He took
the trouble to actually listen to fishermen before coming to the
House of Commons to ask questions.
I understand fishermen are saying that they are prepared to pay a
fair share and pay their own way, providing the system is fair and
equitable.
(1450 )
If changes can be made that make the system more fair and more
equitable, and if that means rewriting portions of what we proposed
based on genuine consultation with genuine fishermen who
genuinely want to pay their own way, we will do it, of course.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
The Quebec government has announced that it will have to cut
its social assistance program by $86 million, given the major
impact that the federal government's February 1994 UI reform has
had on welfare rolls.
Does the minister recognize that his first UI reform has forced
many unemployed people onto welfare and that he is responsible
for the significant rise in the cost of social assistance programs?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I remind the hon. member that
we take very seriously the condition and state of people on social
assistance.
That is one reason why in the province of Quebec we pay 50 per
cent of the full cost of all social assistance recipients. If we look at
the actual figures and not the made up figures, in the changeover
from 1994-95 to this year there has been an increase of transfers
from the federal level of $220 million to the province of Quebec
under the EPF, CAP and equalization.
Therefore, when the minister from Quebec starts making the
charges that somehow the federal government is responsible, I
suggest the Quebec minister of social services go back and look at
their own books.
We are trying to do our best to help those people. Delay and
misinformation around the country do not help.
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, is the
minister trying to wash his hands of the whole thing? This
Parliament has approved $2.4 billion in cuts to unemployment
insurance for all of Canada this year, including $735 million in
Quebec. Do you think this has no effect on the men, women and
young people who end up on welfare?
Will the minister admit that the next UI reform, which he is
getting ready to table in the coming weeks, will aggravate the
Quebec government's financial problems by forcing even more
unemployed people onto welfare?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it sounds to me like the
beginning of a leadership speech.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre): Putting that aside for
the moment, I point out to the hon. member again a number of very
important facts. It is important to get the facts out in this case.
Under the changes we made to the Unemployment Insurance Act
there is the special provision of an additional $1,000 for those on
low income drawing unemployment insurance benefits. In fact
130,000 low income UI claimants were able to draw upon that
additional $1,000.
Furthermore, last summer we signed a special agreement with
the Government of Quebec to provide $80 million to the APPORT
program to help those on social assistance get training, get
education and go back to work.
16543
One of the primary objectives in terms of the new employment
insurance program mentioned by the Prime Minister two weeks
ago is to make sure there is a strong guarantee of protection of
income for those who are at the lowest income level.
* * *
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in
Edmonton the CBC French station has an audience of 300 people.
In Quebec City the English CBC station has 1,700 viewers and in
Regina it has an entire station dedicated to 40 viewers. That works
out to about $230,000 per viewer.
Given these outrageous spending figures, why is the CBC
continuing to fund these stations? When will the government end
this ridiculous waste of taxpayers' dollars?
(1455 )
Hon. Sheila Finestone (Secretary of State (Multiculturalism)
(Status of Women), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I remind my hon.
colleague that Canadians of both official languages have
responsibilities to each other, to know each other, to see each other
and to hear from each other. Whether it is in French in Alberta or
English in Montreal or wherever it may be, the country has
facilities for bilingual services. When one is travelling one should
be able to hear one's own language and one's own culture wherever
one is.
As the hon. member knows, there are more than just French
speaking people who listen to Radio-Canada. There are also
anglophones who listen to it. I am a very good example.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
minister is an excellent example, I am sure.
The point being that there are already all kinds of services
provided through cable and over satellite. We do not need
dedicated stations in all these communities.
The CBC, Telefilm Canada and the NFB are undergoing a
mandate review and will be reporting to the minister soon. The
people who should be giving this mandate are the taxpayers of the
country. They already understand that the level of funding in any
public enterprise should be based on how many people in this case
are viewing it.
Is the government prepared to cut spending for services that
taxpayers do not support? If so, will it direct the CBC to make its
cuts accordingly?
Hon. Sheila Finestone (Secretary of State (Multiculturalism)
(Status of Women), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government and the
minister in charge have made it eminently clear that the changing
circumstances and the economic aspects of the CBC, the National
Film Board and Telefilm are all to be taken into account as the
mandate is reviewed. The CRTC is involved as well.
From that perspective, the hon. member might well wait for the
results which should be announced shortly.
* * *
Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources
Development.
I was looking through Hansard and found that when the budget
was debated in 1991 the then member for Winnipeg South Centre
criticized the cuts by the provincial government in health care,
social programs and post-secondary education. He said:
As a result, the ability to have any kind of national system of education and
health care now stands in jeopardy.
He also said that these cuts cut the very fundamental institutions
on which people depend and that they were being dismantled.
Since the minister was so critical of measures considerably less
harsh than those his government has taken, could he say why the
cuts to education, health care and social programs, much deeper
than the last government's, are so good when the last government's
cuts were so bad?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have made it very clear
from the last budget that one way to restore the country to a form of
economic health is to make sure there is more integrity and
stability in federal financing.
His home province has been able to achieve a balanced budget.
We are still on track to do that but it will take some time because
the previous government, of which I was quite critical, did not take
the measures that were necessary when it should have to ensure a
proper formulation of a fiscal plan that would allow us to have
good economic investment.
The proof of that is very clear. Since the two years of coming
into office we have created over 500,000 full time permanent jobs.
The best way to deal with the problems of low income and of social
insecurity is to get people a job. That is what our last budget was all
about.
* * *
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Mr. Ken Saro-Wiwa and eight other civil rights activists in
defence of the Ogoni people were summarily hung by the military
Government of Nigeria after a surreptitious court proceeding.
16544
Could the minister tell the House what actions are planned by
the Canadian government to protest this heinous act?
Hon. Christine Stewart (Secretary of State (Latin America
and Africa), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the
question.
Canada has spoken in the strongest language to condemn the
actions of the Nigerian government in relation to the execution of
Ken Saro-Wiwa.
Canada took actions beyond that at the Commonwealth heads of
government meeting in Auckland, New Zealand last week. Our
Prime Minister spoke out as well against this and with other heads
of governments suspended Nigeria from participation in the
Commonwealth for a period of two years. This will be reviewed
when Nigeria shows it has improved its democracy, respect for
human rights and governance.
(1500)
Bilaterally Canada has taken actions as well. We have suspended
visas to military figures in the Nigerian government. We have
terminated our trade in arms with Nigeria for the past few years.
We will continue to look at other possible sanctions including
finance and trade.
* * *
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
it is with much sadness that we mourn the passing of a truly great
Canadian, the hon. Justice Emmett Matthew Hall.
We extend our deepest condolences to his family.
[Translation]
It is with sadness that we mourn the passing of a great Canadian,
the hon. Justice Emmett Matthew Hall, whose many achievements
included being a founder of our health care system. He was also
one of the keenest crusader for the system.
We extend our deepest condolences to his family.
[English]
Justice Hall led a long and distinguished legal career, becoming
Chief Justice in Saskatchewan and later serving on the Supreme
Court of Canada. He was noted for his forward thinking ideas and
keen sense of equity which resulted in his being named a
Companion of the Order of Canada and receiving other tributes
including numerous honorary degrees, distinguished titles and
select memberships.
Of his many achievements Justice Hall may best be known as a
founder and lifelong crusader for our medicare system. In 1961,
prior to the introduction of the first provincial plan for medical care
insurance in Saskatchewan, the federal government established the
Royal Commission on Health Services, chaired by Mr. Justice
Hall. Its mandate was to inquire into and report on existing
facilities and future needs for health services for Canadians and to
assess the resources required to provide these services.
The commission report, published in 1964, recommended
Canada should introduce the legislative organizational and
financial frameworks necessary to ensure that health services
would be available to all residents without barriers. The
commission also called for universal and comprehensive coverage
on uniform terms and conditions, in all provinces, regardless of
age, condition or ability to pay.
These recommendations formed the basis of the federal
medicare act proclaimed in 1968. This act, which established a
conditional cost sharing program, empowered the federal health
minister to make financial contributions to those provinces which
operated medical care insurance plans that met certain minimum
criteria: comprehensiveness, universality, portability and public
administration.
(1505 )
By 1972 every province and territory had established medical
care insurance plans in addition to their hospital insurance
programs, and the two main features of Canada's universal health
care system were in place from coast to coast.
Justice Hall summed up the need for a national publicly funded
medicare system in these words: ``The only thing more expensive
than good health care is inadequate or no health care''.
The guarding principle of health care in Canada is as meaningful
now as it was when the system began. Justice Hall's support for this
system never waned or wavered.
In 1979 when the federal government asked that the status of
publicly financed health insurance programs in Canada be
reviewed Justice Hall again accepted the call and chaired the
review which also bears his name. After months of public hearings
and hundreds of briefs from various consumer groups, individuals
and health care organizations, Justice Hall released his report,
Canada's national-provincial health program for the 1980s, ``A
Commitment For Renewal''.
Once again reflecting a broad Canadian consensus, the report
called for a renewed national commitment to the principles of
medicare. Justice Hall could find no one, not any government or
individual, not the medical profession nor any organization not in
favour of medicare.
On extra billing by doctors, Justice Hall said it was inequitable
because it not only denies access to the poor, it also taxes sick
persons who, besides paying premiums, are already paying the
major cost of the system through their taxes.
16545
Canadians owe a great debt of gratitude to Justice Emmett Hall.
In his report Justice Emmett Hall states: ``Canadians understand
the full meaning of the hospital insurance and medical care acts.
They said through these two acts that we as a society are aware
that the trauma of illness, the pain of surgery, the slow decline
to death are burdens enough for the human being to bear without
the added burden of medical or hospital bills penalizing the patient
at the moment of vulnerability''.
The fundamental principle of medicare is equity. All Canadians
are treated the same according to medical need regardless of their
ability to pay. This recognizes and fosters the compassionate nature
of our people. Our universal health care system is constitutive of
our identity. Clearly it is part of who we are as a nation. It is the
outward manifestation of fundamental shared values, the values of
justice and caring. All Canadians pay homage to this great
Canadian.
[Translation]
The people of Canada are greatly indebted to the late Justice
Emmett Hall.
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would
also like to pay tribute to Emmett Hall, who, among other things,
chaired the Royal Commission on Health Services from 1961 to
1964. Mr. Hall was one of those who contributed to inspire the
debate that had already started on an issue under consideration and
discussion in most Canadian provinces: the establishment of a
health system accessible to all, regardless of one's socio-economic
circumstances.
This principle, oft mentioned and presented as a basic aspect of
any society that wants to be fair and equitable, was also part and
parcel of the discussions that were taking place at the provincial
level at the time. Based on respect for human dignity, the principle
of accessibility met with the agreement of all primary stakeholders
and players in the health sector.
I am therefore pleased and honoured to pay tribute to a man like
Emmett Hall, who participated in this reflection of major
importance to preserve the dignity of all Canadians. We must
however be careful not to forget the efforts made by Mr. Hall and
by the other men and women who participated in this extensive
reflection, which revolutionized the concept of health care and the
way that services were provided, nor the message they left us.
No one, let alone the federal government, has the right to
jeopardize such a system. But the government certainly seems to be
bent on making decisions that will have a disastrous impact on the
quality of health care and services.
(1510)
It is therefore essential that serious thought be given to the
decision this government is about to make, to fully assess its real
impact.
As you do so, think about the women and men who, like Mr.
Hall, were in favour of the establishment of a health system
accessible to all, regardless of their socio-economic circumstances.
I am joined by my colleagues of the Bloc Quebecois in extending
my deepest condolences to the family of Emmett Hall.
[English]
Mrs. Sharon Hayes (Port Moody-Coquitlam, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, today I rise on behalf of the Reform Party to recognize a
Canadian who was not afraid to leave his mark on the pages of our
history. Emmett Hall was a man who led, a leader who asked not
why, but why not. Today I join with colleagues from all parties to
pay respect to his memory.
Emmett Hall had an outstanding record of personal achievement.
After a successful and long career in law, at age 57 he rose to new
and increasing challenges as Chief Justice of Saskatchewan,
Supreme Court judge, royal commissioner and finally elder
statesmen.
It was his Supreme Court judgment in 1975 that set the stage for
negotiations on Indian land claims. The Ontario education system
was profoundly changed with the Hall-Dennis report of 1968.
Even in retirement in 1977 he led the commission that addressed
the challenging need to balance affordable rail transportation with
small town survival in central Canada. Even at the age of 90 he was
mediating a logging and land claims dispute between the B.C.
government and two Indian bands.
Historians, however, will recognize his greatest contribution as
the chairman of a royal commission whose report led to the
introduction of our national medicare system through the Hall
report of 1964.
Medicare to this day continues to be a federal cost shared
program. It is and should be the best health care safety net in the
world. It was made in Canada for Canadians, first on a provincial
level and then federally through the Medical Care Act, and it is
now mandated to bring comprehensive coverage for health service,
publicly funded, portable across Canada and universally accessible
to all Canadians regardless of ability to pay.
I would be remiss today to neglect to mention that the
confidence of Canadians in medicare is severely eroding. Cutbacks
have forced health care professionals, governments and the public
to take time to address, analyse and protect this aspect of our life
and country.
16546
Emmett Hall was never afraid to challenge the status quo. Today
we recognize a man who bravely put forward ideas to propose
change, not for change itself but to bring about a better solution.
All that Canadians value in medicare is recognized today in his
memory. His vision of health care reform was that it result in the
highest quality health care for all Canadians. That challenge
continues and needs new Canadian solutions once more in these
times of increased pressures on public finances.
Our condolences go out to his family. We salute with others
today a great prairie pioneer and statesman.
Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, it is indeed an honour for me to rise today on behalf of
my colleagues in the New Democratic Party caucus to pay tribute
to one of Canada's and Saskatchewan's greatest sons, Mr. Justice
Emmett Hall.
It perhaps seems trivial at a time like this to simply talk about a
great man's achievements and to reiterate the many honours
achieved in his lifetime. As the Very Reverend Len Morand said in
delivering the homily at Mr. Justice Hall's funeral service in
Saskatoon, if we were to simply list the man's honours he would
have more medals than a Russian general.
As important as these honours may be, there is something more
important and more enduring for each of us to take from Justice
Hall's life. He was a visionary and a pioneer. In his professional
and personal life he created many landmarks which now serve to
mark our course as a great country, as a caring and compassionate
country; guide posts and landmarks which still guide us today.
He is perhaps best known for his historic and heroic Royal
Commission on Health Services which paved the way for the rest
of Canadians to enjoy the universal health care service that was
born in Saskatchewan.
Even then, in 1964, Justice Hall was looking far into the future,
talking about the second stage of medicare, about enhanced
services to seniors, dental care, pharmacare and much of what we
in Saskatchewan now call the wellness model.
(1515 )
He foresaw a Canada with an ongoing, permanent commitment
to a universal and improving health care system. He served as an
inspiration to those who continued to battle for just that.
It would be unfair to ignore some of Justice Hall's other great
accomplishments. His sense of justice and his belief in our sense of
community guided him to make a number of other remarkable
changes to this nation and to our culture.
He was an early advocate of the equality of women. He set that
concept into law with his precedent setting 1961 decision which
ruled that a homemaker's contribution to the household was no
less than that of the income earner. It was groundbreaking in 1961
and still is guiding us today.
A religious and spiritual person, Mr. Justice Hall also believed it
was important to keep promises. His courageous Nisga'a land
claim decision of the 1970s helped the nation keep its promise. It
was courageous in the 1970s and still is guiding us today.
There were, of course, many political leaders in attendance at
Justice Hall's funeral service in Saskatoon last week. The Premier
of Saskatchewan was there. The Minister of Health and the
Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food were there. I hope that each
of them used the occasion to commit himself or herself to the
vision of a caring nation of supportive communities of which Mr.
Justice Hall so ably spoke and for which he so determinedly fought.
More important than the dignitaries who were in attendance is
the fact that hundreds of ordinary people joined in to pay tribute to
a man whose many deeds have touched the lives of every Canadian.
One of the scriptural readings at the service was the letter from
Timothy, in which he talks of fighting the good fight. Justice
Emmett Hall committed his life to fighting that good fight and it is
up to each of us to continue it.
_____________________________________________
16546
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
Translation]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in
both official languages, the government's response to eight
petitions.
* * *
Mr. Réginald Bélair (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in
response to a question asked on November 10, 1995, by the hon.
member for Fraser Valley West, the minister responsible for the
Canada Post Corporation read an excerpt from a letter sent by a
Canada Post official. I am pleased to table a copy of this letter in
the House today, for the benefit of all members.
16547
Mr. Richard Bélisle (La Prairie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
Standing Order 108(3)(d), I have the honour to present the
seventeenth report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.
Pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(d), the committee reviewed
chapter five of the May 1995 auditor general's report, concerning
the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions,
deposit-taking institutions sector.
The importance of the financial services industry in the
Canadian economy, as well as the concerns expressed by the
auditor general, prompted the committee to take a look at the
operations of the Office of the Superintendent of Financial
Institutions.
Consequently, the committee held a meeting on this issue on
October 3, with officials from the Office of the Superintendent of
Financial Institutions and from the Office of the Auditor General of
Canada.
Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee asks the
government to table a comprehensive response to this report.
Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos (Saint-Denis, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
the honour to present, in both official languages, the eighth report
of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration,
entitled ``Economic Impact of Recent Immigration''.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I wish to present a petition which
has circulated all across Canada. This particular petition was
signed by a number of Canadians from Medicine Hat, Alberta.
(1520 )
The petitioners would like to 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 or 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. Dick Harris (Prince George-Bulkley Valley, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am pleased to present
this petition from the riding of Prince George-Bulkley Valley and
specifically the town of Prince George.
It reads as follows: ``Whereas members of the Parliament of
Canada are duty bound to represent the interests of Canadians for
the good of all Canada; and whereas members of Parliament swear
allegiance to the Queen in Canada; and whereas members of
Parliament have a moral and legal obligation to fulfil their duties in
the best interest of all of Canada; therefore we the petitioners
humbly pray that the leader of the official opposition of the 35th
Parliament of Canada and the caucus members of the official
opposition party having breached their allegiance and moral
obligations as members of Parliament of Canada be permanently
ejected from the Parliament of Canada''.
I support this petition.
The Speaker: Colleagues, as you know it is not in form to either
support or not support a particular petition. I would ask you
respectfully to please refrain from so doing.
Mr. Jim Jordan (Leeds-Grenville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have
yet another petition coming from dairy farmers and the users of
dairy products in my riding, expressing their opposition to the use
of the hormone BST in Canadian dairy cattle.
This is about the fourth petition I have presented from my
constituents. It is a pleasure to present this.
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Question No. 238 will be answered today.
[Text]
Question No. 238-Mr. White (Fraser Valley West):
Concerning Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, what automobile
leases were made by CMHC during fiscal years 1992, 1993 and 1994, itemizing
(a) year, make and model of the leased vehicle, (b) monthly payment and term,
(c) name of the employee who is driving the leased vehicle and (d) the number
of kilometres each car has been driven?
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services and Minister for the Atlantic Canada
Opportunities Agency, Lib.): Canada Mortgage and Housing
Corporation made the following leases for vehicles for the years
1992, 1993 and 1994: a) to d)
16548
1992-No lease was made for that period.
1993-1993 Ford-Crown Victoria
Monthly payment: $571.53
Term: 24/06/93 to 23/05/96
Driven by: Gilles E. Girard,
Senior Vice-President, Insurance Land and Asset Administration
61,890 kilometres as of 30 September 1995
1994 Chrysler New Yorker
Monthly payment: $548.01
Term: 03/12/93 to 03/12/96
Driven by: Claude Poirier-Defoy
Vice-President, Programs, General Counsel
and Corporate Secretary
32,899 kilometres as of 30 September 1995
1994-1993 Acura-Vigor GS
Monthly payment: $713.05
Term: 01/03/94 to 01/03/97
Driven by: Robert Lajoie
Senior Vice-President, Policy Research and Communications
59,902 kilometres as of 30 September 1995
1994 Dodge-Grand Caravan
Monthly payment: $555.95
Term: 01/04/94 to 01/04/97
Driven by: Peter C. Connolly
Senior Vice-President, Corporate Resources
29,306 kilometres as of 30 September 1995
1994 Volvo-GTA Sedan
Monthly payment: $698.05
Term: 06/05/94 to 31/05/97
Driven by: Douglas A. Stewart
Vice-President, Policy and Research
24,978 kilometres as of 30 September 1995
1994 Ford-Explorer XLT
Monthly payment: $686.55
Term: 18/11/94 to 18/11/97
Driven by: Jim T. Lynch
Vice-President, Insurance Operations and Land Management
20,210 kilometres as of 30 September 1995
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
if Question No. 225 could be made an Order for Return, this return
would be tabled immediately.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Text]
Question No. 225-Ms. Beaumier:
For which of its initiatives in China has Northern Telecom received monies
from the E.D.C. or the Canada Account during the period beginning in 1989
until the present, how much was provided in each instance, in instances where
monies were provided from the Canada Account, why wasn't financial
assistance provided by the E.D.C., how did Northern Telecom satisfy the
``national interest'' criteria in cases where Canada Account funds were used?
Return tabled.
[English]
Mr. Milliken: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions
be allowed to stand.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
16548
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-96,
an act to establish the Department of Human Resources
Development and to amend and repeal certain related acts, be read
the second time and referred to a committee; and of the
amendment.
Ms. Jean Augustine (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime
Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on second reading of
Bill C-96, a bill that deals primarily with administrative
reorganization.
Canadians have made it clear that they want government and
government services to operate in a more efficient and cost
effective manner. The service delivery network initiative is an
ambitious effort to respond to this message.
I will focus on the service delivery network because this is a key
part of the government's overall plan to renew and revitalize
federal programs and services. The service delivery network
should be viewed in the same context as Bill C-96, the Department
of Human Resources Development Act.
Does Bill C-96 contemplate new programs? No. Does it create
new authorities? No. Does it alter jurisdictional arrangements? By
no means. Bill C-96 is not a policy initiative aimed at new
authorities or new programs. Rather it is a means to improve the
delivery of programs and services while saving taxpayers' dollars.
It introduces creative and innovative delivery mechanisms. The
service delivery network is a vital part of this policy initiative. It
looks to the future instead of to the past. It puts people first by
providing comprehensive service at the local and community level.
The evolution of this service delivery network would not have been
possible without a strong commitment to meet the needs of
Canadians without jeopardizing the economic and social future.
(1525)
We firmly believe that it is possible to enhance the quality of
services to the public while delivering those services in a more cost
effective manner. Indeed, this approach has been tested within the
Department of Human Resources Development.
Through innovation and creativity, the Department of Human
Resources Development has been able to create a network of some
700 outlets across the country. When the network is fully opera-
16549
tional, it will ensure access to human resource development
service for a full 97 per cent of working Canadians.
In concrete terms, I want to stress that these improvements will
mean applications for old age security will take only a half a day
instead of eight days to process. The processing of Canadian
pension plan applications will take one day instead of 15 days.
Canadians from all walks of life will find it easier to access
services and information and some services will be available 24
hours a day.
As well, the network will deliver a broader array of programs
and services. Employment counselling and other employment
services, unemployment insurance, federal labour programs,
income security programs such as the Canada pension plan and old
age security, will be provided at the more than 300 human resource
centres across the country.
In addition, up to 400 self-serve electronic kiosks will be located
in strategic sites, such as Outreach offices, libraries and municipal
offices. In my constituency I am now working with HRD to ensure
that we have three to five kiosks in our general area. They will
provide access to job information, UI programs, CPP and OAS.
Personnel assistants will be available at all but a few sites,
meaning that for seniors personalized service will be available at
four times as many points of service as is presently the case. There
will be someone there to offer assistance to the seniors ready to use
the kiosks.
That is not all. Self-serve access through mail, computers,
telephones and the Internet will continue to be expanded. As well, a
new electronic labour exchange system is being tested. The system
will connect job seekers to employers by computer.
A system to allow unemployment insurance claimants to
complete their report cards by telephone is operating on a pilot
basis in Calgary and Sherbrooke.
The genius of the self-service delivery network is its capacity to
adapt to local realities. Through agreements with organizations
such as the YMCA or YWCA and other service groups, the
network permits community based delivery of services. This
grassroots approach makes tremendous sense in a country as vast
as Canada, where local circumstances can vary considerably.
By tailoring programs and services to individual communities,
in co-operation with Canadians, the department demonstrates
wisdom and foresight. Partnership arrangements, such as
co-location of offices and merging of services are being entered
into with other federal agencies, provincial and municipal
governments, and social service organizations outside government.
All of this demonstrates the sensitivity and breadth of vision the
government has brought to bear in designing this network. A great
deal of thought and preparation went into its creation. The idea for
this particular initiative did not happen overnight. It grew out of
our red book commitments to improve services and opportunities
for Canadians.
It began to take greater shape during the extensive social security
reform consultations held with important stakeholders, business
people, labour and community groups. Over and over, as we tour
the country, Canadians delivered a clear and compelling message:
get Canadians back to work, put more power into the hands of
individuals to help themselves, remove unnecessary obstacles to
Canada's social and economic prosperity.
(1530 )
The service delivery network responds directly to the demands
we heard. It achieves the twin goals of improved service and
reduced cost. Clearly this is the kind of government renewal
Canadians have demanded: better, more personal, more efficient,
responsive, flexible, innovative and creative services, aimed at the
individual needs of clients where they live, and it saves taxpayers'
dollars.
If there is any formula for its success it lies with the network's
overriding focus on the people it serves. The network zeros in on
local needs and priorities. It maintains personalized services for
those who need help while increasing the number of access points.
It also makes use of proven application of new technologies.
Does it attempt to create new authorities or change the power of
the federal government to initiate or administer programs of any
sort? No. It is simply innovative, a more creative and responsible
approach to delivering services to Canadians.
Does it attempt to change existing jurisdictional provisions, as
some members opposite would have us believe? Not at all. Existing
agreements remain in place. Arrangements, partnerships, joint
programs and so forth will continue to be negotiated as always. Our
partners will be better able to achieve their own goals and
objectives as a result of the service delivery network.
This new service delivery network strengthens the community of
shared interest across the country. Canadians have placed their trust
in us to make the best possible use of our resources, both economic
and human, and I call on all members of the House to understand
this new delivery service.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, once
again, I welcome the opportunity to rise in the House to defend the
interests of those I represent. Today we are discussing Bill C-96, an
act to establish the Department of Human Resources Development
and to amend and repeal certain related acts. At first glance there is
nothing to be worried about.
According to the minister, the bill merely brings together
elements of various departments under the single name:
Department of Human Resources Development. The stated purpose
of this reorganization, to improve management of various services,
is entirely praiseworthy, but unfortunately, we must point out that
such bills are being used by the federal government to continue its
16550
attempts to encroach on the jurisdictions of Quebec and the other
provinces. Unfortunately, these attempts are often successful.
Less than a week ago, I rose to condemn another bill, C-95,
which also turned out to be a direct attack on the prerogatives of the
Government of Quebec. I strongly condemned this approach, and I
must say that the situation today calls for much the same treatment.
When we analyse Bill C-96, we see it is typical of a government
that is discreetly trying to extend its powers, a government for
whom provincial prerogatives are far from sacrosanct. In this
respect, my colleague the hon. member for Mercier pointed out that
coming hard on the heels of a vote in which Quebecers gave
Canada a brief respite to shape up, Bill C-96 is an insult. How right
she was. With this bill, the government is trying to legislate powers
it never had under the constitution.
For instance, in clause 6 we read that the powers of the minister
are to be exercised with the objective ``of enhancing employment,
encouraging equality and promoting social security''. Never mind
the minister: encouraging equality and promoting social security
were not part of the original legislation. Similarly, what about
clauses 7 and 13, the former providing that the minister may
``co-operate with provincial authorities with a view to the
co-ordination of efforts made or proposed for preserving and
improving human resources development''? Now that is a good
example of the government's attitude to co-operation with the
provinces.
(1535)
When we see what it does with the suggestions and the
consensus there, it is easy enough to believe. Clause 20 provides
that the minister may, as part of his duties: ``-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''. This is what the government
is calling decentralization, this circumventing of provincial
jurisdiction and going directly to persons or bodies. This is what
they call decentralization.
Once again, despite what the Minister of Human Resources
Development says, this clause enables him to enter into agreements
with, as I have just indicated, a number of bodies and institutions
and even with individuals. With this clause, the minister is giving
himself the power to go over the heads of the provinces-this
cannot be said often enough-and enter into agreements with
whomever he deems appropriate.
Do I need to point out that this does not appear in the original
legislation? No clause in this bill provides that the government
should respect provincial jurisdiction. Bill C-95, which a number
of my colleagues and I strongly criticized recently, to its credit, at
least attempts to respect the provincial governments by precluding
the possibility of its exercising ``any jurisdiction or control over
any health authority operating under the laws of any province''.
When we see the extent of the federal government's
encroachment, even when it says it wants to respect areas of
jurisdiction, we can easily imagine the situation had it not
expressed its desire to do so.
This bill definitely confirms the federal government's
involvement in social and job programs. This fact is all the more
obvious in the area of manpower training.
The minister talks of a whole other sort of decentralization. He
intimates that his aim is to give communities and individuals more
manoeuvring room. It is clear, however, that Bill C-96 is a way to
get around what the provinces and Quebec want in order to deal
directly with the groups and individuals the minister considers
appropriate, who will, of course, be subject to whatever standards
he may wish to impose.
The minister also talks of a single window. In this regard, the
Quebec minister of employment, Louise Harel, said recently that
Bill C-96 was the antithesis of the single window Quebec would
like to establish by making the Société québécoise de
développement de la main-d'oeuvre the primary intervenor in
training matters. The SQDM is the embodiment of Quebec's
consensus on the need for the Government of Quebec to be given
full powers in manpower matters.
Despite this, according to the federal documents Le Devoir cites
in its November 10 issue, the federal government is apparently
preparing to end its co-operation with the Société québécoise de
développement de la main-d'oeuvre in order to deal directly with
community organizations and private institutions that it will
finance and that will be subject to its eligibility criteria.
At a time when only the present Prime Minister and Pierre
Trudeau still believe that further centralization is the solution to the
multiple problems of federalism, it is not surprising that Bill C-96,
although long ready, was not debated before the referendum.
This government has a very disappointing record with
employment and social services; more than two years have passed
and there is as much unemployment and even more people on
welfare, and the coming unemployment insurance reform, also
long ready and also kept hidden to keep Quebecers from knowing
the true intentions of the government, will only make its record
even worse.
Recently, in response to questions from the Leader of the
Opposition on Bill C-96, the Minister of Human Resources
Development replied that ``obviously the Leader of the Opposition
has not taken the time to read the bill''. To counter this pretentious
16551
statement, I would like to refer to a number of Quebec reactions to
the federal announcement of its intent.
The Société québécoise de développement de la main-d'oeuvre
under Claude Béland and Ghislain Dufour has unanimously
adopted a resolution calling for the federal government to transfer
all of its manpower training budgets to Quebec.
(1540)
The Quebec Minister of Employment, Louise Harel, described
Bill C-96 as ``the blunt rejection of the unanimous consensus in
Quebec-''.
We might add the reactions of the Canada Labour Congress and
the Canadian Institute of Adult Education, both denouncing Bill
C-96, one calling it ``an attempt to bypass the provinces'' and the
other ``a flagrant lack of respect for the aspirations of the
provinces, Quebec in particular, in matters of education, training
and manpower development''.
For his part, the secretary general of the FTQ, the largest labour
federation in Quebec, deplored the federal government's thumbing
its nose at areas of provincial jurisdiction, and the Quebec
consensus, in order to put into place a parallel structure to what is
already there. He added ``Even the Conseil du patronat sides with
the unions on this. And even Robert Bourassa's Liberal
government opposed a similar attempt by Ottawa in 1991. Anyone
who still harbours any illusions about Canadian federalism ought to
think twice before voting in the referendum''.
These comments were made three weeks prior to the
referendum, but they hold as true today as they did then.
For all these reasons, it is obvious that we in the Bloc Quebecois
share the opinion of the majority of Quebecers and would be unable
to vote in favour of such a bill.
[English]
Mr. Larry McCormick (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and
Addington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak on Bill
C-96.
A year ago our human resources development standing
committee conducted public hearings in Ottawa and all across
Canada. As a member of this committee I attended hearings in 25
cities in 35 days in 10 provinces, 2 territories and the East Arctic.
In my own riding constituents shared their ideas and concerns with
me at four town hall meetings held in Napanee, Sydenham,
Bancroft and Tweed.
I believe the bill addresses the concerns we heard from many
Canadians. Recently in my riding I had the opportunity to attend
the opening of an HRDC job kiosk in Northbrook, Ontario. Mr.
Adrian van Asseldonk, our local HRDC manager, and his staff have
provided residents from the Northbrook area, the northern part of
our Lennox and Addington County, access to job market
information. They no longer have to make the long trip to Napanee,
Belleville or Kingston.
As we look at the legislation before us we could talk for hours on
end about what this mandate clause means or that qualification
entails or about what wordings should be changed; indeed we have
to do this. It is our responsibility to get the legislation right but we
also have to take our eyes away from the fine print, look at the
thing as a whole and ask what it really means.
We can find out what it means outside these four walls in the
communities because in the end this is about people; people who
have hopes and dreams for the future, people who are willing to
work hard for those dreams, people who are often struggling to
hang on to a job or fund a new one, old people who are struggling to
get by on a fixed income, young people stepping out of the school
room into a world few of us could have imagined just a few short
years ago. Those are the people who know about the real work this
department is doing day in and day out across the country.
HRDC touches the lives of millions of Canadians every year
perhaps more directly than any other government department.
From survivor benefits to student loans, unemployment insurance,
employment programs and services, old age security, HRDC has an
impact on Canadians at each stage of their lives.
The HRDC described in the bill is working with Canadians in a
new way. The government recognizes that Canada and Canadians
are in the midst of a sea of change economically and socially. Our
labour market and social programs have to change as well. For
women, for aboriginal peoples, for people with disabilities and
visible minorities this means a new Employment Equity Act, a
stronger, more effective act which was tabled last year. In times of
economic upheaval our commitment is to equity for all Canadians
and it must be stronger than ever before.
(1545 )
For people looking for a chance to learn and expand their
opportunities, it means a new Canada student loans program, the
first major overhaul of the program in years and one that puts a
good education into the reach of more Canadians than ever before.
For the first time there are specific grants to help women go to
graduate schools in areas once dominated by men. For the first time
students with disabilities can get support for the special facilities
they need. For the first time single mothers can go back to school
and get the financial help they need to pay for child care. At a time
when knowledge and education are so critical, the new program is
vital to many Canadians.
For older workers displaced by technology or by the decline of
an industry, the bill means marshalling our resources to give them
16552
a hand, through strong partnerships with other governments like we
have in Quebec through the program for older worker adjustment.
It means bold new approaches like the Atlantic groundfish
strategy, helping displaced fishers and plant workers across
Newfoundland and Labrador.
For young people who are unemployed and out of school it
means youth services Canada. At last count, there were 200
projects across the country where they are learning new skills
through community service.
Projects like one in Red Deer, Alberta where young people are
working with the RCMP to deal with drug programs. Projects like
the one in Clayoquot Sound where 20 young aboriginal men and
women are working to develop a promising new eco-tourism
program. Projects like the one in New Brunswick where young
people are cleaning up and reclaiming polluted streams and rivers.
For young Canadians still in school the new approach means
youth internships where private sector firms are giving kids in
grade 10 or 11 hands on work experience tied in with the school
curriculum. This year alone there are 25,000 young interns across
Canada thanks to the strong partnerships we are building with the
private sector. Business and government are working together to
give young people a shot at a great future.
Bill C-96 means the Canadian Tourism Human Resource
Council addresses the training needs of 1.2 million workers across
this country. For women, this bill means Women in Trades and
Technology, a national group helping women get into more trade,
technological and blue collar jobs, with a national support network,
courses and training programs designed specifically for women.
For some 30,000 unemployed Canadians it means getting a
helping hand as they create their own jobs and become
self-employed and, in the process, creating an additional 30,000
jobs for other Canadians.
For all Canadians this bill means the federal government
working with the provinces to test new approaches in employment
and training, learning and education and income support and
services.
For example, in P.E.I. the Choice and Opportunity Project is
designing and testing a delivery model to improve integrated
services for persons with intellectual disabilities, eliminating
barriers within generic programs and services and moving from
segregated to inclusive community systems. The project is
conducted in partnership with the Canadian Association for
Community Living and the P.E.I. Association for Community
Living.
In Newfoundland, the project ``Transitions-The Changes
Within'' is helping over 5,000 people by testing a tuition voucher
system that helps students remain in full time studies, helping
post-secondary graduates gain work experience and becoming
self-employed, helping unemployed workers find full time work.
In British Columbia an initiative is under way to improve the
quality and access to child care for working and studying families
through community one stop access centres, testing delivery
models for the delivery of child care and finding ways to help
children with special day care needs.
In New Brunswick the job corps project provides an annualized
income to participants, people over 50 who were unemployed or on
social assistance, in return for 26 weeks of volunteer work.
In every province we are making a real difference in the lives of
Canadians from all walks of life. We are making a difference
because we have transformed HRDC and our approach to
delivering the programs that Canadians need.
This transformation will continue. In August the Minister of
Human Resources Development announced the establishment of a
new modern service delivery network that will reach more
Canadians than ever before, the most sophisticated, efficient
delivery network in the government.
We are developing new, more flexible programs and services
through the human resources investment fund, programs that will
be locally based, locally driven and focused squarely on results.
(1550 )
That is what the bill really means: a new direction for the
department; a new focus for jobs and opportunity; a new approach
to helping Canadians catch hold of their dreams for the future.
The human resources development department is doing good
things for Canada. Bill C-96 will let us do more and better things.
Let us not put up roadblocks. Let us get on with the job of serving
Canadians.
I have a comment for an hon. member opposite. When I, along
with other colleagues of the House, put in 12, 15 and 16-hour days
across the country, in all corners, from sea to sea to sea, most
members of the committee stayed in the room, listened to the
witnesses. They listened to Canadians. Some hon. members stayed
for one hour a day. There were stories of them going out on to the
streets and signing up members for their party. I am ashamed of the
conduct of some members of the House.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to rise on behalf
of the people of Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt to oppose Bill
C-96, an act to establish the Department of Human Resources
Development and to amend and repeal certain related acts.
16553
As we all know, this piece of so-called legislative genius
proposes to transfer legal powers from one department to a new
department. A new department. Another department.
Once again the Liberals are not listening to Canadians.
Canadians have repeatedly demanded, in fact they have begged, the
Liberals to reduce the size of the federal government. All over the
world, western democracies are reducing the size of bureaucratic
monsters. Canadian provinces are doing everything they can to
reduce the size of their operations. Other governments are trying to
eliminate the waste of taxpayers' dollars, to eliminate duplication
of tasks, to eliminate overlap in duties and to eliminate inefficiency
and ineffectiveness. Not the Liberal Party of Canada.
The federal government, under the command of a man who
brought our country to the brink of destruction, is creating more
bureaucracy and red tape.
The Liberals are quick to say that this legislation only serves to
reinforce existing federal powers for social programs. In the
current post-referendum phase in which we are living Canadians do
not want to reinforce any areas of federal government intervention.
In fact, Canadians are demanding alternatives to the status quo.
The Liberals insist the legislation does not create any new
powers for the federal government. How can we believe this, given
the Liberal government's intention to increase government and to
reinforce its firm grip of power over social programs for
Canadians?
The Liberals are silent with respect to the increase or decrease of
staff in the human resources development sector. There is nothing
more scary than a silent Liberal, unless it is the Liberal defence
minister saying that he needs a pen. In fact, this legislation contains
a royal recommendation which authorizes expenditures that are
undisclosed. Undisclosed?
This bill is a masterpiece of Liberal silence. Ask any Liberal
member and he or she will tell you with a straight face that any
expenditure under the bill is expected to be minimal, so Canadians
have nothing to worry about.
The defence minister's new quill-tipped, gold lettering engraved
pens, encased in some kind of black velvet, were a minimal
expense.
The Liberal government's $100 million gun registry is a minimal
expense. Most non-Liberal Party sources agree that $100 million is
the minimal amount that the punishment of law-abiding,
responsible firearms owners and users is going to cost. On the
subject of how much the gun registry is going to cost, most
authorities, that is those who do not belong to the Liberal Party of
Canada, believe it will cost Canadian taxpayers much more than
$100 million.
(1555)
Since this past August I have uncovered over $100 million worth
of wasteful and questionable spending by the Minister of National
Defence and his senior officials. One hundred million dollars
means nothing at all to this Liberal government. It has only to be
careful to make sure that the defence minister does not spend $100
million on gold-plated pens.
The Reform Party of Canada is looking forward to building a
new Canada of the 21st century. The Reform Party has a program
which would allow the federal government to withdraw from fields
it currently occupies jointly with the provinces.
The provincial premiers are in favour of negotiating the transfer
of power from the federal government to the provincial
governments. The Reform Party's voice has no attachment to the
status quo. The Reform Party is not interested in dragging our
country back into a constitutional quagmire. Our 20-point plan can
modernize and decentralize the country, something for which
Canadians are clearly asking.
Bill C-96 is an embarrassment to the Liberal government. The
Liberals should withdraw this phoney bill. The Prime Minister has
nearly smashed our nation to smithereens as a result of his
complete misunderstanding of the will of the people of Quebec and
all other provinces. The Prime Minister misjudged the referendum
within Quebec. He misjudged the referendum as a national issue.
Canadians had to take it on themselves to travel to Quebec to
express their wish for that province to remain in our family.
Canadians were hoping the Prime Minister would lead the way
in assuring Quebecers that all Canadians wanted Quebec to vote no.
Canadians as usual since October 1993 were sorely disappointed by
the Prime Minister. We have been let down. The Prime Minister
and the Liberals have lost the confidence of our nation. Yet the
Liberals are busy creating another federal government department.
This is pure balderdash.
The Minister of Human Resources Development and the
Minister of Western Economic Diversification has been fudging his
handling of Canadian social programs since the Liberals took
office. The infamous red book made lofty promises of social policy
reform. This minister has yet to be able to get anything meaningful
past the Liberal cabinet.
The bill is a desperate attempt by this minister to do something
about our nation's social policy. Canadians want social policy
reform. This bill creates bureaucracy. It does not reduce
government or reform social policy. This bill takes the existing
situation and shuffles it all around.
The Reform Party is offering Canadians the opportunity to
decentralize powers to the provinces and truly reform our public
tax supported institutions. We propose to get our money's worth
from what we have to work with. Unlike the Liberals, we want to
16554
bring power closer to the grassroots of Canada. We do not propose
to continue allowing bureaucrats in Ottawa to answer their phones
and just say no to whatever the people of British Columbia,
Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia and all other provinces are asking.
Western Canadians have as many problems with the status quo
as our Quebec counterparts. Virtually all Canadians want change
and the Liberals do not realize it. Our forefathers managed to
change our nation each time we were faced with difficulties in how
we would govern ourselves.
In terms of social services, including medical services, we
propose to change the role of the federal government to that of
fostering co-operative interprovincial agreements rather than
imposing unilateral standards and withholding transfer payments
as a punishment for non-conformity. By proceeding with the bill
the Liberal Party is acting completely against the will of
Canadians. The government should be ashamed.
(1600)
I must sound the alarm for Canadians watching that the bill does
away with an annual report for the new department. As hard as it is
to believe, even though we are $550 billion in debt the Liberals are
creating a department of the federal government that does not even
have to report its administration costs.
The Liberal Party and its leader have been terribly smitten
because they have been trying to appease Quebec without
consideration for the wants and desires of other provinces.
The Reform Party is rising like a phoenix out of the west. After
the next election the Reform Party will have at least an additional
100 seats. These seats will come from lost Liberal seats in rural
Ontario and eastern Canada. The grassroots movement of our party
is a wave that is sweeping across the nation. After the next election
Canadians will see a new form of federalism come to the country
with the Reform Party of Canada as a new government.
On behalf of my constituents and all Canadians I say no to Bill
C-96.
Ms. Shaughnessy Cohen (Windsor-St. Clair, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-96, the
Department of Human Resources Development Act.
I am also pleased to respond to some of the suggestions of the
member for Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt. He said that his
party seeks to eliminate overlap and inefficiencies and is a rising
phoenix. The phoenix is dragging its tail. It is trying to make its
point on cheap shots about the Prime Minister and about the
minister of human resources.
Mr. Stinson: There is nothing cheap there.
Ms. Cohen: A phoenix is a bird that cheeps and this phoenix is
certainly about the cheapest around.
Canadians are demanding alternatives to the status quo.
Canadians are demanding efficiencies. The bill does not deals with
substantive issues. The bill deals with issues consequential to not
creating a new department but merging three different departments.
The bill is about efficiencies, about preventing overlap and about
producing better results for the Canadian taxpayer.
Members know that the Department of Human Resources
Development already exists through orders in council. An obvious
question might be: Why bother proceeding with this in a legislative
format? The department is working. Why not put the legislation off
until other substantive issues could be included? It is a fair question
and I would like to address it briefly. In my view there are
essentially five reasons why we need the bill and why we should
proceed without delay.
First, we need a straightforward way to clarify the role of the
department and to clarify ministerial responsibilities. The existing
arrangements are set out through orders in council. They are
perfectly legitimate as transitional arrangements. However, in the
final analysis the government, and I am sure everyone in the
House, even the great Reform phoenix, would prefer to see this
complex trail of statutory powers leading back to the enabling
legislation of many different founding departments replaced with
one single, coherent bill that sets out the mandate and the powers of
the department in one place. That is just common sense. It ought to
appeal to all of us. It certainly ought to appeal to the Reform Party.
Second, by providing that single coherent mandate we could
then clarify the identity of the department, something that is
important both for its employees, although I do not think the
Reform Party is worried about them, and for its clients, Canadian
citizens, people the government cares about.
For more than a year employees from the four founding
departments, labour, employment and immigration, health and
welfare and the secretary of state, have been working together to
create a new organization. They have accomplished a great deal but
their own sense of belonging, being part of a single focused
organization, really cannot be complete until the legislation is
passed.
Bill C-96 means that the people who work for the department
can turn the page and head into a new chapter. At the same time
people in organizations who work with the department need to
know with whom they are working. This is difficult when, for
example, departmental officials at this point legally cannot really
use human resources department letterhead. For legal and
contracting purposes they still use letterhead from departments
that in the
16555
eyes of our partners do not even exist any more. That may seem
like a minor issue, but it creates a great deal of confusion among
our partners and is expensive.
(1605)
It is related to the third reason why we need Bill C-96 now. It
would be overstating the case to say that existing arrangements are
an administrative nightmare, but it does not overstate the case by
much. Without enabling legislation for the department even simple
issues like getting a person transferred turns into a complex, time
consuming and costly process.
When more detailed contracts are involved the process gets very
messy. This is understandable and unavoidable during a major
restructuring and transition, but there comes a time to bring that
transition to an end. Two years have passed since the reorganization
started and the time is now because we need to move forward. This
is the fourth reason for the bill.
We have to consolidate the progress we have achieved in
integrating social and labour market programs and sharpening the
focus on developing Canada's human resources. More important,
we need to clear the way for further progress.
As we undertake a major overhaul of the UI program, as we
develop new programs and services under the human resources
investment fund, as we work to improve programs for seniors, as
the department implements the next phase of re-engineering and
streamlining services to Canada, we need to clear the way.
This brings me to the fifth and most important reason we need
the bill. Canadians need and deserve the best possible service. In
the end that is what really matters about the bill. In the end that is
what Liberals worry about. The displaced workers who walk into
the Canada employment centre in Windsor, Ontario, deserve the
same kind of integrated, results oriented support focused on
helping people adjust and get new jobs.
The single mother from my riding who is looking for help needs
the kind of integrated service that will help her care for her children
while getting the skills and income support that will help her to
build a life with a future.
The young person stuck in a cycle of dead end jobs and
unemployment after leaving school needs help breaking that cycle.
That is what Human Resources Development Canada is there for.
We need to ensure that the department can do its job. It is important
to clear up the administrative tangles left over from earlier times. It
is important to establish a clear identity and a coherent mandate for
the new organization to function properly. It is important to ensure
that as the department looks to the future there is a solid foundation
to build on.
It is important also to continue to fulfil the overwhelming desire
of Canadians, a desire that is clear in all 10 provinces and in the
territories. What Canadians want is a strong federal government
that can make sure that programs and services are delivered
uniformly across the country.
Bill C-96 provides the department that will provide that
foundation in the human resources development area. We need to
pass the bill. We need to get on with the work of serving Canadians.
[Translation]
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is
with great pleasure that I take part in this debate today on Bill C-96,
an act to establish the Department of Human Resources
Development.
Over the next ten minutes, I intend to look at the issue of
employment centres restructuring, from the particular point of
view of Quebec, where, from now on, we will have 78 suboffices
coming under 28 offices called regional management centres.
I will also address this issue as it relates to a case of particular
concern to me, namely the CEC of Trois-Rivières, because we were
stunned and outraged to learn, on June 22, 1995, that the
department planned to establish the regional management centre in
Shawinigan rather than in Trois-Rivières.
This announcement immediately gave rise to a general outcry.
Yours truly was the first one to denounce such plans, soon to be
followed by the mayor of Trois-Rivières, the Chamber of
Commerce and 70 organizations of the greater Trois-Rivières area,
including 40 municipalities, all of which passed resolutions
denouncing the federal government's plans in this respect.
This eventually resulted in a petition being circulated over the
summer by the EIC employees' union, with the full support of the
Federation of Senior Citizens, because this bill is a direct attack on
senior citizens, and of the local branches of the Fédération des
caisses populaires Desjardins, which helped circulate the petition.
As a result, upwards of 25,000 citizens have signed the petition and
expressed in writing their opposition to these plans the federal
government has regarding our region.
(1610)
As you can see, in addition to being very unpopular in the
Trois-Rivières region, this decision actually contradicts the
department's own criteria for determining the most sensible
location for these offices.
In fact, the criteria were based first of all on the total population;
second, on the number of people on unemployment insurance;
third, on the number of people receiving income security benefits;
fourth, on the number of senior citizens concerned; and finally, on
16556
the number of businesses and employers affected by the activities
of the employment centres. The department, preferring to ignore its
own criteria, concluded for obvious reasons that it was better to
locate the regional centre in Shawinigan instead of Trois-Rivières,
although there is twice as much economic activity in the
Trois-Rivières region as in Shawinigan.
The same ratio applies to the total population, the number of
senior citizens and the number of businesses. This is one more
example that shows why it makes no sense to locate in Shawinigan
instead of Trois-Rivières. The practical implications are all
explained in a document we happened to receive not long ago. This
is an internal management document entitled: ``Preliminary Report
on Centralization of Claims Processing''.
This document was released less than a month ago on October
23, 1995, and prepared by a committee of 11 department officials,
including several senior officials. The report more or less describes
the future role of the sub-offices, including Trois-Rivières. The
sub-offices will receive benefit claims, transmit the claims and
collect the facts from the client. According to a note in the
document, this will only consist in taking down information
provided by the client.
So they will take this information down in Trois-Rivières and
routinely send it on to Shawinigan, where more than half of the
files will come from Trois-Rivières and the surrounding region.
Trois-Rivières in this case includes Cap-de-la-Madeleine and
Trois-Rivières West. And what about Bécancour, which will have
to deal with Drummondville? It does not make sense. There is no
administrative or historic link between the residents of Bécancour
and Drummondville, which is another absurd aspect of this plan.
We, that is my colleagues for Champlain and Richelieu and
myself, wrote to the minister to make the appropriate
representations. People in our regions, especially the unemployed,
will have a hard time as a result of this plan. Six weeks later on
November 10-as soon as possible, as usual-we received a
written reply from the minister who, by the way, was too busy to
meet three members of Parliament. He referred us to an assistant
deputy minister in Montreal, Mr. Gladu. We will let somebody else
go and meet him.
In his letter, the minister explained why Shawinigan had been
chosen instead of Trois-Rivières, and I quote: ``The government
decided to centralize Human Resources Development Canada's
internal services for the Mauricie region at the Shawinigan centre
because it felt it would be useful to bring together a certain number
of services and departments, including Revenue Canada and
Human Resources Development Canada''.
Which means it was a matter of accommodation, office space
would appear to be available at the Taxation Data Centre in
Shawinigan. The reason is therefore simply a physical one, despite
the decision's unpopularity and unreasonableness. It is a matter of
premises that has led to preparations to move it to
Shawinigan-South and yet, in the present building, there are
premises available. Even more will be coming available soon,
because the network will disappear in the restructuring, and this
will free up a whole floor and another one, two floors leased until
1999 which will be available and could accommodate all the
personnel required for a regional management centre in
Trois-Rivières.
(1615)
So this reason does not hold. What is more, the minister says that
the future centre in Shawinigan, in addition to offering the same
programs and services as in Trois-Rivières, will manage internal
services relating to the administration and processing of
unemployment insurance claims. This tells us about the particular
role of the Shawinigan centre rather than the one in Trois-Rivières.
Here again, according to this document, not only will the actual
files of people from Trois-Rivières be in Shawinigan, but
departmental investigations will be done from Shawinigan, appeals
to the board of referees will be made there and complaints about
unemployment insurance will be lodged there. According to the
same document, three claims out of four will be reviewed, as they
call it, and will be given special follow-up because of some
complexity or other. Therefore three claims out of four arriving in
Trois-Rivières will be transferred to Shawinigan and given special
treatment.
And yet, here is what the minister says in his missive. He tells us
that he has no intention of making any changes to the way the
department is serving the people of Trois-Rivières. Well, at this
time, the physical files of UI claimants are in Trois-Rivières;
departmental investigations are conducted in Trois-Rivières;
appeals to the UI arbitration board are heard in Trois-Rivières; and
relatively complex files are processed in Trois-Rivières. Therefore,
we cannot trust the minister when he tells us that the services
provided to the people of Trois-Rivières will not be affected in any
way. This cannot be true in my opinion.
How can we trust the minister? What guarantee does he give in
this letter that there will be no changes? There is no guarantee. The
more we look at this, the more we realize that the decision to move
and almost dismantle the Trois-Rivières manpower centre-whose
staff, according to our information, will be reduced from around
100 one or two years ago to 12-is purely political.
This is a purely political decision. If the hon. member for
Saint-Maurice and Prime Minister wants to show his constituents
that electing him was not a mistake, that they did the right thing for
the riding of Saint-Maurice by electing him, he may have the right
to take measures, but he has no right to do so at the expense of the
people of Trois-Rivières and the surrounding region and to look
down on them. He has no right to do that, and I take this
opportunity to tell you, Mr. Speaker, and to tell this House that we
will not give up. We do not accept this decision and we never will.
16557
[English]
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
service delivery network initiative, a feature of this bill, is a
significant step forward in providing Canadians with faster, more
effective and efficient services. It gives the government and local
communities greater flexibility to help those about whom we are
all most concerned, those Canadians in need of some assistance
from their government, whether it is through unemployment
insurance, a retirement pension or many of the other services now
under the jurisdiction of the Department of Human Resources
Development. Not only does it provide for greater self-service, it
enhances access to in-person service.
The service delivery network was spurred by the need to
accomplish two goals: improve the quality of service and reduce
costs. These goals may seem contradictory. The government,
however, was convinced from the beginning that better and more
innovative service is a means saving money. It is also a way to meet
the needs of Canadians more effectively.
Canadians clearly agree. They know fiscal restraint and social
responsibility are both essential to Canada's future; they told us so
during our wide ranging consultations. That is what the new service
delivery network achieves; faster, more responsive, localized and
personalized service at less cost.
(1620 )
Given the tone of the debate on Bill C-96, it would be useful to
restate the background behind the reform. First, it bears repeating
that Bill C-96 is an administrative measure, not a policy
instrument. The new service delivery network breaks new ground
in terms of innovation and creativity. What it does not do is create
new powers for the federal government; nor does it invade
provincial jurisdiction in matters of labour market development. It
is an administrative reform initiative, period. It is not necessary or
even desirable to alter jurisdictional arrangements or create new
authorities.
[Translation]
How will this new service delivery network benefit Quebecers?
The new network will affect the lives of Quebecers in many ways.
Across the province, Human Resources Development Canada
provides services through an expanding network of offices.
Whether through programs and services relating to employment,
old age pension benefits and unemployment insurance or any of the
various job-related services, every Quebecer will be affected by
one or more of these programs at one time or another, from their
youth to their retirement.
HRDC offices in Quebec serve more than one million people.
For students alone, there are 87 Canada Employment Centres for
Students. The Quebec network administers several employment
programs and Canada-Quebec agreements, a number of joint
ventures involving the province and the federal government,
50,000 contracts relating to manpower and a $13.3 billion budget.
In 1994-1995, HRDC helped more than 164,000 Quebecers find
jobs and nearly 45,000 students find summer jobs.
Education is another area in which HRDC makes a significant
contribution. Without the required skills, Canadians and Quebecers
have no hope of matching the competition on the rapidly changing
global market we are dealing with today. That is why HRDC
pumped $1.5 billion into the Quebec post-secondary education
system. Young Quebecers certainly took advantage of this financial
assistance to further their education.
[English]
The department helped nearly 280,000 participants in
employment services and nearly 150,000 employment program
participants. It served 850,000 old age security pension plan
recipients. As well, HRDC contributed more than $2.7 billion
under the Canada assistance plan to help some 700,000 people
receiving social assistance benefits. It provided the unemployment
insurance service to a monthly average of 528,000 claimants.
[Translation]
HRDC funds pilot projects like Éduplus, Formetal and La Puce
to develop innovative ways of serving the public. The department
also contributed to the outstanding success of groups like the
Cirque du Soleil, which flourished with the financial support of
HRDC.
This list of achievements speaks volumes. It shows that
meaningful partnerships between the federal government and the
people of Quebec promote community building and shape its
future. By providing easier access to improved services, we
broaden even more future prospects.
(1625)
These initiatives and programs did not appear out of thin air;
they are the result of sustained efforts by the department in Quebec.
They certainly bear the Quebec government's seal of approval,
since most of them arise from various partnership agreements that
have been signed.
[English]
There are the Canada-Quebec interim agreement on labour force
development measures, the Canada assistance plan, the agreement
on enhancing employment opportunities for social assistance
recipients, the Canada-Quebec agreement on the assignment of
unemployment insurance benefits, the Canada-Quebec agreement
on the exchange of information, the Canada student loan program
with
16558
block funding to Quebec, the post-secondary education financing
agreement with block funding to Quebec.
[Translation]
Do Quebecers appreciate these services? Undoubtedly, as
evidenced by the 50,000 contracts relating to manpower,
representing about $685 million, that were awarded in Quebec,
including 9,600 contracts with non-profit organizations; 9,300
contracts with private sector enterprises; 2,800 contracts with
public sector enterprises such as municipalities; 3,200 contracts
with the Government of Quebec for the provision of institutional
training and 25,000 contracts under the fee payer trainee program.
[English]
I have described the daily ongoing service of Human Resources
Development Canada to the residents of Quebec and in
co-operation with the people of Quebec. These are not the
inventions of the new service delivery network. They are the
content the network was designed to deliver more effectively, more
responsively, more creatively.
Opposing improvements in the delivery of programs does not
serve the interests of Quebecers. Confusing administrative reform
with reform of social policy or jurisdictional changes does not
serve the interests of Quebecers or of Canadians anywhere.
Innovation and creativity do serve the interests of all Canadians,
including Quebecers, and innovation and creativity are what the
new service delivery network is all about.
The Department of Human Resources Development has every
intention of remaining innovative in its delivery of services and
programs but it has not by this initiative invented any new
programs. We do need new ideas and ways of doing things. We
need clarity of vision, which is what this bill represents, a new way
for a new future of delivering programs right across the country,
helping those who most need to adapt in a new economy.
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Industry, Lib.): Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the opportunity to
participate in this debate.
Human Resources Development Canada I believe, from my
longstanding commitment to the Liberal tradition, is central to the
government's maintaining its credibility with the people of
Canada. Of all government departments Human Resources
Development Canada is the one at this time that should get the
most support and the most encouragement from all members of the
House.
(1630 )
As we are going through a period of restructuring we have these
incredible forces from the right that say cut, eliminate, offload,
decentralize. When we are doing that for the purpose of eliminating
waste I am sympathetic.
I believe human resources development has to be one of the
departments of the national government that remain strong and
intact. It must be the counterbalance to provincial forces that quite
often are shortsighted and think in a parochial way rather than in
the interest of the whole of Canada. I maintain that unless we have
national programs with national standards it will be very difficult
for us to maintain a sense of national will.
I am totally opposed to offloading any more of the decision
making process in an area like human resources development to the
province of Quebec or to any other provinces. All of a sudden we
will have that parochial thought process emerge. We will become a
country in which essentially we have about five or six different
standards, thought processes emerging. When we are trying to
develop national standards it is virtually impossible when we go
that route.
I will give an example in terms of my own province, Ontario. We
have a Conservative government which is being very shortsighted
in the way it is treating its human resources development
opportunities.
Mr. Stinson: Not according to the people.
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood): A member from the
Reform Party said not according to the people.
I have to take a minute to talk about the people and why the
provincial government is so popular in Ontario. We have in the
country now an emerging culture. A book written by John Kenneth
Galbraith was called The Culture of the Content. What we have
now is a culture in which there are people who have work, who
have a job, who have everything going for them, who might have a
lot of RRSPs, whose business may be in good shape, who are
essentially content. They represent about 70 per cent.
The 70 per cent who are basically content, who have their
paycheque secure, or who have enough investment income that
they can look after themselves are essentially comfortable with this
right wing agenda. Those people are not being as sensitive as they
used to be toward those in our community who do not have, who do
not have work, who do not have the opportunity to get retrained.
We must as governments invest in some people to be retrained.
We have in our province a Conservative government catering to
the contented culture. It is forgetting the 30 per cent who are having
a very difficult time. The Ontario government's vision is very
much like a business vision. It is like earnings per share per quarter.
(1635)
When building a country we cannot run it like a business. We
have to think of the investment in human capital for the long term.
It is essential that we have a counterbalance at the national level.
An hon. member: Oh, oh.
16559
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood): Mr. Speaker, when I try
to talk in a constructive way about the issue here, the Reform Party
does not let me finish. There may be a day when those gentlemen
might be given the trust by the people of Canada. If they have
been given the trust of the people of Canada, they are not supposed
to get the trust and then simply say hand it over to the province.
The Chamber is meant to be a counterbalance to those regional
and provincial forces. When one is in the Chamber, one does not
speak only for one's own riding and one's own province. When in
the Chamber, one is supposed to speak for all of Canada. We are
here to speak for all of Canada.
Ontario has a shortsighted vision evolving in which we do not
have investment dollars going into human resource development.
We should be thanking God that we have a minister who will not be
pushed around by the bureaucrats in the Department of Finance
when they are trying to offload this place. He will maintain his
presence for a strong national human resources development
department.
To the members of the Reform, there are many I have had good
constructive debate with-
An hon. member: Does that include giving something to the
Winnipeg Jets?
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood): The member asked
whether giving money to the Winnipeg Jets is a good decision? He
is taking me off the subject matter of my speech but I will talk
about the Winnipeg Jets. I declare conflict of interest with the
Winnipeg Jets. As members know, my son played his nine games
with the Winnipeg Jets. He is only a 19-year old kid.
I support the commitment of the Government of Canada to try to
maintain another National Hockey League franchise in this
country. I come from Toronto where we do not have any problems
maintaining a franchise. This is not a country that has looked out
only for those provinces that have. We should be looking out for
provinces that do not have the same resources as downtown
Toronto.
It does not bother me if some of the cashflow from Ontario is
distributed to Winnipeg or other places if it means we can maintain
our national sport. It does not bother me.
An hon. member: Big business.
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood): It is big business. It is a
multi-billion business that has created exports, equipment, players,
tourism and exposure. Do not underestimate the contribution of
hockey as a national sport.
Let me get back to my speech on human resources development.
Mr. Speaker, please do not dock me for the diversion that was
generated by the Reform Party on the Winnipeg Jets.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The only commitment I will
make-I cannot put you in the penalty box-is you have two
minutes to wrap it up.
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood): I will not argue with the
Speaker because I am afraid of a 10-minute misconduct. That
means I will not be able to speak tomorrow.
(1640 )
I want to go back to the essence of the department, human
resources. Many of the ideas and decisions taken by the
Department of Human Resources Development do not always
come out of Ottawa. It is very rare. That is one of the myths, one of
the spins we hear from the Reform Party.
I know many of the ideas for human resource development, ideas
for job creation or jobs for retraining, actually come from the
grassroots, from the local human resource development offices. I
bet there is not a member of Parliament who has not had an idea
come through the system and get approved where the idea came
right from the community.
To all members and to my dear friends from the Bloc Quebecois
please, the people of Canada have spoken. They want a strong
national government. We must begin by reinforcing the voice of the
people to make sure the Department of Human Resources
Development is the ground swell for rebuilding this great, strong,
national government that once was.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): It is my duty pursuant to
Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be
raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon.
member for Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing, education; the hon.
member for St. John's East, domestic violence.
[Translation]
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval-Centre, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, now that the Quebec referendum is over, the Liberal
government is finally tabling the most important piece of its
legislative agenda, that is Bill C-96. We had to put up with years of
Liberal dickering and federal pussy footing to arrive at this result:
at last, this government is showing its true colours.
The government can try its best by including so-called
``technical'' details in its bill, by saying that it merely seeks to
``establish'' a legal entity, and that it ``streamlines'' federal
bureaucracy to meet the concerns of those involved. However,
nothing can hide this obvious will to increase federal involvement
in fields of provincial jurisdiction.
16560
On October 5, in response to questions from the official
opposition, the Minister of Human Resources Development
deemed appropriate to say that the Bloc Quebecois obviously had
``not taken the time to read the bill''.
Whether the minister agrees or not, the fact is that the Bloc
Quebecois, the Quebec government, the Société québécoise du
développement de la main-d'oeuvre, the socio-economic partners
in Quebec, including those representing management, union and
social sectors, not to mention the Quebec minister of state
responsible for joint action, have all read the same document and
come to the same conclusion: Bill C-96 strengthens the
centralizing views of the federal government and increases its
involvement in the employment and social program sectors,
including manpower training. This shows a complete disregard for
the consensus reached in Quebec on the need to have all necessary
powers, so that the Quebec government, in co-operation with its
socio-economic partners, can channel its energy and its resources
where they are needed most, based on the actual and increasing
needs of its population.
On October 4, Louise Harel denounced, in a press release, the
federal attempt to set up a parallel structure to get involved in the
manpower training sector:
``Like its labour market partners, the Quebec government
denounces Ottawa's intentions to set up its own parallel manpower
structures in Quebec. This federal initiative amounts to a flat
rejection of the unanimous Quebec consensus, repeatedly
expressed, both under the previous administration and under the
current one, on the need for Quebec to regain control over all
labour adjustment measures, including the related budgets''.
(1645)
Let there be no mistake. This bill is a screen allowing the Liberal
government to hide its real intentions. This makes it the
cornerstone of federal interventionism for the Liberal government,
which is now determined to ignore Quebec and overlook the
provinces' wishes. This is a great example of the importance and
role the federal government wants to give the provinces in
tomorrow's Canada.
Bill C-96 mirrors the Canadian constitution: encroachments,
overlap, duplication, and waste. Bill C-96 clearly shows that the
federal government has no intention of respecting provincial
jurisdiction. How can we not denounce this attitude?
This is not the federal government's first encroachment on
provincial jurisdiction. After taking over unemployment insurance
in the 1940s, it consolidated its hegemony in the labour sector by
creating employment centres and manpower training programs.
Fifty years later, we are forced to recognize that the federal
government has no intention of withdrawing from that sector.
Bill C-96 undermines Quebec's efforts to set up a single
framework for labour initiatives, thus confirming the official
opposition's worst fears. The minister is trying to take advantage of
his reform to give himself more powers at the expense of the
provinces. Bill C-96 gives the government the powers it needs to
bypass the provinces in concluding agreements with local
organizations.
The federal government will then be able to go after
municipalities and offer them responsibilities contracted directly
with the Department of Human Resources Development. This
would allow the minister to delegate powers to the new
employment commission or any other entity, thereby bypassing
provincial governments and administrations. Quebec's fears and
concerns are justified, since the minister can impose his own
standards on these entities by delegating these powers, without, of
course, the agreement of the Canadian Parliament or the provinces.
This is the Canadian version of decentralization.
This bill, if passed, will provide the necessary legislative
framework to allow the minister to implement his much
talked-about UI reform, which is the second piece of the federal
puzzle. Several clauses of Bill C-96 grant huge discretionary
powers to the head of the department, which, in the opinion of the
official opposition, promotes greater federal interference and
invasion of the provincial jurisdiction over social matters, and
manpower in particular.
For instance, clause 6 of the bill states that the ``powers, duties
and functions of the Minister extend to and include all matters over
which Parliament has jurisdiction-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''.
It is clear that, with Bill C-96, the powers, duties and functions
assigned to the minister are larger, because his thrust area is no
longer specified in the act. One can wonder about the deeper
motives of the legislator.
As for clause 7, it could hardly be vaguer. It states that ``In
exercising the powers or performing the duties or functions
assigned to him under this or any other act of Parliament, the
minister may- cooperate with provincial authorities with a view
to the coordination of efforts made or proposed for preserving and
improving human resources development''.
Nowhere does it say that the minister has to cooperate with the
provinces. The minister is not required to respect provincial
jurisdictions.
16561
(1650)
However, clauses 20 and 21 are even more worrisome. Clause 20
provides that:
-the Minister may enter into agreements with a province- agencies of
provinces, financial institutions and such other persons or bodies as the Minister
considers appropriate.
This covers a vast range. As for clause 21, it provides that:
The Minister may authorize the Minister of Labour, the Commission or any
other person-to exercise any power or perform any duty or function of the
Minister.
It is obvious to the official opposition that, through these
legislative provisions, the minister is getting the powers necessary
to delegate, to whoever he considers appropriate, the management
of his department's policies and programs. From now on, the
minister will have the power to contract out, at his full discretion
and with full impunity.
In this instance, the minister will have the power to enter into
agreements with local or regional organizations, such as
municipalities, and thus completely ignore the provinces.
The federal strategy taking shape with this bill will inescapably
generate a clash between the already well established manpower
network and that of the federal government, with the numerous
programs and grants of all kinds that the government will provide
throughout Quebec. That strategy is already being used by the
federal government. The establishment of this superdepartment,
along with the discretionary powers given to the minister, will only
reinforce the centralizing position of the federal government.
Unfortunately, by acting in this way and rejecting Quebec's
efforts and desire to be effective in the manpower sector, the
federal government clearly shows a lack of integrity. By
establishing national standards in that field, the government carries
on its tradition of interfering in fields which are not under its
jurisdiction.
Quebec and its dynamic forces denounce the federal will to
further interfere in an area where the programs and initiatives must
be defined by the Quebec government, based on the real needs of
its population.
Mr. Mac Harb (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Bill C-96 does not in any
way alter present federal and provincial powers. No matter how
you look at the situation, there is absolutely no intrusion in spheres
of provincial jurisdiction. This is forbidden by the bill itself.
The time has definitely come for all levels of
government-federal, provincial, municipal-to rise above all
jurisdictional quarrels and to start finding solutions for working
together, pooling their resources and helping the people they serve.
The Bloc would prefer to see us do nothing. On November 9, the
member for Mercier served up a fine piece of jargon about
jurisdictional issues. Perhaps she might like to come back down to
earth and talk to us instead about the people concerned.
Perhaps she might talk to the millions of Quebecers who each
year turn to the Department of Human Resources Development for
help, to let them know which of them will be abandoned and unable
to take advantage of the $ 13.3 billion we spend in their province
every year.
Perhaps the Bloc ought to talk to the 164,000 Quebec men and
women we helped to find a job last year, to let them know ``We will
not be helping you any longer''. Perhaps the Bloc members could
let us know which of the 44,789 students who found summer
employment last summer we ought not to have helped.
Perhaps they could tell some 700,000 Quebecers that the federal
government ought not to have spent close to three billion dollars
for the social aid program they depend upon to live.
Perhaps the Bloc could explain jurisdictional issues to the half
million unemployment insurance recipients there are in Quebec
every month.
(1655)
Perhaps they could tell us which of the 400,000 Quebecers who
benefit from our employment programs and services we should
abandon.
Perhaps they could explain to the 850,000 Quebec seniors why
they should not receive their Canada pension plan and old age
security benefits.
Perhaps they could explain to Quebecers why the federal
government should not invest $1.5 billion in their postsecondary
education system.
While some members worry about the imaginary threat of
federal power grabs, the Department of Human Resources
Development is doing the work it has to do, with Quebecers and the
Quebec government. Bloc members say we should not do anything,
to avoid encroaching on provincial jurisdiction. I, however, say
that, in the name of change, we should find ways of doing a better
job.
It is not by erecting walls that we will do a better job. We need a
better philosophy. We need the type of philosophy articulated by
the minister when he talked about the need to empower the
community and the people to make more choices.
What was the hon. member for
Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup's answer? No. People should not
be empowered to make more choices. This is not the Bloc's
philosophy. We need the kind of philosophy articulated by the
minister when he talked about new partnerships between the
government and the private sector,
16562
between the government and the school boards, between the
government and the provinces.
What was the hon. member for
Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup's answer? ``No, we do not want to
work together to bring about changes''. The hon. members for
Mercier and Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup made much of the
fact that Bill C-96 allows us to conclude agreements with Quebec
organizations for implementing our programs and delivering our
services.
HRDC already has thousands of contracts and agreements with a
myriad of Quebec organizations, including agreements with the
Quebec government that are important to those people trying to
return to the labour force. The existing legislation already allows us
to negotiate such agreements. In 1994-95 alone, HRDC signed over
50,000 labour agreements in Quebec, representing a total of $695
million in funding for programs and income support. This bill
simply renews these agreements. Nothing has changed.
Is the Bloc telling us that we should stop investing millions of
dollars to help laid-off workers, as we are now doing under the
program for older worker adjustment? We could not do so without
the power to enter into agreements with financial institutions and to
buy the pension plans these workers need.
Does the Bloc mean to say that we should stop building new
partnerships in Quebec, partnerships that help reduce duplication
and overlap and improve service delivery to Quebecers? Because
we would be unable to establish partnerships if we no longer had
the means of ensuring their smooth running.
Let there be no mistake about it, the partnerships we enter into
are indeed effective, and the basic concept of flexible federalism
which supports these partnerships is also effective. Think about the
many current agreements between HRDC and Quebec, including
the interim Canada-Quebec agreement on certain manpower
development initiatives, the welfare recipient accord
implementation agreement, the Canada-Quebec agreement on
employment in the agricultural sector and the agreement on the
global transfer of funds to Quebec under the Canadian Student
Loans Program, just to name a few.
(1700)
These master agreements are effective and they have a decisive
impact on the lives of thousands of Quebecers.
I submit that we should consolidate these partnerships, further
decentralize powers and let Quebecers decide what programs and
services are best suited to their needs.
Labour market programs and services are already amongst the
most highly decentralized federal measures. They are implemented
through a very wide network of local centres that have gained a
reputation for reliability and co-operation within the communities
they serve.
The government is currently decentralizing by delegating
decision making authority back to the regions, all the way down to
the local level, where it should rest. Over the past year, we have
been leaders and made tremendous progress in this area. We
completely redesigned the way the Department of Human
Resources Development operates within communities in Quebec
and across Canada.
The federal government also undertook to work together with the
provinces to afford Canadian maximum flexibility with respect to
services. Take for instance the Canada social transfer for health and
social programs, which is to replace the Canada assistance plan.
The purpose of the social transfer is to help provinces provide the
social services and benefits of their choice, which they cannot do at
present because of inflexible rules.
Obviously, this is good news. We are making real progress on the
road to co-operation, while also preserving our integrity. We are
making real progress by putting stable social programs in the hands
of Quebecers.
Bill C-96 is about the pursuit of these achievements. It will allow
us to continue to work together, to define the roles of the various
levels of government, and to create links between them.
These initiatives are certainly better than the alleged usurpations
of authority. It is high time we started creating links that will bring
us closer together.
This is why we officially asked the Government of Quebec, as
well as those of the other provinces, to co-operate with us to
decentralize services. Several provinces have already joined us to
discuss ways to define our respective roles and promote more
effective co-operation. Consequently, I urge all members of the
House to encourage Quebec to join us to meet that challenge.
The motion from the Bloc Quebecois is certainly not a
constructive move to bring about the type of changes that we all
want. Rather, it is yet another obstacle on the way to the future.
What purpose would be served if the House did not go ahead
with Bill C-96? None at all. It would not help the Bloc Quebecois
to proceed with the type of changes it claims to be seeking. It
would not help Canadians to get the services which they expect and
which they need.
It would only force the Department of Human Resources
Development to continue to work in isolation, outside the simple
and consistent framework provided by the bill. It would only
maintain the administrative burden resulting from the lack of
enabling legislation, since even the simplest operations, such as a
transfer of personnel, can trigger a complex, long and costly
process.
We can certainly do better than that.
16563
It goes without saying that co-operation is better than
confrontation, discord and separation. We have to recognize that,
at a time when we are trying to make the best of the resources
of federalism, in which Quebecers have put their faith.
Co-operation is better than living in the past, as we are trying to
redefine the role of partners which must be fulfilled by
governments, that is being partners with individuals and
communities, but also partners among themselves.
Such is the philosophy, the vision underlying the establishment
of the new Department of Human Resources Development.
Bill C-96 is the foundation of that department. With the approval
and support of this House, we will pass this legislation and carry on
our work.
(1705)
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ): Mr. Speaker, it is
with great interest that I am intervening today in this House on Bill
C-96, an act to legally establish the Department of Human
Resources Development.
This is a long way from the agricultural portfolio for which I am
usually critic for the official opposition, but the significance of the
changes brought in by Bill C-96 requires me to speak out.
Application of this bill would be disastrous for Quebec, and I
must defend the interests of my constituents first, but also those of
all Quebecers.
What the government is preparing to do by going ahead with this
bill is quite simply unacceptable. Bill C-96 is a tool with which the
minister intends to broaden his powers once again, going over the
heads of the provinces to do as he sees fit.
This bill enables the minister to ignore the provinces by
establishing direct links with local organizations or individuals of
his choice. What we are to understand from this is that when the
federal government speaks of decentralization, it is merely
replacing the salaries of federal employees with grants to local
organizations, thus retaining total control over program standards.
With Bill C-96 it is absolutely clear that the federal government
does not intend to respect this area of provincial jurisdiction in any
way. We in Quebec will not allow this to happen.
Once again, this reminds me that, only hours after the last
referendum, the Prime Minister of this country, the leader of the
party across the floor here, the Liberal Party, the one that started off
promising no changes, nothing on the table, after the conference on
the UN, said there was no question whatsoever of proposing any
changes. And with that great declaration of love, paid for by all of
us of course, that put any possibility of decentralization, any
possibility of change, on ice.
This bill was already prepared, of course, but it is totally
contradictory to what the Prime Minister of Canada had suggested.
In reaction to Bill C-96, a proposal was made by Claude Béland,
with the support of Ghislain Dufour, a person who cannot be
accused of defending the sovereignist cause. As you are well
aware, Mr. Speaker, Ghislain Dufour does not run with the
sovereignists, but with the party across the floor. He asked that the
SQDM unanimously adopt a resolution demanding that the federal
government transfer the budgets it allocates for manpower training
to Quebec and that it not establish a parallel structure to the SQDM.
Henri Massé, secretary general of the FTQ, also pulled no
punches in his attack against this federal plan. ``We no longer want
the federal government butting in where it has no business to
be-that is, manpower-and going over our heads to implement a
parallel structure''.
Still in connection with the referendum campaign, Victoriaville,
in the next riding to mine, Lotbinière, had an important visitor, the
Minister of Foreign Affairs, representing a Montreal riding whose
name escapes me.
(1710)
I know that an Ontario resident who has a riding in Montreal
happens to be our Minister of Foreign Affairs. He told about fifteen
people at a public meeting in Victoriaville that it was Quebec's
fault if there was any duplication. Now really! Sure, that is what he
said. He did not realize it but there was a reporter-he thought he
was alone, no media-who only had a tape recorder and the next
day they played his tape of the minister's speech on the radio news.
It really takes colossal nerve and then some, to go to
Victoriaville, in the riding of Lotbinière, and say it was Quebec's
fault if there was any duplication. Now that is a clear case. Let
them stay home. We do not want them. The Liberal predecessor of
the PQ government, under Robert Bourassa and then Daniel
Johnson, unanimously adopted a resolution asking this government
to stay out of manpower training. They just do not understand. Two
structures and deficit upon deficit.
In fact, one of my constituents from East Broughton, Clément
Paré-I asked his permission to mention his name-told me:
``People do not understand. It is like a well at one end of my
property. I take a pipe to bring the water from the well down to the
bottom of my property. The further I get from the well, the more
likely I am to get leaks, and I also lose pressure''. It does not take a
university degree to understand that.
He said: ``It is the same in Ottawa. You pay taxes to Ottawa, the
money goes from East Broughton and Frontenac and is sent to
Ottawa, some of it gets lost on the way, and then it goes back down
16564
to East Broughton and to Thetford, and some more gets lost, and
we are left with the crumbs''. That is the kind of system we have:
duplication throughout.
Mr. Speaker, I told you the story about the well and I saw your
knowing smile. This is a very good example. I think my
constituent, Mr. Paré, has very good judgment, and that is probably
why he voted and worked for the Yes side in his beautiful
municipality of East Broughton.
As I left my riding this morning, I stopped in Weedon to get
some gas, and I noticed the Pepsi-Cola vending machine had been
struck by a car. So I told the garage owner: ``Too bad about that.
Your Pepsi machine is broken already''. He replied: ``Yeah, sure, it
was not big enough''. In fact, it was huge, standing there outside
the garage. Actually he was joking when he said: ``It was not big
enough''. I said: ``Too bad, it will cost you a few dollars to repair
that''. He said: ``Oh, that does not matter''. So I said: ``How
come?'' He said: ``It does not belong to me, it belongs to Pepsi''.
You see, Mr. Speaker? It belongs to Pepsi, so it does not matter.
People often react the same way to Ottawa. When I was the
mayor of a small municipality, I remember we spread eight inches
of nice new gravel on the sixth line. My constituents who were, of
course, a small group, came to complain that the municipality was
spending too much money. I said: ``No problem. You are not
paying for it''. They said: ``How come?'' I said: ``The money
comes from the province''. They said: ``So you got a grant, Mr.
Mayor?'' I said: ``Yes. I got it through our MNA''. They said:
``Great, the money comes from Quebec! It is not our money''.
So you get the same reasoning when it comes from the federal
government. When it comes from the federal government, it comes
from somewhere on this planet, nobody knows exactly where. My
point is that when the Minister of Foreign Affairs, this Ontarian
who represents a Montreal riding, when he said in Victoriaville that
if there was any duplication, it was not the federal government but
the Quebec government, it really takes a colossal nerve.
(1715)
The board of directors of the Canadian Institute of Adult
Education has also condemned the Liberal government's initiative.
The CIAE strongly objects to Bill C-96. The Bloc Quebecois is not
alone in its opposition to Bill C-96. With this bill, the federal
government has demonstrated a flagrant lack of respect for the
aspirations of the provinces and especially those of Quebec in
matters of education, manpower training and development.
With all these agencies and many others that are opposed to Bill
C-96, the government of Quebec condemns outright the federal
Liberal government's insistence on going ahead without
considering the needs expressed by the groups concerned. Quebec
Employment Minister Louise Harel reacted as follows to Bill C-96:
``This is an outright refusal on the part of Ottawa to consider the
consensus that exists in Quebec and was repeatedly expressed by
the previous administrations of Mr. Bourassa and Mr. Johnson and
by the present government headed by Mr. Parizeau, a consensus on
the need to patriate all programs and budgets for manpower
adjustment to Quebec''.
In concluding, I want to point out that the Quebec Liberal Party,
when it was in power, demanded that the federal government
withdraw from this provincial jurisdiction.
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
to take part in the debate, at second reading, on Bill C-96
establishing the Department of Human Resources Development
and amending certain acts, which was tabled in June.
This bill provides, essentially, for the administrative
reorganization of the department and brings together sections and
services from the former Departments of Employment and
Immigration, Health and Welfare, Labour and the Secretary of
State.
It reaffirms the federal government's involvement in manpower
training, employment and social programs.
It contains no indication of the federal government's intention to
respect federal jurisdictions.
Reaction in Quebec to Bill C-96 was therefore negative. The
FTQ cautioned the federal government about its latest attempt to
intervene in areas of Quebec's jurisdiction in manpower
development. The federation's general secretary, Henri Massé,
indicated they had had enough of Ottawa's involvement in this area
and its bypassing the province to set up parallel structures. He said
that Quebec had established a special partnership in the area with
the Société québécoise de développement de la main-d'oeuvre or
SQDM. He added that there was a strong consensus favouring
Quebec's becoming solely responsible for policies on manpower
adjustment and occupational training within its borders and its
acquiring the funds the federal government allocates to these
programs.
The Conseil du patronat agrees with the unions on this,
something that does not happen very often. Even Robert Bourassa's
Liberal government opposed a similar move by Ottawa in 1991.
The SQDM has asked the federal government to keep out of
areas of Quebec's jurisdiction in manpower development.
(1720)
The board of directors, on a motion by Claude Béland, the
president of the Mouvement Desjardins, seconded by Ghislain
Dufour, the president of the Conseil du patronat, unanimously
adopted a resolution to call on the federal government to transfer to
Quebec the funds it allocates to manpower training. Furthermore,
16565
they asked Ottawa not to establish any structure parallel to the
SQDM.
The Quebec minister of employment, Louise Harel, denounced
the bill in the following terms: ``This federal initiative amounts to a
flat rejection of the unanimous Quebec consensus, expressed, both
under the previous administration and under the current one, on the
need for Quebec to regain control over all manpower adjustment
measures, including the related budgets''.
I take this opportunity to again protest the upcoming closure of
the Canada Employment Centre on rue Papineau, which serves the
population of my riding of Bourassa in North Montreal, where the
real rate of unemployment is nearly 30 per cent. It is a model CEC,
which provides top quality service to a large clientele. Unions,
business, community groups, users and my constituents vigorously
oppose its closure.
Furthermore, the federal government has decided to close 34
other Canada Employment Centres in an effort to cut expenses,
thus resulting in the layoff of nearly 1,000 public servants.
Computerized job kiosks will become more prevalent.
The unemployment rate remains a very high 11.2 per cent in
Quebec. The jobless have an urgent need for support services to
which only 10 per cent of them had access last year. Instead of
helping people who are looking for a job, the government makes it
more difficult for them to have access to information and
counselling services.
One must add that these closures are all the more difficult to
explain as the unemployment insurance fund, which is entirely
financed by employee and employer contributions, has a five
billion dollar surplus.
Last September, the unemployment rate in Canada increased
from 9.2 to 9.4 per cent. In Quebec, it went from 10.9 to 11.2 per
cent. In British Columbia, it climbed from 8.8 to 9 per cent. Last
year, cuts in the federal and provincial public sector resulted in the
loss of 86,000 jobs. In October only, 3,000 civil servants lost their
jobs. And yet, Bill C-96 contains no concrete measure to create
jobs.
If you allow me, I will take this opportunity to ask the minister
of Human Resources Development to speed up the negotiations
with regards to a social security agreement between Canada and
Chile. In 1990, with the return of a democratic regime in Chile, as
president of the Chilean council in Quebec, I had asked for
negotiations to start on this issue.
As a member of Parliament, I wrote the minister on several
occasions. It was only at the end of 1994 that representatives of
both countries met for the first time in Santiago. The second
meeting took place last June, in Quebec City and in Ottawa. The
Chilean community in Quebec and Canada would like this
agreement to be signed without delay; it will benefit many
Canadian and Chilean citizens who lived and worked in both
countries.
(1725)
I would also like to congratulate the FTQ and the CSN who
signed on November 13 a solidarity and co-operation agreement
which will create a partnership between these two unions. That
agreement confirms their common will to enhance the impact and
the influence of organized labour in our society.
I think that it is an historical agreement and an extraordinary
measure bringing together two Quebec labour unions which will
jointly face future challenges, including employment and the
protection of existing social benefits.
The next FTQ convention will be held from November 27 to
December 1st in Montreal, where the theme will be to fight
unemployment and prepare the future.
The job issue will be the focus of all debates because the
streamlining, reorganisations, voluntary termination of
employment and early retirement programs are continuing and
even increasing, both in the public and the private sectors.
I wish my FTQ friends an excellent convention.
Given the cuts in unemployment insurance, thousands of
unemployed people will have no other choice but to ask for
welfare, but welfare benefits have also been cut over the past few
years. Recently, Ontario decreased welfare benefits by 21.6 per
cent. It is unfair and cruel for Canada to fight the deficit at the
expense of the have-nots of our society. I denounce the Liberal
government's irresponsibility and lack of action in the fight against
poverty.
In closing, I would like to say that I approve the amendment to
Bill C-96 presented by the member for Mercier.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: The vote is on the amendment. Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
16566
The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.
I have been requested by the government whip and the
opposition whip to defer the division until tomorrow, immediately
after Government Orders.
* * *
[
English]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-83, an act to
amend the Auditor General Act, as reported (with amendments)
from the committee.
The Deputy Speaker: There is only one motion in amendment
standing on the Notice Paper for report stage of Bill C-83, an act to
amend the Auditor General Act.
[Translation]
Motion No. 1 will be debated and voted on.
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides, BQ) moved:
Motion No. 1
That Bill C-83, in Clause 5, be amended by deleting lines 1 to 23, on page 3.
She said: Mr. Speaker, I want to address the motion that we have
tabled, an amendment to remove the amendment tabled by the
Liberals during the committee meeting of November 2, which
amended Bill C-83, in clause 5, by adding section 21.1, from (a) to
(h).
(1730)
I note that this bill was given a fairly bumpy ride in committee, if
I may say so. The Liberals seemed to be caught between a rock and
a hard place, to be torn between public servants and politicians.
First, members opposite moved and voted on their own
amendments, then cancelled them and moved and voted on new
ones. You will agree that this is confusion at its best.
The amendment our friends opposite, our friends of confusion
and discord, are proposing seems to be a big catchall of
environmental principles that constitutes a dangerous foot in the
door of provincial jurisdiction.
A careful reading of section 21.1 and its points (a) to (h) leads us
to believe that the Liberals may have wanted to better explain the
work of the future commissioner of environment and sustainable
development. If that was their objective, I think they are way off
the mark. Instead of presenting precise objectives in support of the
future commissioner, the Liberals propose to give him a series of
broad environmental principles that, ultimately, will not make his
task any easier. Even worse, these broad principles will extend his
mandate to a point where he will be unable to carry it out.
However, this section is, once again, a case of the federal
government wanting to interfere in provincial jurisdiction. Indeed,
through this section, the commissioner will have the mandate to
monitor the progress of departments according to sustainable
development criteria that are clearly the responsibility of the
provinces.
Thus, under section 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.
It is becoming increasingly clear that the goal of Liberal
committee members is to extend as much as possible federal
jurisdiction on environmental matters and to use the federal
government's spending power as much as possible, although that
attitude is viewed as an aggression by the provinces. Committee
members constantly refer to great green principles such as
sustainable development, bio-diversity or systemic approach, to
promote an increased federal presence in the area of environment.
Of course air pollution is not restricted to one region. Of course
water knows no boundary. Of course species move around. We all
know this, but this is no reason for the federal government to
become or set out to become the sole keeper of the environment,
especially since the provinces have made great strides in that area
and have taken their responsibilities. The same certainly cannot be
said for the federal government, something the Liberals should
recognize.
The federal government has not made rapid progress and has
failed on many environmental issues under its jurisdiction. Why
then should we give it more responsibility, when it does not even
carry out its primary duties? Why do they absolutely insist that the
federal should interfere in areas of provincial jurisdiction against
the provinces' will? There lies the failing, if I may say, of our dear
Liberals. The Liberals have some great environmentalists such as
the hon. member for Davenport and the hon. member for
Lachine-Lac-Saint-Louis, who, much to their credit, are also
great champions of Canada. But that is exactly where their
weakness lies: they are fervent federalists.
Their vision of the environment is clearly influenced, not to say
marred by their natural federalist tendencies. That is why they tie
everything that has to do with the environment to the federal
system. This kind of attitude is alarming and dangerous for the
environment because the farther you are from the field, the harder
it is to find a solution. It is obvious that the provinces are closer to
the environment and are therefore in a better position to deal with
environmental issues.
Let us have a look at the concept of sustainable development to
be found in the bill, a concept the Liberals use a great deal to
16567
crowd out the provinces. Sustainable development is an ideal all
societies should strive for.
(1735)
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, due to a double structure, is in no way
sustainable. However, pursuant to their amendment, the Liberals
are asking the commissioner to monitor the progress of the various
departments, by taking into consideration criteria which clearly
come under areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction.
Let us look at item (a) of the clause dealing 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.
Using its spending power, the federal government has often
launched programs or projects in areas of provincial jurisdiction. In
many cases, after a few months, the federal government withdrew
and let the provinces, including the province of Quebec, foot the
bill and go through the ordeal of squashing these projects.
This way of doing things can in no way help to protect the
environment. Short term and paltry measures are to be excluded.
Item (b) talks about protecting the health of Canadians. Health is
an area of exclusive provincial jurisdiction. It is the responsibility
of the provinces to prevent health risks due to water and air
pollution or soil depletion.
Again, the duplication of standards and the inconsistency with
the provincial standards are inefficient and costly for the
governments as well as for the private sector and the public. The
federal government has again opened the door to new quarrels
concerning the division of powers.
Given the rather firm stand taken by the provinces on this issue,
it is hard to understand the attitude of the federal government. That
proves again that the Liberals do not understand a thing about the
repeated demands for change made by Canadians and Quebecers.
We are anxious to see the changes promised by the other side on
October 30. It will probably, in the end, be another case of ``Much
ado about nothing''. But I am fair-play and ready to wait and see.
All the more so since the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
seems to be quite a miracle-worker.
Item (c) of clause 21.1 has to do with protecting ecosystems. As
owners and managers of the land, the provinces have jurisdiction
over ecosystems. As an example, to assume this role, Quebec
created 17 national parks. It also gave itself the legislative tools to
preserve biodiversity.
Provinces which have not yet done so have the responsibility to
act and pay heed to the demands of the world community which,
for example, made some criticisms in the OECD report concerning
Canada's environmental performance when it comes to protecting
ecosystems.
Those are some of the items that make us doubt the will of the
federal government to respect the provinces.
Clause 21.1 of Bill C-83 is rather to the contrary. In mentioning
vast environmental concepts the federal government shows its
intention to interfere further in areas of provincial jurisdiction.
The federal environmental record is nothing to cheer about.
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
on behalf of the government, I want to respond to what the hon.
member for Laurentides said and to the amendment she moved to
the bill.
I think I should read the section the hon. member wishes to
remove from the bill.
(1740)
It is section 21.1, which reads as follows:
21.1 The purpose of the Commissioner is to provide sustainable development
monitoring and reporting on the progress of category I departments towards
sustainable development, which is a continually evolving concept based on the
integration of social, economic and environmental concerns, and which may be
achieved by, among other things,
(a) the integration of the environment and the economy;
(b) protecting the health of Canadians;
(c) protecting ecosystems;
(d) meeting international obligations;
(e) promoting equity;
(f) an integrated approach to planning and making decisions that takes into
account the environmental and natural resource costs of different economic
options and the economic costs of different environmental and natural resource
options;
(g) preventing pollution; and
(h) respect for nature and the needs of future generations.
16568
I find it really surprising that the hon. member for Laurentides
has decided to move such an amendment to the bill at this time.
[English]
She knows perfectly well that her leader, the hon. member for
Lac-Saint-Jean, was a minister of the environment and supported
all these same principles. She comes into the House today while he
is occupied considering his future and proposes an amendment that
undermines the whole concept of sustainable development and a
way of treating it in Canada.
I am absolutely astounded that the hon. member for Laurentides
is getting away with this. I suspect that if the Leader of the
Opposition were in Ottawa he would hound his colleague, the
member for Laurentides, for proposing such an amendment as this.
She has tried to claim this amendment is one that affects provincial
jurisdiction but on its face it most patently does not.
It says that the commissioner will provide sustainable
development monitoring and reporting on the progress government
departments are making. How can government departments be
making progress on things that are not within their jurisdiction?
They must deal with matters within their own jurisdiction. If they
were dealing with matters beyond their jurisdiction, they would be
doing something unlawful. Everyone know that government
departments do not do things that are unlawful, at least not very
often.
The hon. member who is making these claims is saying that
government departments are in fact dabbling in provincial matters
all the time and therefore this section is bad because the
commissioner in his work might impinge on provincial jurisdiction
if the government department was doing so and he was reporting on
it. Presumably if he thought the federal government department
was overstepping its bounds he would report that.
After all, he is an officer who has some authority, according to
my reading of this bill. I do not claim to be terribly familiar with it.
I was not on the committee where the amendment was brought in
but I understand the commissioner is given certain authority, which
in my view is very sensible authority, to deal with a whole host of
issues, all of which are of great concern to Canadians. Every one of
the items I read from the list is of concern to Canadians.
Yet we have a situation where a party headed by a former
minister of the environment who supported all of these things when
he was minister-
Mr. Boudria: He invented some of them.
Mr. Milliken: As the hon. member for
Glengarry-Prescott-Russell has said so ably, he invented some
of them and I am sure his memory of these things is better than
mine. The hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean invented these very
concepts and now one of his henchmen comes into the House and
tries to undermine the whole process.
I am shocked. I am sure every member of the House is shocked
at the duplicity of the opposition in saying one thing through its
leader when he was minister of the environment and saying another
now through the hon. member for Laurentides with this frankly
ridiculous amendment.
I see even the members of the Reform Party are smirking. They
must agree this amendment is pretty wild. It is not something they
would support. I am sure they support the bill. I am sure they
realize the bill is in the best interests of all Canadians as I am sure
the Leader of the Opposition does. After all he knows more about
environmental issues than I do. He was minister for several years. I
know it was with a government that showed a callous disregard for
the environment but he had a reputation for doing the best he could
in difficult circumstances.
Some say that perhaps-
Ms. Augustine: -he should have remained.
(1745 )
Mr. Milliken: Some say that perhaps he should have remained
as Minister of the Environment, but he did not. On the other hand, I
understand there were often times when he did not get a lot of
support from his cabinet colleagues on environmental matters he
raised. He may have gone out on a limb and done it in an
appropriate way from time to time, but I do not know. I was not in
the cabinet. It is not something I could easily comment on, but we
certainly can see the effect of his environmental crusade. The hon.
member for Laurentides has wilfully abandoned all the principles
her leader stood for when he was Minister of the Environment.
As I said, I find myself almost at a loss for words in trying to
understand the amendment she has put forward today. I can only
assume that the Leader of the Opposition did not see this
amendment before it was tabled. If he had, he would have blown a
gasket, in common parlance, and that would have been the end of
the amendment.
I can only say that I hope there is a vote on this. I want to see the
Leader of the Opposition come into the House and vote against the
principles he so resolutely stood for when he was Minister of the
Environment.
He may have forgotten some of the things he learned when he
was minister.
An hon. member: Remind him.
Mr. Milliken: I am trying to remind him by this speech. I hope
he reads it very carefully and I am sure the hon. member for
Glengarry-Prescott-Russell would agree.
16569
Sometimes remembrance is important in these things. The
Minister of the Environment always learns something about his
or her portfolio when occupying that portfolio. When the member
for Lac-Saint-Jean was a minister, I remember him standing and
answering questions, defending the government's environmental
policy in the House. Now we see his party trying to undo the work
of a committee of the House and the work of the present very
competent Minister of the Environment, the hon. member for
Hamilton East.
The hon. member for Laurentides is pleading with me to
continue this eulogy. I certainly could do that. She knows what a
competent minister we have. The fact is all these ministers have
stood for this kind of principle and they have all adopted the
principle of sustainable development as the cornerstone of
Canada's environmental policy.
The hon. member for Davenport, who I am sure will be speaking
on this amendment in a few moments, can remind us of how long
this principle of sustainable development has been a cornerstone of
Canadian environmental policy. It is reflected in this bill. Here is
an opportunity to have an officer with some authority to report on
government departments on how they are doing on specific
concerns. It was a great list.
The hon. member for Laurentides wants to throw the whole thing
out of the bill. I do not understand it. Of course, the government
will oppose this change. It is wrong headed. It is contrary to
principles espoused by the hon. member's own leader. It is contrary
to the principles that were agreed on in the committee which
studied the bill. I am shocked to hear at this late date that the hon.
member for Laurentides would take it in her own capacity to move
an amendment to the bill that would undermine what I think is the
view of the vast majority of Canadians and the vast majority of
members of the House.
I want to indicate the government's strong opposition to the
amendment. We will support the bill and the amendments that were
made in committee. We feel the committee's amendments were
entirely appropriate and the bill as it stands is a good bill.
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster-Burnaby, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, there is no doubt that the environment is an issue very
dear to Canadians. We all want to do what we can to preserve this
great country. Every day we ask ourselves: What can we do to
make certain that the environment can be preserved and saved?
The member for Laurentides is a great believer in environmental
issues yet I have to question her amendment to Bill C-83. The bill
is not a solid, forthright piece of legislation. There is no doubt
about that. However, removing the part in clause 5 dealing with
sustainable development makes a weak bill all that much weaker. It
removes benchmark measurements on reporting.
The Reform Party has been consistent in its position on Bill
C-83. The bill would be much more effective if the role of the
environmental commissioner were completely taken over by the
auditor general. We know that the commissioner will be an
employee of the Office of the Auditor General. The commissioner
will have to pass everything by the auditor general before it can be
released to Parliament and the public.
(1750 )
Bill C-83 makes the government look as if it is serious about
cleaning up the environmental practices of federal departments.
However, the real question is whether or not this commissioner is
going to really make a difference. The role is a strange one. The
commissioner would monitor and report annually to Parliament
through the auditor general on the extent to which federal
government departments had met sustainable development
objectives and implemented the actions set out in their sustainable
development strategies.
When the auditor general came before the environment
committee, he stated quite clearly that there would not be a
responsibility given to the commissioner that could not be
performed by the auditor general himself. Therefore, Reform sees
the role of the commissioner as outlined in this bill to simply be
another level of bureaucracy, all of course at the expense of the
taxpayers. It is a long envisaged proposal now coming in the form
for the sake of appearances without any real substance.
Let us not forget the Minister of the Environment stated that one
objective of the commissioner would be to look into waste
reduction. Therefore, if the auditor general's office took over more
responsibility in terms of environmental issues would this not be
cost effective as well as a reduction of wastefulness?
The environment minister has truly convinced herself that Bill
C-83 will be a solution to some of Canada's environmental chaos.
The minister believes that when the commissioner reports to
Parliament, federal departments are going to listen and then act.
However, if they do not act now to the regular auditor general's
reports, why would they act on a commissioner's report on
environmental issues?
Let me illustrate the point. The report from the auditor general in
May 1995 looked at Environment Canada and the management of
hazardous wastes. The auditor general reported that there was a
lack of effort on Environment Canada's part to control the storage
and destruction of PCB wastes. The control of PCBs is under the
regulation of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act in order
to minimize risk to human health and the environment.
The auditor general stated: ``On March 31, 1995, Environment
Canada terminated its leadership role in the management of PCB
destruction without devising a plan to guide federal departments to
further consolidate PCB wastes, reduce their volume and develop
action plans for their destruction. This could seriously impede the
16570
government's ability to ensure safe and cost effective storage and
timely destruction of federal PCB wastes''.
The control of PCB wastes is crucial for true sustainable
development. Unfortunately, the environment minister has not
followed through with the auditor general's recommendations.
Therefore, my question is: When and if the environmental
commissioner is put into place, what will he or she say that will be
any more convincing than what has already been said by the auditor
general himself? The answer is nothing. The section of the bill
adjusted by the Bloc amendment before us makes the bill ever
more unfocused and vague and does not enhance any function at
all.
Canadians will soon realize that the commissioner is just a
smoke screen created by the environment minister to make it
appear that she is working to clean up the environment. She has
done little throughout her tenure as minister that accomplishes an
improvement to our environment. Her talk is shrill and her actions
are sometimes expensive; the end result being an increased deficit
with little to no environmental improvements.
My friend from the Bloc Quebecois has an amendment at this
stage that deletes what I believe to be the only clear specification in
this legislation. While I do not agree that we should have a separate
commissioner under the auspices of the auditor general, I do
believe that if there has to be one it is essential that the person
provide the best report possible on all sustainable development
strategies to all category one departments.
In this time of budget restraint and fiscal responsibility, I am
bothered that the minister has chosen to spend the taxpayers' hard
earned money with such a redundant position merely to add
prestige and political significance to environmental issues. Such
redundant spending is common among most Liberal ministers. It
will only be a matter of time before Canadians come to the
realization that to achieve a new and more environmentally
sustainable Canada a different party must come to government.
In closing, I cannot support the Bloc amendment. Bloc members
continue to whine about preserving provincial jurisdiction while at
the same time the Quebec provincial government creates overlap
after overlap. The fiscal consequences for the poor people of
Quebec due to the separatists' colorations and manipulations of
public policy are very serious. The amendment adds nothing
positive or helpful to a poor bill and therefore I cannot support it.
(1755 )
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, to put
this amendment into perspective, I would like to pay homage to the
hon. member for Frontenac and the hon. member for Terrebonne.
They participated in the work of the committee which produced a
report over a year ago proposing the measures contained in this
bill, namely the creation of the position of the commissioner for the
environment and sustainable development.
Both the hon. member for Terrebonne and the hon. member for
Frontenac conducted themselves in committee in a very
constructive manner. In the conclusion of their dissenting report,
they outlined three principles. One of the three principles reads as
follows: ``It is imperative that the economic and environmental
aspects of federal government decisions and policies be
intrinsically linked''. We fully agree with that principle. We
applaud the hon. member for Terrebonne and the hon. member for
Frontenac for having concisely put forward such an important
concept.
However, we have enormous difficulties in reconciling the
political direction which was taken by the hon. member for
Laurentides and her colleagues. They are running in conflicting
directions. They are not reinforcing each other. The motion of the
hon. member for Laurentides which is now before us dismantles
and ridicules the concluding principle I have just read.
That is what the amendment the committee proposes, which the
hon. member for Laurentides wants to wipe out, intends to do. It
intends to intrinsically link the environmental and economic
aspects of government decisions. The hon. member for Laurentides
is proposing to wipe out this important concept.
This is a very sad moment. The amendment by the hon. member
for Laurentides means that her party is not in favour of protecting
the health of Canadians. This is what her amendment would
achieve.
Her party is against the integration of the environment and the
economy. This is what the amendment would achieve. Her party is
against the protection of the ecosystem. That is what her
amendment proposes. Her party is against meeting international
obligations. That is what her amendment would achieve. Her party
is against the promotion of equity. That means that her party is in
favour of inequities. That is the effect of her amendment.
Her party is against an integrated approach to planning and
making decisions which take into account the environmental and
natural resource cost of different economic actions. That is what
her amendment would achieve.
Her amendment would eliminate the principle of pollution
prevention. Does that mean the Bloc Quebecois is against pollution
prevention? That is the net effect of the amendment. The net effect
of the amendment is to delete pollution prevention from the bill.
The net effect of the amendment is to eliminate the concept of
protecting the health of the public, of protecting the ecosystems
and of meeting international obligations.
16571
Finally, the net effect of the amendment is to eliminate the
respectful nature and the needs of future generations. In other
words, the effect of the amendment is to say that the Bloc
Quebecois rejects the Brundtland report and the definition of
sustainable development. As the parliamentary secretary to the
House leader already asked, is that the direction the member for
Laurentides has received from her leader? Is that the new political
direction of the Bloc Quebecois? Or, 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
every chair a federal monster, a federal presence which may
disrupt the quiet life of the people in her riding?
(1800)
It is absurd to say that the amendment by the Bloc Quebecois
reflects the majority of thought of members of her party for whom I
have the highest respect. I do not recognize in the amendment the
preachings, the interventions or the thoughtful examination I have
experienced when the member for Frontenac and the member for
Terrebonne were members of the committee. This is diametrically
opposed to what I have heard from that party until now.
I find it unbelievable that we should be debating an amendment
of this nature which runs counter to everything the leader of the
Bloc Quebecois said when he was Minister of the Environment and
what his colleagues have said until now in support of sustainable
development. There is no federal plot, I reassure the member for
Laurentides. There is no fear to be had for jurisdiction because
Canadians know very well that the environment does not know
boundaries.
Perhaps the member for Laurentides forgets there would not be
any clean up of substance of the St. Lawrence River were it not for
the federal government, were it not for the intervention in the Great
Lakes of the federal government in co-operation with Washington.
We know very well the source of pollution in the St. Lawrence
River. It emanates and originates from activities on both sides of
the border well upstream. Therefore the role of the federal
government in cleaning up the St. Lawrence River is of paramount
importance.
The geopolitical law of gravity of water whereby rivers have to
flow in a certain direction has escaped the attention of the member
for Laurentides. She is more preoccupied with the federal presence
than with the health of the people in Montreal and downstream.
This is the obsession of the member for Laurentides when
analysing and considering bills of an environmental nature.
The member for Laurentides is worried about the waste of two
levels. If we do not have a federal level concerned with
international relations, who will do it? We will have a Canada for
the next thousand years and therefore we need a federal presence in
implementing this type of legislation. Whether or not the member
for Laurentides likes it, that is the political reality of today,
tomorrow, the day after and for many generations to come, as the
vote proved on October 30.
Turning to the Reform Party members, they seem to be engaging
in a very fashionable game in the House. Unfortunately they are
copying the member for Laurentides. They like to attack the
minister. They find this is the greatest sport since the invention of
soccer. We have news for them. The minister is the best we ever
had considering the work she has done under most difficult
political and economic circumstances.
Whether or not the Reform Party likes it, the minister has
managed to promote harmonization on federal-provincial relations
on the environment. This minister has managed to bring about an
agreement on harmonization with British Columbia. It is quite
interesting that the criticism is from members from British
Columbia. The minister achieved that. The minister has produced
the bill dealing with a commissioner for sustainable development,
keeping a red book promise. The minister has engaged the
Americans in consultations on the Great Lakes for the sake of the
health of Canadians who live in that basin, namely the health of
Canadians whose livelihood and well-being depend on the fresh
water of that fantastic system.
(1805)
The minister brought in and has before the House legislation on
manganese, legislation that would remove MMT from gasoline,
legislation that is opposed tooth and nail by the Reform Party on
behalf of the Ethyl corporation which seems to have quite an
influence on its way of thinking. We have a Minister of the
Environment who has the courage to bring legislation before the
House that hopefully will be approved very soon.
This is not the end of the list. The minister will provide a
governmental reply to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act
report of the committee of the House, which is probably one of the
most difficult tasks ever faced by an environment minister who has
to be concerned at the same time with the environment, with health
and with the economy. That is not a minor feat for any environment
minister.
Members of the Reform Party cannot appreciate that fact. It is
only an indication of their political naivete or their political
inability to understand the complexity of issues and to appreciate
the complex role faced today by the Minister of the Environment.
That is not all.
The Minister of the Environment has managed to put on the table
the extremely difficult issue of climate change and the necessity of
reducing carbon dioxide emissions in the country, probably one of
the most difficult issues to handle.
It may well be it has escaped members of the Reform Party that
there is a climate change issue surrounding us, one that is at least
accepted and talked about by the scientific community. The
Minister of the Environment has managed to put the issue on the
16572
agenda and is right now in Edmonton discussing the matter with
her provincial colleagues.
The Minister of the Environment has put on the agenda the
question of the protection of endangered species, a matter which to
my greatest disappointment does not have the support of the
Reform Party. As recently as this morning the Reform Party
opposed proposed legislation not by the minister but by a
backbencher.
The Deputy Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member
but his time has expired.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac, BQ): Mr. Speaker, for
more than a year, I had the opportunity to sit on the Standing
Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development chaired
by the member for Davenport. I have to admit that, up until about
ten minutes ago, I admired the member for Davenport.
Unfortunately, I discovered this afternoon, in the speech he just
made, that he had a total lack of respect for my colleague, the
member for Laurentides, specially when he asked her if she needed
a psychiatrist.
(1810)
It was a low blow and I think the member for Davenport should
apologize. He really went a little too far. During all the time that I
sat with him on the environment committee, I always noticed his
honesty and his judgment as a politician, particularly in
environmental matters.
It is therefore with great pleasure that I stand in this House to
speak to Bill C-83, an Act to amend the Auditor General Act.
It has been a few weeks since we last talked about this bill in the
House, so I should take a few minutes to review its contents briefly.
Bill C-83 amends the Auditor General Act to achieve five
objectives which I will sum up quickly.
Firstly, 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.
Secondly, to require the appointment of a Commissioner of the
Environment and Sustainable Development.
Thirdly, to impose requirements for responding to petitions
received by the Auditor General about environmental matters
under federal jurisdiction-and I repeat it for the benefit of the
member for Davenport-under federal jurisdiction in the context
of sustainable development.
Fourthly, to require monitoring and reporting to the House of
Commons on petitions and the extent to which departments have
met the objectives, and implemented the plans, set out in their
sustainable development strategies.
And finally, fifthly, to require that departmental sustainable
development strategies be prepared and tabled in the House of
Commons.
On a technical level, the adoption of this bill will require the
implementation of a number of things. First of all, there must be an
appropriate definition of sustainable development. I will come
back to that later.
But I will say to the hon. member for Davenport, who got carried
away a few minutes ago, that the government has been in power for
two years. A sunken barge has sat in the waters between Prince
Edward Island and the Magdalen Islands for 25 years now. At the
end of June, we learned quite by accident that there was an
important quantity of PCB tainted oil in the sunken ship. The barge
has been there for 25 years and the Liberals were in power during
most of that period, except for the nine years of the Mulroney
government and the nine months of the Clark government.
It is easy to boast about sustainable development, but that barge
was supposed to be refloated this year and nothing has been done.
They chose the wrong solution because it was cheaper, but I can
guarantee you, as does my colleague for Davenport, that, once the
Irving Whale is refloated, when we get the bill the cost will be more
than if we had chosen the better solution to begin with.
Sustainable development, what a trendy expression. It is useful
if one wants to get reelected, of course. But why did they not apply
it in the two years since their election? Of course, the Liberal Party
sed up a fine committee-the Easter-Gagnon committee-that
went to the Magdalen Islands and self sufficiently told to the
people to step aside, that they would refloat the barge.
(1815)
We can refloat it, they claimed. Give us 12 months, and we will
refloat it. How much did it cost us to have the Gagnon-Easter mini
caucus go around making political points?
The member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine learned his
lesson with the last referendum. The islands' voters showed the
member who had promised to resign if the no lost in Quebec where
the door was.
Mr. Robichaud: He won in his riding.
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac): He was scared. He was so scared on
the evening of October 30 that he was shaking all over. ``I should
never have made empty promises''.
Mr. Robichaud: He won in his riding.
Mr. Chrétien (Frontenac): He won in Bonaventure, but he lost
in the Magdalen Islands. Close to 60 per cent of the voters on the
16573
Islands voted against him. There is one Liberal member of the
Quebec legislature, Georges Farrah, however, and one in Ottawa,
who barely got 40 per cent. That really requires a colossal amount
of nerve.
I was teaching ecology at the Disraeli comprehensive high
school when several million dollars were spent there. The Liberals
were not in government at the time, of course; it was the member
for Sherbrooke who was acting as Minister of the Environment. He
had organized a television show in prime time Sunday evening,
coast to coast, paid for by the taxpayers, on the Green Plan, six
billion dollars over five years. That turned into five billion over six
years, and got watered down and watered down, until today no
trace remains. Nobody knows what became of the Green Plan.
In the schools we showed videotapes of it, which provided our
young students with some glimmer of hope about the environment
and sustainable development. Now it has been junked. In the waste
basket. And that is where the environmental commissioner is
headed.
The intent is to water the thing down so much that it will end up
in the waste basket and thousands, hundreds of millions of dollars
will be spent and-
I would like to tell you about an example given by a friend from
East Broughton, who said to me on the day after the referendum ``It
is a bit like bringing water from several kilometres away. You start
with a big pipe and you end up with a tiny one at the other end;
there is surface tension, leaks here and there along the way''. We
know what it is like in the federal pipeline system with its leaks
here and there, you get to the end of the pipe and there is hardly any
water coming out, no water pressure, nothing left. Everything got
lost along the way.
It is the same thing, what we are asking of you, my friends across
the way. ``Mind your own business, but mind it well. And when
something is not your business, not within your area of jurisdiction,
then butt out and stay where you belong''.
It is true we all breathe the same air, we all drink the same water
and we all walk on the same ground. When you came to Montreal
on October 27 to tell us you loved us, at taxpayers' expense, of
course, we let you breathe our air. When we come to Ontario, you
let us breathe your air.
This is how we want to live. So stay home, and when it is a
provincial matter for Quebec, mind your own business. We are
quite capable of minding our own business, better than you are.
An agreement was signed with the United States to develop the
Great Lakes. It is working out fine. We get a report every two years.
That is fine. It is having no effect on the United States'
environment. You are not going to meddle with American
environmental jurisdictions, why do you want to meddle with
Quebec's? We will not tolerate it. That time is long gone.
When your jurisdictions are involved, look after them, but keep
out of our space.
Having said that, I again call for an apology from the hon.
member for Davenport, who showed disrespect for my colleague
for Lotbinière.
(1820)
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on Motion No. 1. Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
Some hon. members: On division.
The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion is negatived on
division.
(Motion negatived.)
Hon. Fernand Robichaud (for the Minister of the
Environment) moved that Bill C-83, as amended, be concurred in
at report stage.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.
And the division bells having rung:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the
division on the question now before the House stands deferred until
Tuesday, November 21, at the end of government business, at
which time the bells to call in the members will be sounded for not
more than 15 minutes.
>
16574
16574
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed
to have been moved.
Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, a little while ago I asked the Minister of Human
Resources Development what he thought of Statistics Canada
reports that Canadians with lower levels of education are having
serious difficulties in the workforce. How did he see the serious,
significant reduction of funds to post-secondary education and how
did he think it would affect the generation of opportunities
Canadians need.
Education is a right of all Canadians. Research studies suggest
that technical institutes, colleges and universities offer Canadians
the most fertile ground for future prosperity and a place in the
workforce. In today's information economy, the job prospects of
Canadians and their earnings are increasingly dependent on what
they know. The success of Canadians and, indeed, of Canada's
future rests on the notion of accessible and affordable
post-secondary education for all who can benefit from it.
This unfortunately is not the case in Canada. With the present
government's policies these crucial objectives are farther from
being met than ever before.
Studies reveal that the majority of post-secondary education
students originate from an upper middle class socioeconomic
background. Higher tuition fees and increasing living expenses are
creating huge debt loads for students and reducing accessibility for
potential university and college students.
More effort, not less, needs to be directed to ensuring that young
people from sections of society which are presently under
represented in our post-secondary education institutions are
provided with opportunities to study. Post-secondary education
must be available to all Canadians if Canada is to prosper.
A recent Statistics Canada study reveals that educational
requirements have risen so sharply that young Canadians now need
a university degree to earn roughly as much as a high school
graduate in the same age group earned a decade before. Over the
same period the earnings of high school graduates decreased by
about a quarter. Those without high school certificates have an
even more difficult time of it.
(1825)
Young people have lost significant ground over the last decade.
However it is also important to recognize that the incomes of
university graduates have grown rapidly with work experience,
while high school graduates have only seen modest gains.
The broad point is that future economic growth for Canada and
for Canadians will depend on how much education Canadians
attain. The country and the government need to commit themselves
to the notion that all Canadians have a right to accessible and
affordable education. Quality education should not only be
available to the rich.
Over the last 15 years under successive Liberal and Conservative
governments this right has been eroded by drastic cuts to funding.
Considering that only 43 per cent of young Canadians in the 25 to
29 year old age group had a high school diploma in 1993, the future
of Canada's economy does not look bright unless we turn the
situation around.
In 1995 university applications were down about 5 per cent on
average for first year university places. This is the sharpest drop of
its kind in more than 20 years. We are going in the opposite
direction to what Canada needs. With nearly half of young
Canadians facing a future of low or stagnant incomes, high
unemployment and diminishing opportunities for full time work,
we are headed toward a polarized society and an economy
functioning at well below desired objectives if we do not reduce the
educational deficit.
Despite all the evidence showing that higher education is a
prerequisite to prosperity both for Canadians and for Canada, the
federal government continues to cut funding for post-secondary
education; a 25 per cent cut to health, post-secondary and social
programs, the deepest cut since the second world war.
The government states that we cannot afford the cost of investing
in our young people and of investing in the future. It must start
listening to common sense. The government must not cut
Canadians' lifeline to future prosperity. Instead it must start
listening to young Canadians who want a quality future, a quality
workforce and the opportunity to contribute to a quality economy
and a quality society.
These drastic cuts to post-secondary education cannot be
justified. Since the government has forgotten, I will remind it once
again that funding for post-secondary education is a critically
important investment in Canada's future. Canadians and Canada
deserve better.
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Human Resources Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I should like to start by making a very clear statement: young
people are very much a priority of the federal government.
In April 1994 the government announced the youth employment
and learning strategy to address problems that have held back many
young people from participating fully in society. By that I mean
high school dropout rates have been high. There has been a lack of
16575
access to post-secondary education, work experience and effective
job training.
We have moved on several fronts. We have made serious
amendments to the Canada student loans program by increasing
loan limits for full time students from $105 to $165 per week and
by raising the yearly loan limit for part time students to $4,000. For
the very first time we are offering special opportunities grants for
women pursuing doctoral studies, for high need students and for
persons with disabilities. We have begun to offer the programs
because we saw within the federal sphere there was a void that
needed to be filled and we did that. We also have Youth Services
Canada and youth internship programs. Combined they have had a
positive impact on the lives of over 30,000 young people.
These measures speak to how the government, the federal
Government of Canada, has been able to address key concerns and
issues affecting young people.
This is only the beginning. We realize that the future lies within
our young people, within future generations. For this reason we
have combined all these tools so that the future for the country and
for future generations will look bright.
We have also made some headway in youth entrepreneurship
programs that have helped young people acquire the proper skills,
not to mention the important measure taken this summer of
creating over 44,500 jobs through our summer job action plan and
the spinoff from the Canada employment centre for students which
was over 175,000. The commitment of the government as far as
youth policy is concerned is crystal clear.
(1830)
Mrs. Bonnie Hickey (St. John's East, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, a
number of years ago Nellie Nippard was stabbed 33 times by her
husband and left for dead. By some miracle Ms. Nippard survived
and today works with the women's organizations in Newfoundland.
Just two years ago another woman, Brenda Young, suffered
multiple stab wounds at the hands of her boyfriend while her two
young children slept in the other room. Unfortunately Ms. Young
did not survive her attack.
Both of these women are from my home province of
Newfoundland. One of them lived in my riding of St. John's East.
The violence they endured was extreme but unfortunately it is not
rare.
There are thousands of women in Newfoundland and across the
country who live in fear and are subject to violence. In spite of the
good work and good will which exists across the country for
enhancing the security and safety of women, the violence persists.
Statistics show that more than half of all women in the country
have experienced at least one incident of violence, as defined under
the Criminal Code, in their adult lives. Twenty-five per cent of
women have experienced violence at the hands of a current or past
marital partner. On average, a woman is killed every six days in
Canada, often in a private home or by someone she knows.
Women make up 59 per cent of all homicide victims killed in a
domestic relationship. Forty-two per cent of women surveyed in
1993 reported they felt unsafe walking in their neighbourhood after
dark, over four times the figure of men.
Despite the statistics, some cling to the belief that the problem is
not that bad or dismiss it as a women's issue. This problem needs to
be addressed. The eradication of violence against women can be
accomplished only with the full partnership of all members of
society.
This can no longer remain a women's issue. Violence against
women affects us all. When women are abused there are costs to
the victim, the family and to society. Taxpayers pay significant
sums of money in medical costs for doctors, hospital emergency
wards and medical health clinics; in criminal justice, costs for
police services, courts and corrections; and in social service, costs
for welfare, housing and daycare. As well, employers pay for
violence against women in higher absentee costs and low
productivity rates.
The most recent example of how violence against women affects
more than just the victim was raised in the Newfoundland Select
Committee on Children's Interests. The committee has been
holding public hearings across the province. It heard from the
administrator of the Iris Kirby House, a women's shelter in my
riding, about how devastating domestic violence can be for our
children.
The committee heard how children who witness family violence
show signs of low self-esteem, which leads to a lack of
self-confidence and a feeling of insecurity. As these children get
older, depression, withdrawal and pessimism set in, leading to
suicidal tendencies, drug dependency and emotional instability.
These children often do poorly in school because they have
difficulty concentrating, are frequently absent and show
behavioural problems. Also, research shows that children who
witness violence in the home are more likely to live in a violent
relationship in their adult lives.
We are approaching December 6, which some may not realize is
the national day of remembrance and action on violence against
women. It is a time for us to pause and remember the 14 women
who died tragically at the Ecole Polytechnique in Montreal six
years ago. As important as December 6 is, we need more than just
one day of awareness about violence against women. We need to
take action on a daily basis.
16576
We need to continue to provide support and funding for the
various women's shelters and treatment programs which provide
cost effective support and services.
I know the government has taken action over the past two years
to address the issue of violence against women, but I would like the
parliamentary secretary to assure my constituents and all
Canadians that this is and will continue to be a priority of our
government.
Hon. Sheila Finestone (Secretary of State (Multiculturalism)
(Status of Women), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for
articulating the situation very well.
I assure her that in the past two years the government has taken
many concrete and positive steps toward reducing and preventing
violence against women and children. Our strategy is multi-faceted
just like the problem of violence which is particularly costly
socially, psychologically and economically to our society.
[Translation]
We also took a number of legislative measures, starting with the
firearms bill.
I wish to urge the members of the other place to pass this bill
immediately. They cannot remain insensitive to the distress call
sounded by the families of the victims of events at the École
polytechnique and by the individuals my hon. colleague just
mentioned. Two thirds of the people killed by their partners are
women and one third of all victims of homicide are women.
[English]
We have introduced amendments to the Criminal Code to make
peace bonds more effective in keeping abusers away from women
and children. As of January 1, 1996 Bill C-41 will require tougher
sentences for crimes involving abuse of trust or those motivated by
gender based hate.
The government supports community based solutions. For
example, more than 2,000 projects have been funded through the
family violence initiative, which has been extended for another
year. Status of Women Canada has made available community kits
on violence against women, a step by step guide to community
action. I hope many communities will write in to get copies of it
and use it, as many have already done.
At the recent fourth United Nations world conference on women
in Beijing Canada was active in securing strong wording on
violence against women. The final agreement states that violence is
never a private matter, that the state has an obligation to legislate
against violence against women and to prosecute and punish those
who commit violence.
In the interest of our women and our children and the men in our
society we must reduce violence in our society. In Canada the
government is working to fulfil that obligation.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: The motion to adjourn the House is now
deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands
adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m.
(The House adjourned at 6.38 p.m.)