CONTENTS
Thursday, April 18, 1996
Bill C-27. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed
adopted 1625
Bill C-266. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed
adopted 1625
Bill C-267. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed
adopted 1625
Bill C-15. Consideration resumed of motion for thirdreading 1626
Division on motion deferred 1626
Bill C-11. Motion for third reading 1626
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 1634
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 1644
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 1652
Mr. Mills (Red Deer) 1655
Mr. Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury) 1655
Ms. Brown (Oakville-Milton) 1655
Mr. Leroux (Shefford) 1656
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yellowhead) 1657
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 1659
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 1659
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 1661
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 1661
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 1661
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 1661
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 1662
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 1662
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 1664
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 1664
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 1664
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 1664
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 1665
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 1665
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 1665
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge) 1666
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 1666
Bill C-11. Consideration resumed of motion for thirdreading and of
the amendment 1666
Mr. Leroux (Shefford) 1672
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead) 1677
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead) 1680
Mr. Leblanc (Longueuil) 1681
Mr. Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean) 1683
PRIVATE MEMBER'S BUSINESS
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 1689
1625
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Thursday, April 18, 1996
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in
both official languages, the government's response to seven
petitions.
* * *
[
Translation]
Hon. Marcel Massé (for the Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-27, an act
to amend the Criminal Code (child prostitution, child sex tourism,
criminal harassment and female genital mutilation).
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Raymond Bonin (Nickel Belt, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-266, an act to amend the Competition Act
(protection of whistle-blowers).
He said: Madam Speaker, I stand today to introduce a bill
entitled an act to amend the Competition Act (protection of
whistle-blowers). This bill is about consumer protection, the right
and protection of employees who refuse to partake in illegal
anti-competitive activities sponsored by their employers which
hurt the consumer. It is about improving the investigation and
prosecution of companies that engage in price fixing and price
gouging.
Consumers continue to be victimized by market-wide
fluctuations in the price of gasoline. Both levels of government say
that they sympathize with consumers but add they cannot prove
price fixing. Consumers know that price fixing exists and demand
that governments stand up to protect their interests. This bill
provides us with the evidence gathering tools needed to expose
how gas prices are really set and put an end to the practice of
gouging the consumer at the pumps.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
Mr. Dan McTeague (Ontario, Lib.) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-267, an act to amend the Competition Act
(gasoline pricing).
He said: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to see that my colleague
moved a similar motion to mine before I had an opportunity to
present this bill.
The bill amends the Competition Act to require oil companies to
give 30-days' notice of any increase in the price at which they sell
gasoline to gasoline retail distributors if the increase is more than 1
per cent.
Such notice is to be given to the minister responsible for
enforcing the act and shall include the effective date of the price
increase and the reason or reasons for it.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)
* * *
(1010 )
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
>
1626
1626
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
Translation]
The House resumed from April 17 consideration of the motion
that Bill C-15, an act to amend, enact and repeal certain laws
relating to financial institutions, be read the third time and passed.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is the House
ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those in
favour will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): All those
opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): In my opinion
the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Call in the
members.
And the division bells having rung:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Pursuant to
Standing Order 76(8), the recorded division on the motion stands
deferred until Monday.
* * *
[
English]
Hon. Marcel Massé (for the Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.) moved that Bill C-11, an act to establish the
Department of Human Resources Development and to amend and
repeal certain related acts, be read the third time and passed.
Hon. Roger Simmons (Burin-St. George's, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to say a few words
about Bill C-11, an act to establish the Department of Human
Resources Development.
The purpose of this bill is to ask Parliament to formalize the
existence of the new department, which has already shown itself to
be a pragmatic, efficient and effective entity. There is no hidden
agenda here which will disappoint some of my friends in the
Reform Party. It is business as usual.
Mr. Stinson: You can fool some of the people some of the time
but not all the people all of the time.
Mr. Simmons: The member is standing proof of that.
The bill confirms the minister's responsibility to develop the
human resources that fall under the mandate of the Government of
Canada. It does nothing to extend or to diminish the minister's
powers, nor does the legislation introduce any substantive changes
to government policies or programs.
As members will know, the government is committed to an
effective and efficient operation.
(1015 )
At the time of structuring it was realized that encompassing all
human resources in one department would better serve the needs of
Canadians. To that end, Labour Canada is now part of human
resources. The bill provides for the appointment of a minister of
labour. However, so there is no confusion, appointment of a
minister of labour does not in any way mean further reorganization
of the department.
During the current restructuring of the Canadian economy the
government is placing a high priority on issues such as labour
relations, occupational safety and health and workplace standards
as well as other issues that have a profound effect on Canada's
labour markets.
These concerns are in keeping with the Government of Canada's
responsibility for labour relations in several key areas which are
under federal jurisdiction, including transportation, banking and
communications. As well, the government is signatory to a number
of international labour agreements, hence the need for a role under
this department.
It is the responsibility of the Minister of Labour to ensure these
issues receive the attention they reserve. With that in mind,
modernization of the Canadian Labour Code is one of Labour
Canada's key undertakings.
Prior to the reorganization of the government, employment and
immigration came under the same roof. That is no longer the case
with this new bill and this new department.
The former Canada Employment and Immigration Commission
will become the Canada Employment Insurance Commission, and
the commission will continue its mandate with regard to policies
affecting employment, labour market conditions and revitalization
of the unemployment insurance program.
That brings me to an issue I particularly want to address under
the aegis of this bill. This is not a bill particularly about employ-
1627
ment insurance. It is a bill about a department that has
responsibility for the proposals now making their way through the
system. Within a few days the Standing Committee on Human
Resources Development will report to the House on its
recommendations concerning the proposals tabled on December 1
by the now Minister of Foreign Affairs.
I have said many times publicly that I believe these proposals
constitute an overall improvement in what we have had in terms of
employment insurance. However, there have been some concerns
expressed by my constituents and by people in Atlantic Canada
generally, including by me.
I have expressed concerns and continue to have concerns about
the so-called intensity rule, punishing people who through no fault
of their own must have more frequent access to unemployment
insurance benefits than other people. It is a fact of life. It is a
characteristic of this country that there are a number of industries
which by definition are seasonal, resource extractions certainly
being in that category.
Although not exclusively, the Atlantic provinces are very much
identified with these types of industries; mineral extraction in
Labrador and parts of the island of Newfoundland and other parts
of Atlantic Canada, and forestry and fishery. All three of these have
seasonal implications.
What would the country be today without access to the vast
resources of Atlantic Canada? I submit that the manufacturing
complex of central Canada would be less vibrant without the
resource sectors of other parts of the country.
For these reasons and for others we have never made any
apology about the seasonal nature of our work activity. While we
make no apologies, we wish it were otherwise in terms of the
individuals concerned. If we gave any people in my riding, and I
suspect I reflect the views of elsewhere in Atlantic Canada, the
choice between unemployment insurance benefits and full time, 12
month work, they would take the latter.
(1020 )
It bears repeating because people who have not lived the
experience in Atlantic Canada tend to generalize. There is still a
generalization out there that Newfoundlanders and Atlantic
Canadians are a bunch of lazy people who work for ten weeks so
they can get their stamps and sit around drinking beer for the other
42 weeks.
An hon. member: Get rid of the GST and create jobs.
Mr. Simmons: Do not change the issue. I want to focus onthis one.
That stereotype is thrown at me from time to time. The truth is
there are more native born Newfoundlanders living outside
Newfoundland today than living in Newfoundland. There are
579,000 people in Newfoundland and there are over 700,000
Newfoundlanders living outside Newfoundland.
They have left Newfoundland, almost without exception, to
chase jobs. They are good workers. They have good work ethics.
We find them on the CP tracks in Saskatchewan or on the tar sands
project in Fort McMurray in great numbers.
There are thousands of them working on the Great Lakes. In my
constituency alone there are more than 8,000 Newfoundlanders
who sail the Great Lakes six to eight months a year. They go home
for a week or a month to stay with their families and then they
return to their work. They work in the forestry industry in Nova
Scotia. They make up a disproportionately large percentage of the
Canadian Armed Forces. Newfoundlanders have gone elsewhere
because that is where the work is. I have digressed to make a point.
I was talking about some of the concerns I have with the
employment insurance legislation. One has to do with the intensity
rule. Another has to do with the method of determining benefits,
the so-called divisor method. I have made my views known to the
appropriate people, including those on the committee.
Eligibility rules for new entrants is another concern.
Another concern is the clawback after $39,000. I have said to
both the minister and to members of the committee we have to be
careful that in applying that clawback we do not unwittingly
introduce a disincentive. If time allowed I would give the House a
few examples. However, if members look closely at the proposal
they will find that the clawback, as laudable as it seems at the
moment, has a disincentive built into it. There are circumstances
where it is worth the person's while, in strict financial terms, to sit
at home rather than to earn too much money because by so doing
they would adversely affect their level of benefits down the road.
I had another concern about the hearings which are concluding
today. As far as Newfoundland is concerned, it is the province with
the highest rate of unemployment in all of Canada. Yet when the
all-party committee decided to call witnesses it called only three
from Newfoundland. What is more, all three witnesses were
business people. They were from the St. John's Board of Trade and
those kinds of groups. They have their point of view, but it is the
point of view of the employer. If we are to have an equitable
employment insurance scheme when this is all over we ought to
have the input of not only the employer but the employee.
In the case of Newfoundland, the committee was to hear three
witnesses from the employer side and not a single witness from the
worker side. That was changed at the last minute, not completely to
my satisfaction, but at least we got the Newfoundland and Labrador
1628
Federation of Labour on the list at the last minute. The decision
was made to hear that group this week. There ought to have been
others to provide more of a balance.
In fairness to my colleagues on the committee from all parties, I
understand that in general if we look at the mix of witnesses who
have appeared before the committee from across the country there
has been a balance of both worker and employer representation. As
far as Newfoundland is concerned, that balance was not reflected. I
put that on the record.
I digressed a bit, but nevertheless I wanted to speak generally on
the issue of this bill and one of the current active files of the new
department, the employment insurance proposal.
(1025)
I thought I would give my friend the opportunity to speak.
Mr. Stinson: No, I was listening to you.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I might be able to provide an
opportunity for that member to speak at a later time.
Mr. Simmons: Mr. Speaker, I assure my friend from
Okanagan-Shuswap and all other hon. members there is complete
harmony between overall government priorities and the priorities
of the new Department of Human Resources Development.
As the government made abundantly clear in the throne speech,
the policies of the government are aimed at fostering a healthy
economic climate, and we are beginning to see some signs of that.
Look at the indicators, interest rates, foreign exchange, the trade
balance and so on. I think we are on the right road but we are not
there yet.
Mr. Stinson: Bankruptcies.
Mr. Simmons: The member wants to talk about bankruptcies.
Nobody takes any comfort in the alarmingly high number of
personal and corporate bankruptcies in the country. He might want
to look at a correlation between the number of personal
bankruptcies and the applications of right wing policies. The two
go hand in hand. We cannot in one breath decry the number of
bankruptcies and in the next keep saying ``sock it to them, sock it to
them''. The two are related.
I remember from grade seven a delightful poem from the old
beckoning trail of literature, that blue beckoning trail. It was called
``The Big Rock Candy Mountains.'' The basic thesis of the poem
was that everything was free. One of the lines was ``prison walls
were made of paper and cigarettes grew on trees''. I think for the
writer cigarettes were supposed to be a kind of morsel to be sought
after. The context of the poem was that everything was free, you
did not have to pay for anything at all.
My friend from Okanagan-Shuswap said get rid of the tax.
Theoretically a government could get rid of all taxes. However,
certain consequences would follow. We would not be able to pay
the member's salary.
Mr. Stinson: That would be fine with me. You would not get
your pension. If we did not need government, that would be a
beauty.
Mr. Simmons: Now is he upset. Now is he listening with his
lips. He suddenly realizes that if we cut out all the taxes it might
impact on him.
Mr. Stinson: I would be able to do something useful.
Mr. Simmons: No party in the House, whatever its stripe and
however loud its members yell, said if it were elected there would
be no taxes.
An hon. member: Some said they would eliminate the GST.
(1030 )
Mr. Simmons: If they want, we can talk about some, including
the leader of the Reform Party, who said one thing during the
election and about three or four things since on the GST.
I have my other speech here. I wanted to give it the day the
opposition had the motion on the GST but we ran out of time. I will
give my GST speech at the right time. I will lay out how consistent
the leader of the Reform Party has been on the subject of the GST.
His basic speech goes like this: Get rid of it, keep it, get rid of it,
keep it, get rid of it, keep it. That is basically what the gentleman
who is the leader of the third party has said on that issue.
If they want to talk about GST, I believe Mr. Johnny Cochrane
has something he would like to say.
Mr. Stinson: That is the Liberal two step. We are all used to that.
Mr. Hart: What did John Nunziata say?
[Translation]
Mr. Bellehumeur: Talk to the Speaker, not to the Reformers. He
has nothing to say.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Colleagues, with the greatest
of respect to all members in the Chamber, I would hope that the
interventions would be made through the Chair. Of course the
Chair by virtue of our rules can only recognize one speaker at a
time.
In this case, in accordance with Standing Order 74 the first three
speakers have 40 minutes without questions or comments. By
unanimous consent, if you choose you can ask questions of the
1629
member speaking. In the meantime if it goes on during the
discourse of his speech obviously we will all have to question as to
how much order we might have in this Chamber.
Mr. Simmons: Mr. Speaker, I might have missed something. I
understood I had the right to refer to other members of the House.
Each time I have done so, I have done it in the third person by their
riding name. If the member for Berthier-Montcalm, our very own
Johnny Cochrane, has any problems with that he should rise on a
point of order.
If my colleagues from the Reform want to interject, and I am not
objecting to it, I understand that is within the spirit of debate in this
House. If I need the protection of the Chair from the member for
Berthier-Montcalm I should be the first to beg for it, but I did not
think I was out of order. If I did not refer to the Chair when I should
have, I apologize, but I thought in all cases I referred to the Chair in
the third person.
If the Chair gets waylaid by Johnny Cochrane, that is the Chair's
problem, not mine. In any event I will try and do it another way.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): It is obviously not my
purpose nor my role to engage in debate. I assure you I will defend
the interests of the Chair if it should ever be required on behalf of
each and every member of the House. This is not a point that is
related to any specific member. I am just in a very general way
asking for the co-operation of all the members in the Chamber to
make their interventions through the Chair and not directly across
the floor to one another.
Mr. Simmons: My comment was not directly aimed at the Chair
either. It was just to say, Sir, that I thought I was doing exactly that
and I asked the Chair if I had strayed somewhere to let me know
where it was.
I was trying to assure all the hon. members, the agitated ones and
otherwise, that the government and the new department are in
complete harmony, as John Crosbie used to say, cheek to cheek,
jowl to jowl on this one in terms of the mandate of the government
as a whole, its overall priority and the priority of the new
department. The throne speech made that clear. I was then
digressing in talking about how the economy is in slightly healthier
shape than it has been and it is moving along. It is not there yet, but
it is moving along.
When I began to talk about how good things were beginning to
get, that made my friends in the Reform Party a little nervous and
they decided to throw, as we would say in Newfoundland, a red
herring into the process and started talking about the GST and that
kind of thing. At that point I pointed out to the member that if we
cut out all those taxes we could not pay his salary. That is when he
had the tantrum and that is where we were when we had the
procedural interruptions. Now we can go on from there.
I have a speech. I am on page eight of the speech. I have not read
the first seven yet but I am on page eight.
(1035)
I want to tell the Reform member that page eight begins as
follows: ``That too is HRDC's number one priority''. We have to go
back to page seven to find out what ``that too'' refers to. Aha,
``fostering a healthy climate'', where I came in just a minute ago.
That is clearly HRDC's number one priority. Let him debate that. It
is that and maintaining a strong social security system for all
Canadians. These are the two priorities of this new department: the
healthy economic situation which translates into jobs, jobs, jobs
and maintaining a strong social security system for Canadians.
To fulfil those two objectives, the new department is continually
developing policies and programs designed to reduce poverty and
to help unemployed workers return to the labour force as quickly as
possible.
By making the development of all human resources the
responsibility of one department, it facilitates an integrated,
co-ordinated approach to help Canadians achieve their full
potential. It also provides a structure for the Government of Canada
to work with its provincial and territorial partners, its partners in
business and labour, its partners in the educational institutions and
its partners in the community.
HRDC is bringing together the very strands of our social
programs to ensure that they meet the needs of individual
Canadians and the nation as a whole. Social policy is about
investing in people, helping people develop their skills, helping
them enjoy rewarding lives and becoming contributing members of
their respective communities. Nowhere does HRDC emphasize that
policy more than with our youth.
We all recall that creating hope and opportunity for young
Canadian men and women was one of the key goals singled out in
the speech from the throne. Youth unemployment, Canadians under
25, is around 16 per cent, which is just more than one and one-half
times the national average.
I am sure every member of this House will agree that Canadian
youth are the nation's greatest resource. They need and deserve our
assistance to complete their education and attain that crucial first
job. That reason alone justifies creating the Department of Human
Resources Development.
HRD is responsible for administering youth services Canada,
youth internship Canada, the student summer job action program
and the Canada student loans program. I trust that hon. members
can clearly see the key roles the department plays in the lives of
young people across the country.
By amalgamating all the programs that address human
resources, by providing a single, coherent mandate, the
government is clarifying the identity and responsibilities of the
new department. This is extremely important for the morale of the
depart-
1630
ment's employees and more important for the confidence of its
clients across the country.
Through further consolidation of social and labour market
programs, HRDC will sharpen the government's focus on
developing Canada's human resources. Part of that can be seen in
the department's responsibility for the reform of the
unemployment insurance program. UI is being renewed to address
1990s realities through both income support and active
employment measures.
As I was saying earlier, that reform is long overdue. I support the
overall thrust of that reform of unemployment insurance. I have
said earlier in my speech today that I have certain concerns about
particular aspects: the claw back, the intensity, the divisor and the
entrance requirements particularly for new entrants. These are
matters that have been canvassed pretty fully with the new Minister
of Human Resources Development, my friend from New
Brunswick, and also with members of the standing committee
which will report very soon. We will then have an opportunity to
see what amendments are going to be made to the proposal.
(1040 )
Based on my conversations with the minister and members of
the standing committee, I am confident the concerns which I and
others have raised on this issue have been heard and are being dealt
with. I think we will see that reflected in the report of the Standing
Committee on Human Resources Development. The net result is
we will have a considerably improved employment insurance
scheme over that which was tabled in December by the former
minister.
Canadians need and deserve the best possible services from their
government which is the crux of Bill C-11. Canadians will get
those services through many HRDC initiatives, not the least of
which will be the department's new service delivery network. At
the heart of the new network will be about 300 human resources
centres, now known as Canada Employment Centres, spread
strategically across the country. The centres will provide a broad
cross-section of client services.
The establishment of Human Resources Development Canada is
absolutely necessary if the government is to fulfil its mandate of
generating economic growth, job creation and protecting social
security programs.
I can only repeat what I said at the beginning that Bill C-11 is
essentially an administrative bill. There is nothing earth shattering
here. There are no new mandates being asked for, given or taken
back. The bill does not deal with substantive issues of reform but
with consequential issues arising from the efficient merger of
various departments and programs. For that reason I encourage
members to support passage of the legislation which would enable
HRDC and the government to get on with the task of better serving
Canadians.
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, despite all
of the government's denials and its repetitive tune that it is only a
technical bill to establish a department, Bill C-96 in fact broadens
the federal government's constitutionally recognized powers.
Bill C-96 broadens the powers assumed by the federal
government through its power to spend. For the first time, what the
government did in fact do is spelled out on each line of the bill as
well as between the lines.
In fact, by establishing this new Department of Human
Resources Development, the government eloquently confirms its
takeover of the responsibilities and powers that originally lay at the
core of provincial accountability under the Canadian Constitution.
This core of provincial accountability was undermined only by
exceptions that should have been enshrined in the Constitution, be
it pensions or unemployment insurance.
(1045)
Once its foot was in the door, the government threw the door
wide open and, through its ever growing spending powers, invaded
the place. That is what Bill C-11 is all about.
This bill clearly expresses the centralizing will of a federal
government that tries to pass itself off as the chief strategist on
human resources development in Canada. It would take over the
management, in the broad sense of the word, of the vast area of
human resources development.
In a transformed Canada, we can understand the other provinces
agreeing to different constitutional arrangements. The problem is
that, for Quebec, these arrangements are totally unacceptable; we
cannot in any way agree to the wording of Bill C-11 without going
against all the constitutional debates that have kept so many
generations of Quebecers awake at night.
We respect the fact that the other provinces and the federal
government may make different arrangements. Quebec, however,
cannot in any way agree to let the federal government assume full
control over the area of human resources development, which, in a
broad sense, touches on all aspects of social life, including training,
youth-as my colleague across the way just pointed out-seniors,
children, women, the unemployed and the people with jobs. The
fact that it had been made very clear, in an award of the Privy
Council for instance, that labour relations comes under the
jurisdiction of the provinces did not stop the government from
interfering to an extent that considerably exceeded its powers in an
area which is the very heart of labour relations, addressing issues
such as the hours of work and work week reduction in a study it
recently commissioned.
1631
Again, we have no problem with the other provinces looking
to make other arrangements, but Quebec, through its deliberating
bodies and institutions, unanimously rejected this bill.
Had Kim Campbell, who was the Prime Minister of Canada for a
short time, not amalgamated under the same umbrella several
social-oriented departments, the federal government would not be
in the situation it is today. Probably preparing to launch the kind of
reform the Liberal government is carrying out now, former Prime
Minister Campbell had acted according to her senior officials'
recommendations. I take it that they are the ones who develop
policy, because the government has changed but policy has
remained the same.
After the former Prime Minister merged several departments,
the Liberal government, instead of straightening things out, started
where the Conservatives had left off when they were voted out of
office, very shortly after the merger took place. It is important to
mention this connection.
(1050)
By merging different departments, none of which had originally
been given the powers set out in this act, which was only supposed
to make them into one department, the government had the means
to carry out its proposed social reform, now abandoned I guess, but
whose few aspects that did get implemented certainly hint at the
direction the government is taking and will continue to follow.
It is a good idea to read over the main clauses, which caused all
the organizations and institutions concerned in Quebec to object.
Clause 6 reads as follows:
6. The powers, duties and functions of the Minister extend to and include all
matters over which Parliament has jurisdiction relating to the development of
the human resources of Canada not by law assigned to any other Minister,
department, board or agency of the Government of Canada, and are to be
exercised with the objective of enhancing employment, encouraging equality
and promoting social security.
It is understandable that a country may have a problem with the
provinces claiming that they have such powers when the central
government claims to have the same powers. This is a mess that
clearly shows how inefficient Canada is in these areas as compared
to other other countries.
This next clause speaks volumes:
For the purpose of facilitating the formulation, coordination and
implementation of any program or policy relating to the powers, duties and
functions referred to in section 6, the Minister may enter into agreements with a
province-
But does it stop there? No. Earlier bills did provide that the
minister could enter into agreements with a province. This makes
sense.
However, it goes on to say ``or a group of provinces''. This too
makes sense, but again it should be possible for a province that
pulls out get compensation for the funds that it would otherwise be
denied. As you can see, this is the stuff of constitutional debates.
And I read on: ``agencies of provinces, financial institutions and
such other persons or bodies as the Minister considers
appropriate''.
This clause is far reaching. It indicates the government's firm
intention to exercise the power to plan, organize, and control, in
other words to manage the human resources development in
Canada.
I will read another clause, which complements this one, before
moving on to the consequences.
The Commission shall exercise such powers and perform such duties and
functions
(a) in relation to unemployment insurance, employment services and the
development and utilization of labour market resources, as are required by
the Minister or by or pursuant to an Act of Parliament;
Apart from the twisted French, which talks about maximizing
human means-as opposed to inhuman means, perhaps-there is
much twisting of the Cconstitution.
(b) in relation to other matters, as are required by order of the Governor in
Council or by or pursuant to an Act of Parliament.
In short, the unemployment commission can get any power it
wants besides those included in its original constituent act, because
it is being changed.
With this bill, the federal government will have the means to
pursue a centralizing policy, in spite of the soothing remarks made,
among others, by the youngest and newest minister, recently sent to
the House in a byelection, the member for
Saint-Laurent-Cartierville.
(1055)
Reading the description of the main elements of this bill, one can
understand why Quebec institutions, agencies, and bodies are very
strongly opposed to this measure. It was to be expected.
On the union front, for instance, a communiqué issued by Henri
Massé, the secretary-general of the Quebec federation of labour,
reads as follows: ``We do not want Ottawa to interfere any longer in
this issue or to ignore us in setting parallel structures. Quebec has
set up its own preferred partnership structure in that sector, the
Société québécoise de développement de la main-d'oeuvre. There
is a broad consensus to the effect that Quebec must have sole
responsibility over work force adaptation and vocational training
policies on its territory, and must consequently patriate the federal
budgets allocated to these programs. Even the Conseil du patronat
agrees with the unions''.
1632
A release from the Canadian Institute of Adult Education reads
as follows: ``With this bill, the federal government shows a blatant
lack of respect for the aspirations of the provinces, particularly
those of Quebec in the fields of education and manpower training
and development. Indeed, clauses 6 and 20 of the bill-the ones I
quoted-leave absolutely no doubt as to the centralizing intentions
of the federal government in these sectors''.
The Société québécoise de développement de la main-d'oeuvre,
which includes all the major partners in Quebec, also strongly
condemned this bill.
This is not the first time that the central government attempts to
set up a structure in that sector that is similar to the one put in place
by Quebec. The federalist Liberal government of Robert Bourassa,
through its manpower minister, Mr. Bourbeau, corresponded with
Mr. Valcourt who, at the time, wanted to reach various groups and
organizations through such a network by awarding lucrative
contracts, in an attempt to invade Quebec's jurisdiction.
Mr. Bourbeau who, as I said, is a federalist, strongly opposed
such an idea. He said, in 1991: ``Quebec does indeed recognize the
crying need for it to define its own manpower policies, to establish
its priorities with respect to manpower development in close
conjunction with its partners in the labour market, and then to set
up programs tailored to the needs it has set as priorities and to
manage them through an agency that would call for input from
those partners''.
Mr. Bourbeau continues: ``Already, Mrs. McDougall-who was
Mr. Valcourt's predecessor-would have liked the Government of
Quebec to negotiate an agreement with the federal government, in
line with the Canadian labour force development strategy.
Personally, I have asked that bilateral negotiations be conducted, in
the hope that they would lead to an administrative arrangement
under which the federal government would have transferred to
Quebec the budgets that it normally allocates to manpower
programs, including the moneys taken from the unemployment
insurance fund, which come from the contributions of employers
and workers''. Mr. Bourbeau is referring to correspondence that
was exchanged before 1991. What did Mrs. McDougall answer?
Barbara McDougall indicated that the federal government was
linking Quebec's claims with what? With the constitutional review
process.
(1100)
This exchange of correspondence forms the very substance of
Bill C-11. The current federal government, instead of respecting
Quebec's will, is proceeding unilaterally like none of the previous
governments had dared to.
They indeed followed in the steps of the Conservatives, but they
did even worse, like in many areas such as in the reform of social
programs.
Further on, what does Mr. Bourbeau say about the groups,
organizations or persons with whom the central government
wanted to enter into agreements? He says this: ``I understand now
that the employment and immigration commission has decided not
to follow up on the agreements I had made with the previous holder
of the employment and immigration portfolio. Indeed, your
commission is offering to so-called co-ordination groups grants for
all kinds of projects directly or indirectly related to manpower
training. Those co-ordination groups are employer associations,
community groups, chambers of commerce, economic
development organizations, educational institutions.''
He adds: ``These projects are questionable. These initiatives,
contrary to the commitments made, contribute to creating new
groups or to expanding the mandate of existing groups''. And he
concludes: ``This is doing indirectly what the government had
made a commitment not to do directly''.
He adds further on: ``All objective observers find that Canada
and Quebec are falling disturbingly behind compared with our
main competitors''. That was in 1991; we are now in 1996, and the
Liberal federal government, instead of dealing with the problem
and solving it, keeps on procrastinating, even after the referendum
where, short of 52,000 votes only, Quebec did not achieve
sovereignty.
The general outcry in Quebec, far from being surprising, is the
result of a historical movement that cannot be stopped. However,
how did the human resources development committee react to
these pressures from Quebec? Let me give you an example. I asked
that major institutions, major representatives of Quebec be heard
on this issue. The committee refused. What groups were these? The
Société québécoise de développement de la main-d'oeuvre, which
includes representatives of the business sector, unions, citizens'
committees, municipalities and government. The Canadian
Institute of Adult Education was another. The Quebec employment
development minister also asked to appear before the committee,
and labour organizations, the Association des manufacturiers du
Québec, the Fédération des professeurs d'université, the
Mouvement Desjardins, among others, have made the same
request. The committee refused.
At the second reading stage, I moved an amendment in the
House which said this: ``That all words following the word 'That'
be deleted and replaced with the following: 'this House declines to
give second reading to Bill C-96, an act to establish the Department
of Human Resources Development and to amend and repeal certain
related acts, because the principle of the bill includes no provision
requiring the minister, as part of that person's powers, to award full
and entire financial compensation to any province wishing to
exercise, fully and alone, jurisdiction over human resources
development'''.
1633
(1105)
Had the government been willing to send a positive message in
the aftermath of the referendum, it was easy to do so. It could have
recognized in this bill the right to opt out in this matter which is
constitutional in nature as I have demonstrated.
The new throne speech, the one delivered on February 27, does
not leave any doubt about the intent of the government. What does
the Prime Minister say in the throne speech? ``The government will
not use its spending power to create new shared-cost programs in
areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction without the consent of a
majority of the provinces''. Any new program will be designed so
that non-participating provinces will be compensated, provided
they establish equivalent or comparable initiatives in a provincial
area of jurisdiction''. Is that what the so-called spirit of
decentralization of this central government is all about?
Given the way this bill was drafted and designed, it cannot be
effectively amended, since it deals with constitutional issues,
except through the amendment that we put forward at second
reading and that was negatived by a majority in the House.
We are dealing here with an area of exclusive provincial
jurisdiction, but the government flatly refuses to recognize this
exclusive jurisdiction. It is turning its spending power into a legal
and legislative power in order to interfere without considering the
rights of the provinces. Nowhere in the various acts establishing
the former departments that were consolidated was the right of the
central government to reach agreements with stakeholders other
than the provinces recognized. There is something in the vocational
training legislation, but the government only undertakes to consult
the provinces, nothing more.
That augurs ill. Despite its expressed will to recognize the right
of the provinces, the federal government is giving itself a lot of
leeway in the bill concerning unemployment insurance reform,
except in one very narrow area, that is the vocational training field,
which is already under Quebec's jurisdiction.
(1110)
Time and time again, we have had some very troubling
discussions in this House, where the Prime Minister himself, after
showing some openness where labour training and adjustment are
concerned, changed his mind. He very clearly stated on several
occasions that Canada would not eliminate the so-called proactive
measures, such as the labour adjustment measures.
It was only during a scrum, after several days of heated
exchanges in this House, that, recognizingd the consensus in
Quebec, the Minister of Human Resources Development asked to
reopen negotiations. But what he had said before did not leave us
with much hope.
I would add that, as it is, the bill gives the government the power
to do as it pleases in the provinces' jurisdiction with the money
collected from workers and businesses and, in some cases, with
everybody's money. It will be up to the government to decide if
there is an agreement, as we all deeply wish, but also to decide for
how long and in what specific area the agreement will apply.
In view of all other areas covered by the name of this
Department of Human Resources Development and of the way the
clauses are formulated, the central government will be able to
interfere in these areas on account of its spending power.
This has not been often stated in this House, but the spending
power is not entrenched in the Constitution. I still have to use this
word. While the efficiency of this program could be ensured in
Quebec through coordination and management, control and
planning by our own institutions and maximizing scarce resources,
the funds are not used in the most efficient way because, at least in
Quebec, the central government insists on being the one to plan,
organize, manage and control.
Indeed, the government can say that it will sign contracts with
this group, this organization or that person. The government is the
one to decide the terms of the contract. This is a most efficient and
rigorous way of setting national standards. The government will
decide which needy group will get some money, regardless of the
strategy, priorities and conditions set by Quebec. This is nonsense.
I read earlier a letter from 1991 referring to discussions with
Mrs. McDougall that go back well before that date. As you can see,
Quebec is not moving forward but backwards, because, in 1991,
Mr. Valcourt did not dare to go ahead in spite of Quebec's
opposition. He did not dare ignore the agreement in place.
(1115)
Unfortunately, we must face the fact that Canadian federalism,
since its inception, has always developed in the same direction, that
of centralization. Again, it is quite possible and understandable,
and we have nothing against it, that the other provinces and the
central government decide to do things differently. If the other
provinces do not care about what is in the Constitution, as long as
they find the agreements adequate, it is fine by us.
I often noticed that the other provinces do not feel threatened by
the central government. For instance, they did not feel threatened
when the government passed Bill C-28 in 1994. I am sure that this
legislation can be challenged under the Constitution because it
enables the central government to designate those who will set out
the conditions for granting scholarships to students. This has very
substantial implications on the type of students that will enrol in
1634
colleges and universities, i.e. those who can afford to study. It is a
very serious issue for the provinces, but they did not protest.
The right of withdrawal became much more stringent, new
conditions were added to it; the Bloc Quebecois objected to these
conditions, but the provinces did not protest. That the central
government or a financial institution can designate those who will
set out the conditions that the students will have to meet in order to
get a scholarship, I can respect that, but in Quebec, it cannot work
this way.
In this bill, there was an historical recognition of Quebec's right
to opt out with compensation. This right is nowhere to be seen in
the bill. In Bill C-96, the government gives itself the power to
decide alone how the Department of Human Resources will use the
money. With the groups, there is no condition, no consultation. The
government decides.
We are even a long way from the situation at the beginning of the
1960s. I have done so already, but I will read one more time the
conclusions of a document presented by René Lévesque at the
January 1966 federal-provincial conference on poverty. I will go
over it rapidly in conclusion.
Here is what it said: ``The establishment of a real economic and
social development policy is now urgent. This policy must be
integrated, flexible in its application and provide for a social
security system centered on the family and based on the right to
assistance suited to the needs. For efficiency and constitutional
reasons, the Government of Quebec is the only one which can and
should, within its territory, conceive and implement such a policy.
Consequently, Quebec cannot accept that the Government of
Canada assume this responsibility. Quebec does not, however,
exclude interprovincial cooperation and mutual consultation''.
(1120)
Mr. Lévesque went on to say: ``The economic and social
development policy that we are developing will integrate a social
policy, a regional development policy, a manpower policy, a health
policy, a housing policy, a job training policy'', and we could say a
human resources development policy. ``All these policies have not
been described in this document, but it is important to indicate in
these conclusions that we intend to use them all as a means of
meeting our objectives.
``This comprehensive policy will not necessarily be in line, in its
spirit and its application, with one the Government of Canada
might opt for, but it will not necessarily go against it. However, the
advantages that the people of Quebec will get from this policy will
at least be equal, for efficiency and constitutional reasons, to those
other Canadians might enjoy''.
We have gone back a very long way from this statement of
principle and from this description of a plan by a federalist
provincial government. We have gone back a very long way. Bill
C-11 is totally unacceptable, it cannot be amended, and that is why,
besides wishing that a new referendum on Quebec sovereignty be
held soon, I propose this morning an amendment to the motion for
third reading to have the bill withdrawn and the subject matter
referred to a committee.
I move:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word ``That''
and substituting the following:
``Bill C-11, An Act to establish the Department of Human Resources
Development and to amend and repeal certain related Acts, be not now read a
third time but that the Order be discharged, the Bill withdrawn and the
subject-matter thereof referred to the Standing Committee on Human
Resources Development.''
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Maybe the hon. member for
Mercier could give some clarification.
Mrs. Lalonde: Yes, I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I have not checked
if she is still here, but the member for Laval-Centre and I had
agreed that she would second my motion, with the agreement of the
member for Lotbinière.
[English]
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased today to speak to the amended motion. I have looked
forward to this opportunity for some time because what we are
looking at is the last piece of enabling legislation for the House to
consider.
(1125 )
Certainly after two years and some months of being in the
House, it could not be more timely. Also of interest, it is the last
piece of legislation to implement what I call the Kim Campbell
cabinet.
I oppose the bill for a number of reasons and I will list them. It
gives to the federal government powers to circumvent the
provinces when establishing programs and initiatives through
HRD.
I oppose the cheap partisan reason for the creation of the
ministry of labour and I oppose the way the government is
attempting to hide information from Canadians by eliminating the
provision to create an annual report for the department.
I will spend some time speaking to the specifics. As I mentioned,
my colleagues and I have legitimate and valid concerns about the
legislation. In particular, there is an area of the bill which we
believe provides the federal government with new powers to enter
into agreements with agencies, groups or agents and allows the
federal government to entertain these co-operative agreements
without first having approached the provincial governments.
We have all heard the Minister of Human Resources
Development naysay that challenge. We believe that simply put the
bill gives the government the opportunity to circumvent the
provinces
1635
when delivering social programs or any of the services relevant to
the Department of Human Resources Development.
This kind of federal power grab runs contrary to the
contemporary federal trend toward decentralization. We have spent
many hours in the House in debate and in question period
discussing that very point. Remember that the Liberal government
promised Canadians during the Quebec referendum campaign that
among other things it would move to greater decentralization.
There has been zero movement on this front.
In this bill there is a marvellous example of a federal attempt to
nationalize powers that did not exist before. This is a very old
approach to government. This is the Trudeau approach. It is an
approach which began just after the second world war, one which
does not suit the needs of people in Canada today.
First year students in Canadian politics learn that Canada has a
rigid constitution. It is rigid in the sense that constitutional
amendments are not easily made. As is well known, it was
extremely difficult to amend the British North America Act. We
need not remind anyone that amending the Constitution has not
been made any easier by the Canadian Constitution Act, as events
since 1982 have so clearly demonstrated.
Amending procedures were not spelled out in the BNA. The
result is that we had precious few constitutional amendments
between 1867 and 1982. It will also be recalled that the BNA
sought to establish a highly centralized union but that various
judicial interpretations made it a more decentralized union. In
addition, the Fathers of Confederation felt that in turning over
responsibility for education, health and social welfare to the
provinces they were dealing with jurisdictions that were not
important and local in character. It also explains why Ottawa's
power of taxation far exceeds its constitutional responsibilities.
The Fathers of Confederation gave the federal government
power to raise moneys by ``any mode or system of taxation''. It is
important to bear in mind the role of government in 1867 was
highly limited.
The Rowell-Sirois commission pointed out: ``The principal
functions of the state followed the prescriptions of Adam Smith.
Government was thought to have met its purpose when it provided
for adequate defence, the enforcement of the general law for the
administration of justice and the maintenance of a few essential
public works''.
In addition, Canadian society in 1867 was still largely a pioneer
in rural society. Accordingly, it had clearly an individualistic
outlook and a reliance on the family as the unit of mutual welfare.
The Great Depression would change all of that. Franklin D.
Roosevelt's new deal would lead the way for governments in
western industrialized countries to intervene to soften the sting of
economic misfortune. Lord Keynes, a noted Cambridge economist,
was quick to provide the intellectual underpinnings for government
intervention in the economy to mitigate the lows in economic
cycles.
(1130)
In brief, Keynesian logic provided a basis for counter-cyclical
budgeting. It also provided a basis for government programs and
measures to stabilize the economy, to promote economic
development and full employment. It suggested that with latent
demand and no limit in factors of production, governments could
actually create the long sought after prosperous and rational
societies desired.
Keynesian economics also legitimized government deficits and
in time governments would spend more, tax more and borrow
more, a great deal more. Does this not sound an awful lot like the
fiscal policies of today's Liberal government?
It is this Keynesianism gone wild that causes the Minister of
Human Resources Development and his bureaucrats to propose
clauses like the ones in this bill that instead of allowing the
provinces to manage their own affairs, allows the federal
government to grab more power.
The Keynesian revolution captured the Department of Finance in
Canada as it did the treasuries of other western countries.
Canadians emerged from the second world war determined never to
permit another depression of the kind witnessed in the 1930s.
In addition, by war's end, Canadians held a strong belief in the
ability of government to intervene and manage the economy.
Canadians had learned during the war that governments were able
in moments of crisis and when moved by an all consuming goal to
lead the country to high levels of economic activity and
employment.
Not only did the allies win the war, but governments had
managed the war economy well. Unemployment had fallen to zero,
yet prices had been held down. Given this, no one was surprised
when the Government of Canada presented a major policy paper to
Parliament toward the end of the war which was Keynesian in
outlook. It said: ``The government will be prepared in periods
where unemployment threatens to incur deficits and increases in
the national debt resulting from its employment and income policy.
In periods of buoyant employment and income, budget plans will
call for surpluses''.
However the expected severe post-war economic downturn did
not materialize and the measure that the federal government had
prepared proved unnecessary. Still, Ottawa became convinced that
it possessed a new arsenal of economic policy to achieve high
unemployment and more generally to manage the national
economy.
1636
At the risk of stating the obvious, Keynesian economics looks
to the national economy and to promoting balance in economic
cycles when formulating policy prescriptions and to the national
government as the key economic factor. The important point here
is that Keynesian economics has a strong centralization bias. It
looks to national fiscal policies, national industrial strategies and
to national programs to develop the national economy. In short,
Roosevelt and Keynesian economics would turn national
governments loose on national economies.
Convinced that it had found the holy grail of economic policy, it
had only to look to what other more western industrialized
countries were doing to confirm their findings. Ottawa nevertheless
recognized that it did not have the necessary jurisdictions to
manage the national economy and to promote the positive state.
The findings of the Rowell-Sirois royal commission had told it as
much when it began to table its findings in 1940.
Ottawa also was all too well aware that given the inherent
rigidity of the written Constitution, it could not count on
constitutional amendments to give life to the welfare state. In
addition, in the rare instances when it was able to secure a
constitutional amendment, it only served to create shared
jurisdictions.
For example, the 1951 amendment to the BNA which gave
Ottawa authority to establish the old age security program made
pensions a matter of shared federal-provincial jurisdiction. I will
not even begin to comment on old age security, which we know as
OAS, because as we all know the Liberals ostensibly killed it
despite their campaign promises to the contrary.
(1135 )
This bill allows the government to grab more powers in keeping
with the Keynesian principles I have already explained within a
historical context.
The rigidity of the Constitution led the federal government to
find ways to circumvent its provisions and to develop new
mechanisms to implement a new economic order. The federal
government would identify for itself a role in many areas of
provincial responsibility through extensive use of its spending
power. In time a whole edifice of federal-provincial programs in
areas of provincial jurisdiction was put in place although such
programs remain unmentioned in our written Constitution.
The clauses in this bill with which we are concerned will provide
the federal government the opportunity to create joint programs
with municipalities. This constitutional breach has been
circumvented. Ironically municipalities are not even
constitutionally recognized entities. These are big questions to ask
and to answer.
The written Constitution in the end appears to matter little to
federal policy makers. Ottawa in the post-war period attracted
some of the best and the brightest determined to build a modern,
positive state. Fuelled by tax money from a rapidly expanding
post-war economy and convinced that only the federal government
could put into practice the lessons learned from Keynesian
economics, Ottawa promoted a new constitutional doctrine which
ignored the written Constitution.
Donald Smiley, one of Canada's leading constitutional scholars,
explained: ``According to the constitutional doctrine that came to
prevail, the central government might legally spend revenues as it
chose, even on matters within the jurisdiction of the provinces, and
could at its discretion fix the circumstances under which a potential
recipient might receive the federal largesse''.
Bill C-11 allows the federal government to enter into agreements
now with agencies and municipalities. The reason for this is so the
federal government can continue to dole out that largesse and take
credit for it. It is simple to understand. The federal government is
reducing transfers to the provinces and as a result it is losing its
clout, its ability to dictate how the money is spent. Therefore, it is
losing its ability to buy votes by proclaiming how it is giving out
the dole at the provincial level.
However, the Liberal need to buy votes through empty rhetoric
and equally empty promises remains just as strong today as it ever
was. In order to be able to buy those votes the federal government
is now compelled to deal directly with agencies and municipalities.
The federal government did not wait long after World War II to
introduce measures in the areas of health care and social policy.
Within 20 years it would put in place a wide array of
federal-provincial measures ranging from old age pensions to the
establishment of a national health care program. In time the federal
government would introduce its own programs and carve out for
itself a powerful role and presence in virtually every sector in the
economy.
When it opted for conditional grants it essentially intervened in
provincial fields on its own terms. In the end it was able to carve
out a role for itself in the provision of welfare assistance, in
assisting the unemployed, in post-secondary education, in
medicare, in energy, in industrial development, in economic
development and so on.
The desire and ability of the federal government to intervene in
areas of provincial jurisdiction did not wane in the 1970s. In the
early 1970s the federal Department of Regional Economic
Expansion introduced a new approach to economic development.
In doing so, Ottawa signed a series of general development
agreements, known as GDAs, with the provinces.
The GDAs were enabling documents in that they cleared the way
for the federal government to support whatever measures were
regarded appropriate to local, provincial and regional economic
circumstances. It is not an exaggeration to suggest that the GDA
approach essentially tossed aside our written Constitution to enable
1637
government to support whatever it felt was necessary to promote
economic development.
A cursory look at the activities sponsored by the GDAs and their
replacement agreements reveal an incredible array of measures and
initiatives. No economic sector was considered off limits.
(1140)
One corollary of this blurring of the constitutional lines is to
confuse not just at the government level but more important at the
level of the citizenry exactly which level of government is
responsible for which service. The clauses in this bill which give
new and greater powers to the provinces do nothing to redirect the
constitutional blurring of the jurisdictional lines. In fact it only
contributes to more blurring as now we can add another layer of
government to the confusion.
As well, it has also given rise to overlap and duplication in
government programs and to a costly government overhead. Try
counting the number of units in the federal government sporting the
labels of liaison, co-ordination, federal-provincial relations and
intergovernmental relations, to describe what they do. Now we will
have to add yet another level to this red tape insanity.
Countless meetings are held every month to administer
federal-provincial programs and agreements. We should bear in
mind that Ottawa spends over $20 billion a year to pay federal
public servants and to provide them with office space and other
administrative arrangements. I can only imagine just how much
more money this bill will end up costing Canadian taxpayers as it
adds another layer to that already overburdened bureaucracy.
My colleague from Mission-Coquitlam moved an amendment
to redress the offending clauses to which I have been referring. She
moved an amendment that before the federal government enters
directly into agreements with agencies or municipalities of a
province that it first consult with and receive the approval of the
lieutenant governor of the province in question.
The amendment was reasonable. It would still have allowed the
federal government to enter into such agreements, even though of
course we oppose them, but it would only have then required that
the federal government inform the provinces of the actions about to
be undertaken. However, the Liberals needed so badly to
implement their vote buying clause that they refused to entertain
this reasonable amendment.
I used to think that we were here in the House to work together.
However, cynical partisan moves like that cause me to be
circumspect. They cause me to believe that the Liberals are not
really here for the betterment of our country. They are really only
here to maintain the status quo, to hold onto power at all costs, even
if it means willingly and knowingly doing the wrong thing and
implementing vote buying policies just as those in this bill.
I have great concerns that Bill C-11 will go another step down
the road to giving the federal government greater powers, despite
what it says. Not only will it create overlap and duplication, it will
probably cost us billions of dollars all for the sake of buying
Liberal votes.
Speaking of buying Liberal votes, that brings me to my second
concern over this bill, which is the creation of the Ministry of
Labour. This bill finally enables the last of the Kim Campbell
cabinet departments.
In 1993 when the Prime Minister named his cabinet he did not
name a minister for labour. Not a single Liberal complained then
that such a position was necessary. Why was that? Because the job
can be accomplished within the Department of Human Resources
Development. We do not need an expensive portfolio for an issue
that can be covered by other ministers. For almost two years the
Liberals agreed with us on this point. Why did they change their
minds? What caused the epiphany?
When the Liberals took power in 1993 they did not see a need for
this individual or the assignment of this ministry. We did not hear a
peep from anybody. However the Prime Minister changed his mind
in February 1995. In order to entice the so-called star candidate
from Quebec to run in a Quebec byelection, the Prime Minister
promised her a new cabinet seat if she agreed to run. She agreed
and they created the Ministry of Labour for her.
Let us face facts. The Liberals only created the job to satisfy
their partisan backroom interests. Their focus was not labour; it
was about their own job creation formula to entice a so-called star
candidate.
During report stage on Bill C-11 we heard a lot of sanctimonious
talk from the Liberals. They pretended to be the friends of labour.
We know the truth, do we not?
The Reform Party has nothing to learn from the federal Liberal
Party when it comes to labour relations and how to treat people.
Our policies clearly state that we recognize the right of workers to
organize unions, to strike peacefully and to carry out the business
of collective bargaining.
(1145)
The Liberals cancelled the federal public service workforce
adjustment directive. I wonder how many Liberals campaigned on
a promise to fire 45,000 public service workers. How many of them
were honest enough to tell their constituents that as part of their
job, job, job program they meant to fire 45,000 civil servants? I
wonder how many of these Liberals campaigned on a promise to
allow collective bargaining except, of course, when there is a strike
in the port system. They were all very quick to force labour back to
work, were they not?
1638
I wonder how many in the labour movement know that the
Liberal Minister of Human Resources Development refuses to
meet with the head of the Canadian Labour Congress. Over and
over again in committee there have been complaints regarding this
very action, or lack of action, on the part of the minister. This
is what Liberals mean about being open to the concerns of
Canadians. They refuse to even meet with labour leaders.
Also how many on that side of the House campaigned for quota
based employment equity legislation like the kind they rammed
through the House? The Liberal record speaks for itself. When it
comes to labour issues, this government should be ashamed.
The Reform Party has clearly and honestly established its
position regarding the existence of the job of Minister of Labour.
Reform favours smaller, less expensive government that
effectively provides services for Canadians where they cannot
provide for themselves. To this end we believe that labour issues
should be managed by the Department of Human Resources
Development. As the Liberals first believed in 1993 there is no
need for this position. The difference is that Reform is consistent
on labour issues. Our Liberal colleagues appear not to be. They
have flip-flopped all over the place on labour issues.
My final disagreement with Bill C-11 pertains to the fact that the
government is trying to hide from Canadians both its performance
and its future plans. It is doing this by eliminating the requirement
for the production of an annual report. Indeed, this is really quite
alarming when it is taken at face value. Colleagues on the other
side of the House will say that it is just because they are really
trying to reduce costs but this is a matter of financial accountability
and certainly in terms of performance standards in any corporate
sector would be an obvious expectation from a board of directors.
We had proposed an amendment that would require the Minister
of Human Resources Development to table an annual report to the
House. Typically the Liberals rejected this proposal. Anything that
appears to promote open and honest government they oppose.
Bill C-11 as presented does not require an annual report to be
made from the department. I am concerned that this may be just
another way for the government to withhold information from the
House of Commons and the people of Canada. I believe it should
be mandatory for all government departments to publish annual
reports and for the purpose of accountability they should be placed
before Parliament.
As part of the new program review, the federal government is
changing the production of the estimates. It suggests that in a few
years it will make the estimates more user friendly, whatever that
means, and that more useful and practical information will be
included in the estimates. The government suggests that annual
reports are so general that they border on being useless.
Every bill that has been introduced to create a new department
has had the annual report component deleted. The government has
deleted the requirement for the production of departmental annual
reports. Our amendment would have required the government to
continue producing that annual report component for each of those
departments.
We are sceptical of the process for improving the estimates. At
minimum, until such improvements have been made, annual
reports should be continued. Until the estimates are improved, the
lack of annual reports will result in the Canadian public receiving
less information from government. In effect the Liberals are trying
to hide, at least it appears, information from Canadians about the
workings of their government.
We all know that the red book promises more open government.
This is open government? No more annual reports is open
government? I do not think so.
Reform exists to change government. Liberals had an
opportunity to demonstrate to Canadians that they were willing to
open up government and to allow Canadians greater access to all
information regarding how it operates. It should not be a secret.
What is the government trying to hide? It had the chance to open
itself up to greater public scrutiny and it chose to hide.
(1150)
It is taxpayer money that the Liberals are spending, my money
and yours, Mr. Speaker. Canadians should know how and where
their money is going.
The government, by opposing our amendment, proved to
Canadians that it does not give the appearance of caring about
accountability or openness. I ask the question again: What is the
government trying to hide? Is this just another way for the Liberals
to address their dismal failure on the deficit fight? They will not
make public or even produce an annual report for this department,
one of the largest spenders in the government.
This department is huge. Canadians, thanks to the Liberals, will
not be able to keep track of its developments. The government says
its estimates will be improved but it also said it would scrap the
GST, and we know where we are at with that right now. Who are we
to believe? Is this a case of what we do not know will not hurt us?
Maybe that is why the government did not mention the debt in the
budget speech. Ignore it and perhaps everyone else will too.
The Liberals should talk about it. They should admit that they
have been responsible for the growth of the debt since 1968 and
honestly attack the debt problem. We are seeing no action.
1639
I insist that we need an annual report for this department. I
believe with the inclusion of the amendments the Reform Party
suggested, Bill C-11 would be a much better bill. The amendments
would make the department more forward thinking in its approach
to problems and certainly more accountable.
If the Reform amendments had been approved and passed in the
House we could have supported this bill. However, we have
attempted to improve the bill and yet again the government has
resisted.
Given that the government has clearly made a substantial new
power grab in this bill and given that it refused even to listen to
Reform's reasoned compromise, we cannot support it.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: That concludes the first stage of the
debate.
[English]
We will now proceed to the next stage of debate where members
will be entitled to 20-minute speeches, subject to 10 minutes of
questions or comments.
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain (Guelph-Wellington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-11,
the act to establish the Department of Human Resources
Development.
This legislation is part of the overall efforts of this Liberal
government to get government right, to reduce program overlap
and to control costs.
The government prides itself in not forgetting the human
element in all that it does. I find it important that the first word in
the new department is in fact ``human''. Guelph-Wellington is a
community where people care for one another. We are strong
because volunteers and other caregivers reach out to assist those in
need, the vulnerable, the aged and the many people in our
community who need a hand during a difficult time.
We are fortunate to have such organizations as Block Parents,
Change Now, Seniors Peer Advisory, Stepping Stone and
Wyndham House that provide assistance, information, life skills
and, most important, a smile for people in times of crisis.
The dedicated staff and volunteers of these and hundreds of other
organizations in my community want government to assist them as
they assist others. They want us to improve efficiency. This
legislation brings together parts of several former departments in
order to focus on human resource programs.
Portions of employment and immigration, health and welfare,
secretary of state and labour have been gathered together in order
to focus on employment and income security matters. By focusing,
the government can offer one coherent approach to the fundamental
issues of dealing with Canadians in need. That really is what
governments need to be about.
Guelph-Wellington uses its resources to build the greatest
community in Canada. Therefore I am pleased that the second word
in this new department is ``resources''. We often speak of natural
resources, wood, coal, water and minerals, when we describe our
country.
(1155)
The government knows that its greatest resource is its people.
The central question for the government has been, how do it use the
resources to better serve the Canadian people? All around the
country, individual Canadians as well as private industry, have had
to reorganize in order to provide service in a different way.
Canadians must be encouraged to think differently about how
government relates to them. That does not mean that inadequate or
poor service should be offered to the taxpayer.
The people who rely on the government for pensions, income
support programs, unemployment insurance and labour market and
employment information deserve the best service that they can get.
However, the deficit crisis means that services must be provided
differently.
One of the more unique ways is the new service delivery
network. This includes conventional offices, electronic information
kiosks, on-line services and community partnerships. This new
information service will also offer two-way communication with
clients across Canada. Its goal is to reduce costs, something the
Reform Party should be pleased about, and to improve and expand
client access, again, something I would hope all parties would be
pleased about. The new service delivery network, like the
Department of Human Resources Development, is using its
resources to better serve all Canadians.
The final word in the department is perhaps its most interesting
``development''. We are talking here about many of the social
programs that were developed by Liberal governments.
Whether it was the first Department of Labour established in
1900, the first Veterans Pension Act in 1919, Old Age Pensions Act
in 1927, Unemployment Insurance Act in 1940, Family Allowance
Act in 1944, universal pensions in 1952, the Canada pension plan
and medicare in 1966, or the Canada Health Act in 1984, Liberals
have had a long and important tradition of developing programs
that provide assistance to Canadians.
This is nothing new. This is what Liberalism is. This is what
Liberals stand for in this House today. Liberals have always had to
fight off the naysayers, just as I hear from the Reform Party right
now, who reject efforts to help each other through difficult times, to
1640
provide extra assistance in raising families, in our senior years or
when we are sick.
Let us not forget, especially as there are members in the House
of Commons today who want to take away these programs, that it
was the social support programs that have made Canada the
greatest nation on the earth. The opposition parties, in particular,
should always remember that it was by the development of
programs like unemployment insurance and universal pensions that
Canada is respected in every single corner of the world.
Liberals know we have to continue to develop resources, to
provide better service to Canadians. Like many service based
agencies in Guelph-Wellington, we are learning on a daily basis
to do with less.
Regrettably, that sometimes means busy signals and longer
waits. I am proud that the local Guelph Canada Employment
Centre offers and provides good service to the people of my
community. Its downtown location offers a central place for clients
who require service from the federal government. I am proud
because the most important element of any human resource
provided by government is service. In this legislation, a department
has been created that reduces administrative expenses while
improving services.
My constituents would be unhappy if I opposed this legislation. I
would be curious to see if, like so many times before, Reformers,
the self-proclaimed protectors of taxpayer dollars, will oppose the
legislation.
(1200)
Liberals cannot listen to those who say it cannot be done. It was
heard in 1900 when the labour department was created and it was
heard again in 1940 when unemployment insurance was created. In
1984 we heard again that it could not be done when we created the
Canada Health Act. The ghosts of the naysayers are alive and well
in the House today and they have found a home on the Reform
benches.
It is time to exorcise those ghosts, time to stand with the Liberals
and build a department that does not forget the human element and
uses resources to their full advantage and develops on all of the
great programs of the past. We must use the past to build the future.
I remind the House of the important issues before us. The people
of Guelph-Wellington want us to create jobs and stimulate
economic growth. They want us to co-operate with other levels of
government and the private sector to build practical solutions for
their benefit and for the benefit of all children.
The people of Guelph-Wellington are interested in this from
the federal government. They have told me to get on with building
the country, create jobs and growth and invest in the Canadian
people.
The reorganized Department of Human Resources Development
is giving Canadians innovative, cost effective programs and
services. Once again we will rise to vote on this legislation. We will
be asked to vote for legislation which builds on successes of the
past and which helps create new successes. It helps us to go ahead.
I challenge the opposition parties to let go of the status quo. Do
not be defenders of what has gone by and has not worked. Abandon
the narrow political view of Canada they hold and stop holding on
to the old way of doing this.
This legislation deserves the support of every member in the
House of Commons today.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to speak on this bill, but at the same time
somewhat troubled to have to do so, for it has been said almost ad
nauseam already that the federal government's decision to create
the Department of Human Resources is evidence of its disdain
toward Quebec and the provinces in general. This is just one more
piece of the puzzle, along with unemployment insurance reform
and the Canada social transfer, to allow the federal government to
continue to be involved, and to step up its involvement, in training
and education.
In fact, the Department of Human Resources Development is a
sort of embryonic Canadian ministry of education. It is as if the
government had learned nothing from the past. Again and again, it
has been said that the government no longer had the means to
intervene in areas that were outside its jurisdiction, that it ought to
learn to stick to what was within its jurisdiction, but the lesson has
not been heeded. Once again, the creation of the department of
resource development represents involvement in an area in which
the federal government has never been very efficient.
(1205)
In fact, using legislation to create a department is legalizing
behaviour that was already there under the previous Conservative
government and has been carried on by the Liberals, but now it is
made official, made legal by a law. It is quite simply stated: ``The
federal government can decide to sign training agreements with the
provinces, with groups, with individuals'' without necessarily
having to respect the priorities a province has defined.
With this type of analysis, people can easily think that this is a
matter of sovereignists versus federalists, but I would like there to
be a concrete examination of what it means and what its impacts
will be.
Take the following case for instance. The Government of Quebec
is presently developing an active employment policy. The minister
responsible in Quebec asked each region in Quebec to examine
existing programs at the provincial level aimed at helping people to
find jobs, improving their employability and identifying target
1641
groups in need of special support. These consultations are going on
in every region.
At the same time, by creating the Department of Human
Resources Development, the federal government gets the power to
sign an agreement in a particular region in Quebec or elsewhere in
Canada that could easily go against the conclusions which will
come out of the ongoing consultations, in Quebec, on the
establishment of a regional employment policy.
Such things have occurred on a regular basis in the past. For
example, we have seen the federal government giving contracts for
training projects in areas where people had already been trained
under other regular training programs. Those people were getting
training which is not recognized by the Quebec Department of
Education in areas such as mechanics, office automation or
electronic data processing and which did not necessarily follow the
same curriculum as those defined by the Quebec government.
The end result was that instead of having 15 trained people
available for that type of job, their were 25, 30 or 35 of them and
this led to a result opposite to the one expected: Instead of being
placed for jobs, people were faced with undue competition and
some had to go elsewhere to find work. Therefore training, which
was aimed at allowing people to remain in their own region, did not
reach its objective.
In the past, the frequency of this sort of happening was often
lessened through the good relations that developed between federal
and provincial officials in each of the communities. However, that
did not prevent $250 million from being wasted in Quebec alone
because of duplication of jurisdictions. Passing legislation
establishing the Department of Human Resources Development
will make this sort of duplication official. So, unless Quebec
simply abandons its field of jurisdiction to the federal government,
we will continue to have the useless expenditures and the perpetual
duplication of the past. This is quite out of the question and beyond
the means of our country.
There are needs. As the OECD has said, we in Canada spend a lot
on training. The problem is that we do not spend wisely. We spend
a lot on parallel bureaucracies, we no longer necessarily have the
means to pay for duplicate bureaucracies, and we can no longer
afford our inefficiency.
The actions of the federal government continue to roll along, like
a steam roller, as if there had been no referendum. In fact the
sovereignists lost the referendum by a hair, but the message was
very clear and where the message sounds its clearest is in the area
of manpower. This message was repeated at the Quebec City
socio-economic summit. It was expressed by the Conseil du
patronat du Québec, which even repeated it this week to the
Standing Committee on Human Resources, saying that it is time
the Canada employment centres came under Quebec's sole
jurisdiction, so that concerted action may be taken and dynamic
regional employment policies put in place to avoid having those on
welfare shifted to unemployment and the unemployed shifted to
welfare.
(1210)
Why is the federal government insisting on intervening in this
sector? Understandably, for the rest of Canada, outside Quebec,
there may be a role for a department responsible for training. I have
heard this already, for instance when the Standing Committee on
Human Resources was touring the country, from a university
chancellor who said: ``If the Canadian training system is to be
effective we must have national standards. The system must be
highly operational. We must know precisely where we are going
and have training objectives''.
In Quebec, we have never claimed that this was impossible in the
rest of Canada if the provinces and the federal government agreed.
However, we need to have the required autonomy to act in keeping
with our labour situation. The situation in Quebec is very different.
For example, we often hear talk in the Standing Committee on
Human Resources Development about manpower mobility. People
say that if we had, across the board, an unemployment insurance
plan which required the same number of weeks everywhere, there
would be a natural movement of people who would go where the
jobs are and therefore there would be a more natural balance than
with the present legislation.
Of course, this disregards the fact that people have acquired the
taste, the habit and the will to work in certain regions, and to live
there with their families, because they like it there. Moreover, this
argument in Quebec becomes crucial if the system were to be
applied uniformly as the Department of Human Resources
Development-that steam roller which is a creature of the federal
government-would like. The Department of Human Resources
Development wants to ask people to move to find work. This will
not only lead to diluting the French fact concentrated in Quebec, it
will also have a negative impact on the very social fabric of
Quebec, and on the fact that Quebecers are a people anxious to see
to their own development.
We must realize that the creation of this kind of department is
based to a certain extent on the federal government's decision to
have a uniform and very neutral development tool that can be used
across Canada. This is the kind of tool that did not work during the
last 20 or 25 years. It did not produce anything. It did not yield the
expected results, but the government persists in trying to make it
work.
The present government members were not elected 15 years ago
but at the same time as any one of us, that is two and a half years
1642
ago. I hope they came here with the idea of controlling the
bureaucracy instead of being under its control. Why are they
bringing us back to the old ways? They decided they would listen to
the deputy ministers, to the senior public servants, and try once
again to impose solutions instead of allowing people to make their
own decisions, determine their directions and make the necessary
choices locally.
The creation of the Department of Human Resources
Development is a clear demonstration of this. In the end, the
federal government is going over the provinces' heads. Let me give
the House an example.
Clause 7 of the bill reads: ``the Department may, with the
approval of the Governor in Council, enter into agreements with a
province or group of provinces for the purpose of facilitating the
formulation, coordination and implementation of unemployment
insurance, employment and immigration programs''.
However, the other clause allows the same thing to be done
directly with groups and organizations, and this causes the
problems I explained earlier that all of us are experiencing in our
ridings. Funds were given by the federal government for specific
type of training, but that training was not necessarily in line with
the priorities set by the Société québécoise de la main-d'oeuvre for
that particular area.
(1215)
At times, consultations at the local level prevent problems, but at
other times, there are situations where the training being provided
is in direct conflict with what Quebec is offering.
Six months after the referendum, in this area as in the other
sectors, after the Prime Minister decided to forget about the distinct
society issue, it is business as usual in the House. The steam roller
is going full speed ahead. The government is fully committed to
creating the human resources development department, which will
legitimize the federal government's interference in areas which had
never come under its jurisdiction.
The fact that Quebec sovereignists are not the only ones to
condemn this decision should get the federal government to think
twice about it. The Société québécoise de la main-d'oeuvre passed
several unanimous resolutions denouncing this bill. There has been
statements to the effect that in Quebec the consensus is to have this
whole area under Quebec jurisdiction.
In Quebec there are diehard federalists who are part of this
consensus; a case in point is the head of the Conseil du patronat du
Québec, who cannot be accused of being a sovereignist, or
pro-independence. He himself has asked the Minister of Human
Resources Development to look closely into the matter and to
realize that the best thing the federal government could do
regarding this issue would be to withdraw from this area.
Today, we are in the final stage of the bill. You will recall that it
was introduced during the previous session and should have died
on the Order Paper, but was revived in the new session.
Despite the fact that there has been a new Throne Speech, that
we have the referendum results, that we now know what kind of
changes Quebecers want, that there is unanimous agreement in
Quebec on what should be done with regard to the manpower
training issue, the federal government remains deaf or chooses to
ignore the issue.
It goes ahead with the bill in order to interfere in several areas
which do not come under its jurisdiction. I predict that, in a few
years, we will see the federal government being judged by the
Auditor General or by the population for the inefficiency of this
department's spending on training.
We have examples of this in cases where the federal government
decided to take action, like the strategy it adopted to fight
unemployment in the Maritimes fishing industry or its approach to
the problem of discrepancy between the workers available on the
labour market and the jobs offered. Why is it that in x number of
years, the government has not succeeded in solving that problem, it
has not found a way to train the unemployed so that they can take
on the available jobs? All this is the result of the current system,
and they want to officialize that system by creating the Department
of Human Resources Development.
They lack imagination, initiative and receptiveness to what
people are saying about the kind of system they want and about
their need to know that decisions will be made at a local level and
within the context of governmental choices.
Within the Canadian system, there is a provincial government
which has chosen to say: ``Employment will be our priority. We
will do all we can to optimize the potential of our people''. But the
federal government leans the other way; I am not using that
example to say one attitude is better than the other, but the federal
government chooses a completely different approach, as we can see
now with the Unemployment Insurance Act, where it is said that
people who regularly receive unemployment benefits do so
voluntarily and exploit the system. They are made to appear to be
abusing the system.
The federal government approaches the area of unemployment,
the area of manpower mobility, in a way which is completely
different from that of the provincial government. As long as both
levels of government can intervene in the same area of jurisdiction
there will be inefficiencies. Measures taken by one cancel out
measures taken by the other.
1643
(1220)
This is not good and, in the end, it is always at the expense of the
taxpayer. Although the money in the unemployment insurance fund
comes from employers and employees, nobody denies that the
government has some responsibility to make sure that the money is
used adequately, that it is used for the intended purpose. There is no
excuse for not opting for the right way to do things, for not
delegating to Quebec all the active measures regarding
employment, so that Quebec may have full jurisdiction and be able
to harmonize them with all its other economic actions.
You cannot operate in isolation. You cannot have a certain
approach to economic action and another one to employment. This
is inconceivable. This, however, is more less the result of the mess
we are now in with regard to the use of our human potential. We
launched into a race for productivity without expanding the
necessary effort to make sure that those who get trampled in this
race, those who are pushed out of the labour force, have other
opportunities to find employment.
Unfortunately, the bill on the table today for the creation of the
Department of Human Resources Development will never have the
efficiency, the reaction speed required to be able to respond quickly
to the new requirements of the labour market. In order to do that the
action has to be decentralized, it has to be geared to very local
priorities and it has to fit a single government orientation.
At the present time we do not find that in Canada and the victims
of that situation are the young people entering the labour force and
the older workers in their fifties who lose their jobs and cannot find
any alternatives.
For all these reasons, I think it is important that the government
reflects once more on this bill before passing it and that the citizens
realize that this bill creating the Department of Human Resources
Development will be much more useful to the federal upper
bureaucracy than to the people it is supposed to serve, that is all the
citizens who need an efficient, viable and reasonably priced
service.
Mr. Richard Bélisle (La Prairie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I wish to
congratulate the hon. member on his speech, which the government
should use as a model for developing its employment and
manpower policies.
The hon. member told us, and rightly so, that we can no longer
afford to be ineffective. However, with a deficit that is now close to
$33 billion and a debt of nearly $600 billion, I would like to ask the
hon. member whether he agrees that it is time for the government
to wake up and that the fight against unemployment is not
incompatible with the fight against the deficit.
I would also like the hon. member to comment on whether the
government responsible for human resources development could
be a little more imaginative in its employment policies and leave
this in the hands of the provinces, which have real expertise in the
area of employment and manpower.
Mr. Crête: Mr. Speaker, I think it is indeed the wrong approach
to oppose unemployment and deficit as if both could not be fought
at the same time. For example, if the federal government had really
decided to thoroughly review its spending in various areas, it could
have reduced the deficit without also having to generate a UI fund
surplus that is somewhat artificial and designed to make the federal
government look good. The government can then brag about
reducing its deficit. This money, however, is not being used
productively but merely collected in this fund.
There may be a reserve fund-the amount is now pegged at $5
billion for this year. There is a need to put this money back into
circulation. One approach would be to make premiums low enough
so that employers and employees can have money in their pockets
allowing them to consume and thus stimulate the economy. And by
reducing their costs, employers would be able to develop their
businesses and create more jobs.
We are going through a very particular situation in which
economic growth does not necessarily lead to job creation.
(1225)
In this regard, we should perhaps start as we did with the deficit
by setting clear objectives. We could set a target employment rate
for January 1, 1998 and plan departmental actions accordingly. It is
not a matter of creating artificial jobs, but of making sure that
every departmental employee will be concerned about maximizing
human potential.
When the government goes before the electorate two or three
years from now, it should be judged on how it helped people to
work, to develop their potential; we would then have a clear,
objective criterion. As far as the employment issue is concerned,
this government can be criticized for never making clear
commitments and being lulled by an economic growth that never
led to additional jobs.
Proposals should be put forward with respect to the reduction of
overtime or to work sharing. Even the UI reform has some perverse
effects in this regard. Reducing the maximum wage on which
premiums are paid encourages large corporations with highly paid
staff to raise their salaries and increase overtime a little, with the
net result that they hire fewer people.
There is much thinking to be done in this regard, but we must act
quickly. This will not be done by creating a department such as the
new Department of Human Resources Development.
1644
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
grateful to my hon. colleague for his accurate representation of
my constituents' concerns.
I would like to ask him how this so-called reform will actually
penalize women and young people who are currently looking for
work or waiting for unemployment insurance benefits. In what way
will they be twice penalized? In my riding, we have many mothers
who are single parents and whose jobs are not secure. I noticed how
accurately the hon. member depicted my constituents' concerns in
his remarks.
In my region, the rate of unemployment is upwards of 11 per
cent. There is also a very large number of people on welfare. How
will this reform, as I am told in my riding, drive more people onto
welfare?
I would like my hon. colleague to explain to the people of my
riding how they will be affected by this reform?
Mr. Crête: I thank my hon. colleague for her question, Mr.
Speaker.
It is important to realize that the unemployment insurance
reform was developed and put forth by the Department of Human
Resources Development, the very department to be established
through the bill before us.
As for how this reform will penalize women and young people,
first of all, by requiring people to work 910 hours, or 26 thirty-five
hour weeks, to qualify, it will automatically condemn many young
people to pay into the unemplyment insurance fund without
drawing any benefit from it, which will encourage them to go
underground. That defies comprehension.
There are also tighter requirements affecting women. The
Fédération des femmes du Québec felt that the bill, as it stands,
even closes the door on maternity leave. Incidentally, the
government has yet to move an amendment to remedy this
situation.
As women hold down the most precarious jobs on the market,
they are the first victims of the current wave of restraints.
Increasing the hours of work required to qualify will unavoidably
force them back onto unemployment insurance and welfare faster,
since they will have been unable to accumulate enough hours.
So, before tightening unemployment insurance requirements
like this bill does, the government should have put programs in
place to really give people a chance to find a job. Young people,
women and all the others do want to work and to develop, but this
reform is certainly no help, quite the contrary.
(1230)
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, there are rules in
this House which keep me from mentioning certain observable
facts, but we are now dealing more with the unobservable. What we
can observe though is an incredible attitude on the part of the
government during a debate on the new authority being delegated
to the Minister of Human Resources Development. We, the Bloc
Quebecois, the official opposition, seem to be the only party in this
House that cares about this issue.
Rather surprisingly, the federal administration has been
operating for over two and a half years without this legislation,
which officializes the consolidation of various services that used to
be part of other departments. The government is trying to tell us
that this is a minor change of little consequence.
Those who follow politics might think that, indeed, this is a
minor change. However, the hon. members for Mercier and for
Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, who spoke before me, both sit on
the human resources development committee and they strongly
emphasized that this is not a minor change, but a major one.
The government wants to increase the authority of the Minister
of Human Resources Development. This comes barely a few
months after Quebec was promised it would decentralize and
provide for greater flexibility, so as to avoid duplication between
the federal and provincial governments.
If the bill reflected that commitment, I would be the first one to
recognize it. However, if you read the bill you quickly realize that it
goes in the opposite direction, toward greater centralization and
control by the federal state regarding areas which do not come
under its jurisdiction.
This allows the federal government, and particularly the
minister, to be even more involved in manpower training. The
government refers to decentralization, and we can see in this bill
that it would be possible. This bill gives the minister the authority
to bypass provincial governments regarding manpower training,
even though there is a consensus in Quebec to do just the opposite.
That consensus calls for leaving all the necessary tools, including
active employment measures, in the hands of the Quebec
government, which should be the only level of government
involved, to ensure greater consistency and avoid duplication and
waste.
Instead, when the federal government talks about
decentralization, it means that the process would be achieved
through its employment centres dealing directly with community
groups, businesses and perhaps even municipalities. The minister
is being given full authority. This is the government's idea of
decentralization.
However, it is just the opposite of what Quebecers were told
shortly before the referendum, when the federal government said it
would fulfil their wish for change.
This is another example of double talk which is ultimately
tantamount to telling a falsehood. Why? Because the government
means exactly the opposite of what it says.
1645
(1235)
Another thing bothers me. You have to remember that we are
now dealing with Bill C-11. This bill is identical to Bill C-96 which
was introduced in this House in June 1995 and which the
government left hanging throughout the pre-referendum period in
order to avoid stirring things up.
Now the government comes up with a new throne speech.
Usually, after prorogation, a speech from the throne contains some
new ideas. Yet, except for the measure implementing the budget,
all the other bills, including Bill C-11, are old pieces of legislation
left in abeyance. Is there anything new? We do not think so. There
is nothing new, just another smoke screen.
While delivering a new throne speech, stating some great
principles and using a lot of rhetoric, the government is in fact just
carrying along and acting as usual. Nothing has changed. It is just
chugging along.
Today, the party across the way has decided not to have any of its
members take part in this debate on a bill that will officialize the
most important federal department. When I say the most important,
I mean financially. If we set aside debt servicing, we realize that
almost 50 per cent of the budget, that is between 40 and 50 per cent
of program expenditures go to the human development resources
department. That is a lot of money.
But what do we notice here, in the House? No backbencher has
spoken in the House for a while now, as if nothing was going on. I
can maybe understand the behaviour of hon. members from other
parts of Canada, but how can the members from Quebec remain
quiet when this bill will officialize greater centralization and
intervention by the federal government in provincial areas of
jurisdiction?
The members from the province of Quebec read the newspapers
and meet the people. They are aware of the consensus on this issue.
They know that the Société québécoise de développement de la
main-d'oeuvre is what can be called a group of organizations or a
consortium that is trying to implement job creation measures. Let
me remind the House of who belongs to this Société québécoise de
développement de la main-d'oeuvre. There are, of course, the
unions and central labour bodies, but also the Conseil du patronat,
the Institut canadien des adultes, the Mouvement Action-Chômage
and a lot of community organizations. The Société brings together
all the organizations who are concerned about the employment
situation and who have given their support. They are members of
the Société québécoise de développement de la main-d'oeuvre or
they have supported it by submitting briefs. I am sure all Quebec
Liberal members have received those briefs.
Unfortunately, we cannot help but see that they do not seem to be
moved by that. The contradiction between what the government
says officially and what it does is obvious. Nevertheless, they
remain silent, they stay away from this debate as if this matter had
no significance whatsoever.
We are talking about Bill C-11, that will officially establish this
department. What does the government do in the meantime? It uses
the same approach with human resources development. It tried this
approach with the unemployment insurance reform. It tried to
avoid any direct contact with the people during consideration of
that bill.
(1240)
The committee is sitting at this very moment and it is using
video technology to hear evidence. One organization at the time,
and they are hand picked. And because of its majority, the
government can invite practically whoever it wants. It is trying to
do this very quietly. Oh the unemployment insurance reform will
not change a lot of things; it is being done very quietly in
committee.
But hundreds of organizations have asked to be heard, and they
are being told that it is not possible, that time is of the essence, that
July 1 is coming soon. This is exactly how this government
operates. I have also noticed recently, especially during question
period, that it is difficult for the opposition to attack the
government because the Prime Minister is often away or a
particular minister is on a tour somewhere. It seems that we are
fighting I would not say ghosts, but people who are less and less
visible in Parliament.
We, in the official opposition, find it deplorable that the third
party also finds this issue insignificant, since its members are not
concerned about this bill that will create a department that will
administer an enormous amount of money. Almost half, or between
40 and 50 per cent, of the government's total budget is allocated to
this department. That does not seem to be of any interest to the
third party, nor to certain independent members, nor to the leader
of the Conservative Party. The leader, who aspires to become Prime
Minister one day, is not concerned about a department whose
budget represents almost half of the government's total budget. It is
unbelievable.
What will it take to wake them up, to change this law of silence?
For Bill C-11 is a law of silence, a law making silence official. I am
almost tempted to stop for a minute of silence, since that would so
aptly symbolize what is happening here. I am almost tempted.
I did keep silent for five seconds, but my convictions and beliefs
prevent me from staying quiet, for this is so important. I would like
the people watching us at home to realize what is happening here in
terms of social programs. They are trying to make cuts, vigorous
cuts, but ever so quietly. And our viewers will be affected.
1646
Without any demagoguery, let me just say this: ``Fellow
citizens, take care, be even more vigilant than before, because this
government is trying to make us adopt changes in a new way,
through a quiet approach, or in other words by not attaching any
importance to subjects that in fact are very important''.
I have been on the Human Resources Development Committee
for two and a half years now. When we take the trouble to go out
the consult the public, when we go into the field to meet with
organizations, when members of Parliament take the trouble to
meet with the people in their ridings, no matter what region they
are in, there is one reality which strikes us, independent of the
statistics.
Officially, the unemployment rate has dropped a bit, but if the
Statistics Canada figures are examined more closely, we realize
that the drop is not because more people are working, but because
more are giving up looking for work. These statistics do not include
employable welfare recipients who cannot find work. We cannot let
this pass without comment.
I am sure that the hon. members see people in their riding offices
every time they are back in their ridings, and hear from them that
things are not getting any better. There are no more jobs than
before.
(1245)
What we see in the labour market at the moment is that, through
globalization, government cuts and deregulation, the number of
part-time jobs is increasing and the number of full-time jobs is
decreasing. Companies are trying to re-open collective agreements,
citing competition, in order to cut back working conditions in some
cases. Salaries are on the decline at the moment.
I have just come from a meeting of the Standing Committee on
Human Resources Development. People were talking about
change. They were saying that more than a third of jobs right now
are part time. And who holds these jobs primarily? Women.
Women hold 70 per cent of jobs that are mostly part time,
threatened, ill paid, insecure and non unionized. There are young
people in such jobs too.
What is this government doing with its unemployment insurance
reform at the moment? It is trying to tighten unemployment
insurance eligibility requirements. It is making unemployment
insurance less accessible especially to young people and to women
who want to return to the labour force after raising their children.
These are the two main population groups affected.
The method of calculating by weeks is being changed to a
method of calculating by hours. With the hours system, two
part-time jobs may indeed be combined, but this arrangement will
create increased competition, a race, a marathon, a sprint for the
latest little job on the market. Even workers in full-time, but
seasonal, jobs for a short time will be tempted in the tourist season,
for example, to find some little job or a part-time job and thereby
increase competition for such jobs. This will be the case especially
with young people.
People do not realize we can no longer rely on unemployment
statistics. I even heard a Reform member say yesterday that
unemployment insurance was the cause of unemployment and that,
if we abolished unemployment insurance, there would be no more
unemployed. I can understand most people taking even the meanest
of little jobs anywhere to avoid starving to death, but this sort of
approach has nothing to do with reality.
We need more than just jobs, we need quality, well paid, stable
and affirming jobs. We are no longer in the industrial age when
children were made to work and when people worked six or seven
days a week. This is an age, according to the sociologists, of quality
of life.
The Canadian government was delighting in the fact that Canada
was one of the countries with the highest quality of life-I have a
hard time accepting that.
Representatives of Campaign 2000 have said on a number of
occasions that 20 per cent of children are poor. When we talk of 20
per cent of children being poor, it is not the children who are poor,
but their parents. Sometimes the families are single parent families
and very often the single parent is a woman.
We do not see the social change taking place today. Nobody can
do anything about it, but, increasingly, we are seeing very poor
families and low income single parent families.
(1250)
We are supposed to believe that everything is fine, that we can
rejoice, that we can afford to cut help to the poorest members of
society in an effort to bring the deficit under control, and to make
UI eligibility criteria three times as strict for new claimants on the
assumption that once they try UI they will become addicted to it, as
to a drug. What a warped view of society!
The other day, the Minister of Human Resources Development
told me that there were 125,000 UI abusers. I checked with
agencies working in this area, such as Action chômage Québec, and
I was told that 75 per cent of people who appeal, who ask for a
review of their case, win in the end. If you win, does this mean that
you abuse the system? I do not think so.
You are motioning to me that my time has expired. I hope that I
will be asked questions so that I can go on.
Mr. Maurice Godin (Châteauguay, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to thank my colleague, the member for Lévis, for his analysis
of the situation. I agree with him wholeheartedly; we are in a very
distressing situation. It is true. I cannot understand why, given the
seriousness of the situation, the Liberal Party does not co-operate
more and does not try to give us some explanations.
1647
I agree with my colleague that a society with so many
unemployed, a society where there are no jobs is an ailing society.
What do we have to offer? There is only confusion in everything
that is proposed.
Last Saturday, I listened to the Prime Minister's speech where he
explained that the advantage of the unemployment insurance
system is that it takes money from the rich provinces to give it to
the poor ones. But that is not what they are doing. Maybe they do
take money from the rich provinces, but they use it to pay the debt
and reduce the deficit. Instead of creating jobs with that money,
they apply it to the deficit in order to create more commissions
dealing with provincial jurisdictions, in order to interfere in other
provincial areas, spend again and generate duplication and
squandering.
There is confusion in the bill we are debating now, but there is
confusion in other areas also. We clearly saw that this week with
regard to the Constitution. Last Saturday, they had found the idea
of the century: the homeland of the French language. But three or
four days later, that wonderful idea had fallen by the wayside and
they might go back to the distinct society. It is the same in many
areas.
In my riding, we are facing a problem that maybe my colleague
could talk about. It is the SEA program, the Self-Employment
Assistance program. It is dreadful. They want us to believe this
program is meant to create jobs, but in many cases the only result
of that assistance is to cut unemployment insurance benefits and
send the people back to welfare. They tell people that if they have a
good idea, they will help them to implement it and create their own
job. But they ask for a plan and when the plan is presented, they tell
the unemployed: ``Well you were working on your plan and
therefore you were not available and looking for work, so we are
withdrawing your unemployment benefits''.
(1255)
There have been many such cases. There is always duplication
and waste. They talk about replacing unemployment insurance with
employment insurance, but that does not deal with the problem.
What they are really doing is reducing the number of recipients in
order to have more money for other projects. Instead of using the
money to create jobs, they make the unemployed pay for past
spending.
I would like my colleague to explain the SEA a bit further. Did
they have the chance to discuss it in committee? Could we not
suggest that when they want to give an unemployed person the
opportunity to create his or her own job, they should let that person
do so in peace?
Mr. Dubé: Mr. Speaker, I note yet again that my colleague for
Châteauguay is very much attuned to the reality of Quebec and of
his riding.
The SEA program, it must be said, is an active employment
measure, which the federal government intends to continue. Those
of us forming the Quebec consensus would prefer the money
currently invested in this program be given to Quebec to permit
more consistent management of the various activities involved in
job development.
My colleague is absolutely right in the present context. He has
given me the opportunity to point out that there is a problem with
the program. There can be no appeals. The officials on the
committee reach a decision after looking at a business plan and, in
the case my colleague mentioned, had an appeal been possible, the
individual in question might perhaps have won his case,
particularly because the appeal is not heard by the same people.
This is what the people of Action-chômage told me: ``When
appeal is possible, 75 per cent of the people win their case''. I am
not saying the existing legislation is perfect or that it ought not to
be improved, because this is a specific case, but it would have to be
amended or improved to provide for an appeal mechanism. This is
the sort of solution we must look at.
We must remember, as the member for Châteauguay rightly
pointed out, that this program must not be seen as a way to resolve
all the problems. We must understand that those who have access to
this program are on unemployment insurance and therefore, by
definition, people who have lost their job. Not everyone has the
means to set up a business. There could be a trap. I am not saying
that it is the intention of the officials, because they carry out the
programs chosen by the government.
But there is a trap. If the business works, that is fine. However,
if, because of a lack of money it does not, and the unemployment
insurance benefits run out, the individual, because he has a
business and is independent, is no longer entitled to unemployment
insurance.
If his business got financing from different people, friends, or
banks or elsewhere, he may not be eligible for social assistance.
You know, to be eligible for social assistance, your assets must be
limited. Without being wealthy, someone could have a house or
some possessions. There is a trap.
Furthermore, not everyone is destined to be a business person.
People think you just start a business, but you need training and
resources. It has to be done with the support of the community.
Other members may have questions for me.
(1300)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): We have only 60 seconds
remaining, which can be split.
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec-Est, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to speak on Bill C-11, which is so important, and
1648
particularly pleased to follow my two illustrious colleagues for
Lévis and Châteauguay. Bill C-11, as you know, is more or less a
housekeeping bill, in that it is aimed at creating the new
Department of Human Resources Development, which is a fairly
weighty component of the federal government.
This bill will, of course, be passed. We are discussing it, and
discussing it a great deal, because there are a number of highly
negative aspects connected to it which we want to point out. Yet we
know it will go through, because the federal government has the
majority. If, however, it were in my power to prevent the
department from being created, of course I would do so, because to
date this department has provided the most glaring example of
abuse by the federal government.
The Department of Human Resources Development has,
perhaps, wrought more havoc on Canada as far as social programs
are concerned, than all of the other departments combined. It is the
one which sends so many people to my office in a terrible situation,
worried about their future, their job, their unemployment
insurance. And it is not finished with its mischief, either, for this
department is the one they want to use to more or less solve one of
Canada's most serious problems.
As you know, Canada has a huge debt, one that has been
denounced by the International Monetary Fund on several
occasions, and one that places Canada in the ranks of the most
indebted countries in the world. In fact, looking at the G-7
membership, Canada is second only to Italy. Canada is in a
financial crisis, a debt crisis, in fact it is technically bankrupt.
Canada's $550 billion debt is a big problem. A very big problem,
one that was created by the incompetence of certain members of
this House, before our time of course.
Previous governments have all been so irresponsible in their
spending, especially since the arrival of Pierre Elliott Trudeau, and
Brian Mulroney later on. When Trudeau came along, Canada's debt
was a small one. You might say it was reasonably manageable, one
which did not worry foreign investors or harm Canada's economic
development. Then it went up to $250 billion, and doubled that
under Mulroney. The present Liberal government is, of course,
attempting to curb it, but without any appreciable success.
They talk of success, but we know very well that the $5 billion
reduction in Canada's deficit was made at the expense of Canada's
workers and employers, and at the expense of the unemployed. It
is, as we know full well, in this Department of Human Resources
Development that this kind of misappropriation of funds, what I
would call a kind of fraud, a kind of lie perpetuated in Canada, is
planned.
The money in the UI fund comes from Canadian employers and
employees; the federal government has not contributed a single
penny since 1990. This fund comes from a tax on employers and
employees, who are the sole contributors. The federal government
then takes $5 billion from this fund to reduce its deficit.
(1305)
It is in short what happened with the Department of Human
Resources Development and all other federal policies. It is the only
major bill this government managed to come up with and it will
pass. I am sure this bill will pass because government members are
in the majority. It is essentially the key bill that this government put
forward through the Department of Human Resources
Development.
Of course, we can also talk about the reduction of transfer
payments to the provinces, in that the government may cut
spending on health and education programs by $7 billion by the
year 2000. These cuts put pressure on the provinces. These cuts in
transfer payments have forced the provinces to adjust, as Quebec is
now doing.
It has even become necessary in the area of health care, as we
know full well. But I wonder about education. I wonder if this
government really has lofty designs on society in trying to reduce
its contribution to education. This threatens the future of our young
people, who these days need a good education in order to find jobs
and make ends meet.
Through the Department of Human Resources Development, the
federal government has taken measures such as reducing spending
in health and education by cutting transfers to the provinces. The
federal government tried to shift these cuts to the provinces to
make them take the blame, and then misappropriated money from
the UI fund. The fact is that, over three years, something like $15
billion will be diverted.
Then the Minister of Finance will say: ``I managed to reduce the
federal debt.'' I mean by that that he will at least have reduced the
deficit and discharged his duty to the people of Canada.
As I said earlier, this is misappropriation of funds, nearly
embezzlement, because contributions to an insurance program are
normally expected to be used for that purpose and not for some
other purpose. Normally, employees and employers who contribute
to the UI fund should expect their money to be used to make sure
that those who loose their jobs are paid benefits out of the UI fund
and provided with manpower training so that they can re-enter the
labour force.
But that is not how it was used. Not only does the government
use this money to reduce its debt, but it also tightened UI eligibility
requirements, thereby effectively reducing the number of people
who qualify for UI benefits. Imagine that. Do you think that is fair?
More and more frequently, participating employers are seeing their
UI claims denied.
This government has brought down three consecutive reforms.
First, the number of eligible claimants was reduced to about 60, 57,
55 per cent. Then, the second reform further reduced this
1649
percentage to about 47 or 45 per cent. This means that 47 or 45 per
cent of those who lose their jobs are entitled to UI.
(1310)
Now with the latest reform, the most drastic and unfair one
conceivable in Canada, only one third of people losing their job
will be entitled to UI. This is a fraud, this is embezzlement. If only
the number of people losing their job remained the same, and
eligibility criteria were such that more people could be on UI. But
this is not the case. Fewer and fewer people will be eligible.
Not only will there be fewer people eligible, but they will receive
smaller benefits for a shorter period of time. This is marvellous,
magical, because of course according to statistics there will be
fewer and fewer unemployed workers in Canada since, when you
are no longer eligible for UI, have no job and are not entitled to UI,
and there is no other recourse, what do you do? You go on welfare.
Welfare is a different kind of system, it is a provincial system. If
one is not eligible for welfare, one disappears from the face of the
earth, one becomes invisible.
From the federal perspective, this is marvellous, it is as if the
unemployment rate was going down in Canada. This is marvellous.
Through various tricks, statistics and funds, the problem created in
the first place by the federal government and its disastrous
overspending over the last 10 years is being dumped on the
provinces. Provinces will now have to support more people on
welfare.
Access to the unemployment insurance fund will be more
limited and, moreover, provinces will be faced with cuts in the
most important areas, the most vulnerable like health and
education, and now, with the new Department of Human Resources
Development, pensions. They are now going after our seniors,
because they have been spared until now. The reform of old age
pensions will primarily target women, since the pension will be
determined based on family income.
This means that the woman who stayed home all her life to raise
a family, who did not have any form of employment recognized by
society, because she was a housewife, might not have the right to an
old age pension. She will continue to be dependent on her husband.
This way, the federal government will save billions of dollars at the
expense of the most vulnerable people of society: the young, the
sick, the old and the unemployed.
This is what the Liberal government is doing to Canada. It is
going after the most vulnerable. It is going after those who are
poorly organized, insecure and focus on surviving from one week
to the next.
People come to my office, single women with two, three
children, who are without a job and have a really hard time
surviving on welfare. They want to work.
If you allow the federal government to use the money from the
unemployment insurance fund to reduce the debt rather than
investing into job creation or manpower training, this is what we
will get. More and more people will know hardship and suffering.
This is what the federal government will give us. This a rotten
government.
(1315)
Mr. Speaker, I am not referring to you directly, but the
government's social policy is totally rotten and unfair. It is a fraud,
a misappropriation of funds. It is so rotten. One cannot imagine a
worse social program, given that the root of the problem is the huge
national debt of $550 billion, which concerns the International
Monetary Fund and which will soon exceed $600 billion, in the
year 2000.
When you think about the problems that triggered the initiatives
taken by the human resources development department, you realize
that there were other, easier, more reasonable and fair solutions to
solve the issues. But the government deliberately chose to target
young people, the sick, the elderly and the unemployed.
Who was spared? Who was spared in every possible way? The
rich, the well-to-do and the large corporations. The government
was generous to them. It is that simple.
Let me just give you a few examples. Take the all-important
family trust issue. For those who do not know how family trusts
work, you first have to be a millionaire. Family trusts are not for
everyone: it is a very select club. One has to be very rich, like the
Minister of Finance, who is worth several million, or like the
Reitman, the Bronfman and all the other very rich families. So, you
must first be rich to join the select group benefiting from family
trusts.
It costs a lot of money to set up the program that allows these
families, through a family trust, to avoid having to pay taxes. These
families never pay taxes. This is great. They make millions in
profits each year, but they do not pay taxes. This is truly wonderful.
It is estimated that, in Canada, thanks to these family trusts,
about $100 billion are not subject to any taxes. One hundred billion
dollars in profits there wealthy families make in Canada. If I were
the Prime Minister, I would go and get at least half of these $100
billion. There are thousands of people who are hungry, who have no
jobs and who do not have enough to feed their children.
Consequently, when you have rich people who do not know what to
do with their $50 million, you go and tell them: ``Listen, not only
have you not paid taxes on your profits for X number of years, but
you have $100 billion in family trusts. Therefore, we will collect
half of that amount, that is $50 billion''.
Imagine, only with this fair, reasonable and justifiable measure,
the government could have collected $50 billion more in taxes.
1650
However, it chose not to take $50 billion from the family trusts,
but rather $5 billion from the unemployed.
This government spared the wealthiest families. It even warned
them to reconsider their finances, because in five or six years from
now, it may have to change the conditions applying to family trusts.
The government could have gotten more money from
corporations who avoid paying taxes. An estimated $3 to $4 billion
go to banks in the Bahamas and the West Indies. An estimated $4
billion a year, from what I have heard.
The government could have closed the tax loopholes used by
corporations. It could have taxed the banks. Imagine, last year
alone, banks pocketed $5.2 billion in net profits. Shareholders took
all that money home with them. The banks' profits almost doubled
from the previous year. We are not talking peanuts here. The
government collected about $100 million from the banks over a
two-year period. That is a little under one per cent. That is not
much for banks.
(1320)
All that to say that this government is rotten to the core. It does
not have a social policy, it promotes a policy based on the best
interests of the fittest and the richest and it picks on the most
vulnerable people of all, the weakest, the young, the old and the
sick. Come next election, I hope the people will realize that we
need a change of government.
Mr. Réjean Lefebvre (Champlain, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I thank
my colleague for his wonderful speech. I would like him to be more
specific. We know that Mr. Martin's budget has affected three
generations: the 18 to 30-year olds, the 30 to 60-year olds and those
who are 60 years old and over.
I would like my colleague to be more specific on the issue of part
time jobs. In Champlain riding, there are many part time jobs, and I
would like him to explain what it implies. We know that
unemployment insurance has been cut, and that this will this
category of workers very badly.
Mr. Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from
Champlain, who in fact is paid to do this job. All joking aside, there
is nothing funny about part time jobs. The schedule that the
government was using before to give out unemployment insurance
was based on the number of weeks worked, while it is now based
on the number of hours worked. But in some cases, we could
consider that the number of hours required to qualify for
unemployment insurance has tripled. A person must work three
times as much, at least twice as much, to qualify for unemployment
insurance.
So, people who have part time jobs, especially fishermen,
seasonal workers, young people who have jobs or jobs at
McDonald's, for instance, and many other people will be in a
situation where they will have to contribute to the unemployment
fund, but they will not be eligible for benefits. That is what is
happening. That is another example of the blatant unfairness the
government is creating with this bill.
We can hope that the government will make changes, but I do not
know if cosmetic changes will do when deep down the whole thing
is rotten. It is like cancer. For a person who already has cancer, if
we cut off one of his arms or add on a finger, we give him some
support, but it is still difficult to give him his health back.
Essentially, this bill sponsored by the Department of Human
Resources Development should be thrown out. We ought to rethink
this bill's whole approach.
In fact, it is not just this bill. This reflects the whole mentality of
the Liberal government, its social and economic policies. On that, I
must say that except for a minor initiative of a few million of
dollars at the beginning of its mandate in 1993, under the
infrastructure program which, as my colleague from Champlain
knows, created jobs, and was a good initiative, the government has
done nothing to create jobs, absolutely nothing.
(1325)
The Liberals did nothing but get what my other colleague on my
right described a few moments ago as a case of ``verbal diarrhea''.
[English]
The government suffers from a big case of verbal diarrhoea. Its
members are the ones standing in this illustrious hall, giving us all
kinds of theories and explanations on how well they are doing.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, as my time has almost expired, I want to thank
again my colleague from Champlain for allowing me to speak for
another five minutes.
Nevertheless, I wanted to be sure to underline something I find
important. In Canada and in Quebec, people must be made aware of
the situation, because this is no laughing matter. It is not something
without importance. When we talk about unemployment insurance
and employment, youth training, health and pensions in a society,
or when we talk about a government which has nothing to offer to
stimulate job creation, thse are not trifling matters. Today, millions
of people are affected. The worst will come in a few months. That
is why people are not really aware of this bill's impact. They are
not aware of the full impact of this bill, which will come into effect
in the next few months.
We are still waiting, but these are extremely serious measures
that will affect many people. Once again, this bill reflects the
government's unfair attitude. The greatest injustice that can be
imagined, that has been condemned since the beginning of human
history, is precisely this kind of injustice favouring the rich, the
establishment of programs or projects allowing those better off to
feather their nests and fill up their pockets, while the poor and
vulnerable are ignored, denigrated and robbed. It is indeed in this
case a kind of fraud, a kind of misappropriation. Many of the
workers who contribute to the UI fund will not even qualify for
benefits. It is robbery, to a certain extent.
1651
Young people starting out may be the most vulnerable of all
because, as you know, finding a job and carving out a career
nowadays is not the same as when I was young. I am 52 years old.
When I was a student in my twenties, jobs were not that hard to
find. I am-
[English]
An hon. member: Is this the short answer?
Mr. Marchand: The government needs a lot of detailed
explanation, which is what I am trying to do.
[Translation]
Young people are facing an increasingly difficult situation,
because it is so expensive to go to university to get the education
required to find a job. It is already difficult enough just to get a
diploma, without facing the prospect of not having any job
opportunities upon graduating. This demoralizes young people and
causes them to drop out of school in growing numbers.
Both the young and the old are affected, as well as the sick, the
most vulnerable, and women. Everyone is affected by the measures
taken by this government because, as I said, there is no social
policy in any way, shape or form. That is incredible. Instead of
running the country as it should, the government is sitting on its
power and letting itself be led by rich individuals, corporations and
banks, in spite of the fact that, in a former life, when in opposition,
the Liberal Party found much fault with banks, accusing them of
ruining the economy.
(1330)
A few years ago, as incredible as it may sound, the Prime
Minister, who was the leader of the opposition then, warned:
``When I become the Prime Minister, you can be sure you will have
to pay your share.'' That is more or less what he told banks. And he
was right.
Today, banks are charging-
An hon. member: $5 billion.
Mr. Marchand: That is right, last year, they made $5.2 billion in
profits. They certainly are not poor. They are charging almost 20
per cent in interest on credit card balances. It takes some doing.
That is incredible. As rich as they are, banks are doing what they
can to become even richer.
Recently, the Liberal government denied banks access to the
insurance sector. I must admit that they were served a warning.
Perhaps their next request will be granted, like automobile leasing
for example, which is extremely profitable. Perhaps the Liberal
government will decide to give them a nice little present.
Of course it is in the best interest of this government that the six
federally chartered banks make huge profits. It is well known that
they do make profits. They are doing well and the government will
make sure that they can expand into other areas.
The Deputy Speaker: Your time has expired. Does the hon.
member have the unanimous consent of the House to continue?
Resuming debate.
Mr. Boudria: I have a question, Mr. Speaker.
The Deputy Speaker: The time for questions and comments is
over. Is there unanimous consent to extend the period by a few
minutes?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have a brief question about what the member opposite
just said.
I wish to understand his opinion on the issue of leasing contracts.
Is he saying that he favours Ford Motors Credit over the National
Bank of Canada?
Mr. Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I can answer. First, I wish to thank
the hon. member for his question.
The problem that I was discussing before concerned the banks,
and how we could prevent them from getting more powerful.
General Motors Acceptance Corporation and Ford Motors Credit
are American investment agencies. These companies are exactly
like banks. In the U.S. today, Ford Motors is the sixth biggest
financial institution.
If the hon. member makes a small verbal distinction between
Ford Motors and GM, I do not think it matters, especially since
they are American companies.
In my opinion, in Canada, we should crack down a little harder
on the banks, but not on companies, like car dealerships, that
provide jobs and make a profit. Why amend legislation once again
to benefit banks, at the expense of those in the automobile industry
who have a hard time making ends meet? Life is not always easy.
Unlike banks, car dealers do not pocket profits of $5.2 billion, year
in year out. This is definitely not the case.
I hope that answers the hon. member's question. If I had more
time, I could elaborate on that social concept. There is a difference.
The question was put by a member who is indeed a francophone.
This lack of social concept within the federal government may
reflect a difference in the English Canadian perception, versus the
French Canadian one.
1652
(1335)
In Quebec, the concept of distinct society implies a social policy.
We have a social policy, and I challenge anyone in this House to
claim that, in Quebec, we favour the banks. This is absolutely not
the case. We will never favour the banks in Quebec. We treat them
fairly, but we also ask them to contribute to the province's financial
and economic recovery.
The federal government does not do that. This is a big difference
in terms of social policy. This is not the way things are done in our
province. As you know, the caisses Desjardins were established in
Quebec and they are very successful. These institutions provide
extensive quality services without making exorbitant profits like
the banks.
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
very pleased to take part in the debate on Bill C-11 this morning. It
was said that it is an administrative bill. I do not think so. I would
call it a pernicious bill. Why? Because it will increase federal
involvement in areas of provincial jurisdiction.
Far from indicating a withdrawal of the federal government from
the manpower training area, it will increase its involvement. We
will again see duplication and overlap, although Bloc Quebecois
members were elected to condemn duplication and overlap in the
area of manpower training, among others.
Therefore, this bill is pernicious and the government has no
other choice but to withdraw it because the population of Quebec
does not want it. The population of Quebec does not want it for the
simple reason that it does not show respect for democracy nor for
the people of Quebec which has been asking that the Quebec
government be the only one in charge of manpower training and
employment.
The population of Quebec does not want this bill, and I am not
only talking about individuals. Many of my colleagues mentioned,
this morning, several organizations that have reached a consensus
on the issue of manpower training and job creation. There is a
consensus in Quebec, but I do not think the government
understands the intentions and the concerns of Quebec.
I am talking not only about individuals, but also about editorial
writers, intellectuals, unionists and workers. When we examine the
positions of Lise Bissonnette and Jean-Robert Sansfaçon, of the
FTQ, the CSN and the CEQ, of the bishop of Bathurst, of the
Canadian Labour Congress, of the Acadian mayors and
municipalities, and of the labour council, we see that this view is
held not only in Quebec, but that other provinces are also asking for
withdrawal.
However, we, in Quebec, want all the moneys related to
manpower training to be returned to the provincial authorities. This
bill is pernicious. A clause by clause examination of the bill shows
how the federal government will abuse its power. Why? I will
explain a few clauses of the bill.
How will the human resources development minister assign the
management of the programs he wants to establish? If money is
handed out to individuals or agencies, who will be responsible for
the management of these programs?
That is why we are saying that this minister and his department
will increase their spending power, and their ability to encroach
upon provincial jurisdictions. That is clear.
(1340)
There is a consensus on this, and I cannot figure out why the
government cannot understand what Quebec wants. It wants to get
the money and powers to finally introduce a comprehensive social
policy. When we talk about employment, we also talk about
unemployment and welfare. Unemployment insurance is not just
unemployment insurance anymore.
A commission will be created and will include the word
``insurance'', so the government will be able to further intrude into
provincial jurisdictions. By offering this ``insurance'', the
government will be able to determine the type of program, local
institution or community network. That is what I call piecemeal
management of unemployment insurance. Incidentally, many of
my colleagues have pointed out that the federal government is no
longer paying into the unemployment insurance fund. That does
not prevent it from trying to have its way in unemployment
insurance and employment assistance programs.
You are aware of the $5 billion surplus the federal government
got its hands on in order to bring down its deficit or perhaps to play
Santa with certain community institutions. Community
organizations in my riding too would like some of that money to be
able to help out those most in need.
This bill does not reflect the will of Quebecers. This is about
unemployment insurance, but the words will be changed to
employment insurance. Why do we say this bill is so harmful?
Because, unlike his colleagues, this minister will not have to report
annually on his department's activities. How will we be able to
check on the government and the money it gets from the taxpayers
if this department is not held accountable? No annual report will be
tabled, none. This bill reinforces the powers of the minister and his
department.
I am concerned about how the policies and programs will be
managed once the money has been distributed. I am concerned
about the issue of confidentiality once agencies have been
designated to manage these policy programs. I urge the government
to agree to what the people concerned are asking for. You will not
find only sovereignists among these people, as we have said several
1653
times in committee and in the House, but mainly people who have
reached a social consensus on the issue of labour training. I have a
lot of difficulty accepting the fact that the federal government is
withholding $5 billion from the Unemployment Insurance Fund,
money paid in part by the taxpayers, employees and employers, of
Quebec, when this money is needed to implement a real
employment policy in sync with social reality.
Meanwhile, as the President of the Treasury Board told us
himself, the government will be very pleased to release very
shortly a pamphlet explaining to the people of Quebec that only the
government of Canada, the federal government, can provide them
with any guarantee about the future of the social safety net.
(1345)
The government was sleazy enough to wait for the tabling of the
Quebec budget. They thought this budget would not be very
popular. After all, who is blamed for the cuts? The Canadian Health
and Social Transfer, for example, is being reduced by $4 billion
over three years. This means that the provinces have to cut down
health care services. And yet, we are now creating a health care
research fund. Still another overlapping, another duplication.
I fail to see the efficiency of such a process. I can give you seven
good reasons to withdraw this bill. I also wonder why the
government waited until after the referendum to introduce in the
House this bill which allows them to take over the direction,
implementation and control of social and economic policies. Why?
This bill allows the government to go over the head of the
provinces, to interfere directly, as I said, with organizations,
municipal governments or individuals, regardless of the provincial
jurisdictions.
This will lead to disputes and a lack of social cohesion. That is
what my constituents tell me. As the hon. member for Quebec, I am
often asked who was the federal member before me, the federal
government being so far away. For example, we know what
happened when the federal government managed Quebec harbour.
We know what happened to cultural activities when the federal
built the Old Port in 1984. They put up cement blocks and erected
structures that had to be torn down because they were not
integrated to the cultural reality, the historic environment of the old
port of Quebec City. So we know what happens when, being so
detached from the people, the federal government decides for the
provinces.
The bill prevents Quebec from implementing a truly integrated
social policy. The minister's intervention power will be
dangerously increased in matters concerning income security,
children, seniors, support for provinces for secondary education,
social assistance, labour market adjustment and student loans.
That is why the Bloc is opposed to the bill. The bill also opens
the door to privatization, contracting out of certain programs, such
as unemployment insurance and the Canada pension plan, for
example.
I repeat, the government is giving itself the legal basis enabling
it to encroach massively upon provincial fields of jurisdiction.
Many of my colleagues have already mentioned this morning, but
that is what is going on it bears repeating: the government will
encroach upon provincial fields of jurisdiction, such as child care
and manpower. That is what I call waste.
The Bloc Quebecois was elected for those reasons. Quite
naively, I thought we, the 52 Bloc Quebecois members who were in
the House, could convince the federal government to put an end to
all these overlaps and encroachments.
On the contrary, what have we seen in the last three years? The
speech from the throne contains only new encroaching and
overlapping measures. They are trying to make us believe they are
decentralizing. But there is no such thing as decentralization
without the powers and money that go with it; you do not give
powers without the necessary funds. We know very well what can
be achieved without funds: not much. With one dollar, you can do
so much, with two dollars, you can do a little more, but with three
dollars, you can do a lot more.
Transfers to the provinces in the areas of health, post-secondary
education and welfare have been cut. We know what is happening;
people are very angry.
Once again last weekend I met with some of my constituents.
They urged me to ask the government in this House not to go ahead
with the proposed reform.
(1350)
The Bloc Quebecois has done a very good job. We were able to
explain to people and to organizations in our ridings how the
federal government was hurting the provinces by cutting its
transfers. My constituents understand, and I am sure the same is
true for all members who have worked in their ridings and who
have been able to make the people understand what is going on.
Our constituents will not be fooled. They will no longer be fooled.
On the contrary, they are well-informed, they read and watch the
same news we do.
The news tell us that it is not what we want. We are speaking for
Quebec, but I am sure that in other provinces, several ministers and
premiers also deplore what is going on.
In this bill, the federal government legitimizes and legalizes the
numerous interventions it has made in areas under provincial
jurisdiction in the name of its spending power. I think this is clear.
1654
The Bloc Quebecois will fight. Should this bill be passed, we
would still continue to inform people, to tell them about the cuts
and about the federal government's interference in areas under
provincial jurisdiction.
When there is a consensus in a province, that is what we call
social unity, and that kind of social unity must be respected and not
ignored in this House. This bill is an example of just how the
desires of an entire population, federalists, sovereignists, anyone
and everyone, can be trampled on. This is what the federal
government is being asked, but it turns a deaf ear.
I shall end here, trusting that what I have had to say this morning
will have been successful, if not in changing anyone's mind-for I
do not believe that the other side of this House is likely to change
its mind-at least in making them think of the reality of what is
going on in Quebec in the area of manpower training, when the
unemployment rate is 11 per cent or more, as it is in my riding.
What does it mean if over 11 per cent of people are on welfare?
It means that the provinces will have to assume responsibility for
these people as they look for work. Often, these are not true job
creation measures, because true job creation measures need to be
cohesive and they must involve the various local, social and
economic stakeholders.
Mr. Maurice Godin (Châteauguay, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to thank my colleague for Québec. I am also sorry not to hear
from the Liberal government on such an important bill on
unemployment insurance.
I too fail to understand how, despite a consensus at all levels in
Quebec, this government can still refuse to decentralize its powers
to the provinces. Quebec is not the only province calling for
decentralization, they all are. We know we are carrying around this
debt, which, around 1997-98, will reach $600 billion with $50
billion in interest.
Just imagine, if we had $50 billion a year to invest in job
creation, we would not be here debating this bill. We know the debt
is simply the result of waste, duplication and the symbols of
Canada they have been trying to build in recent years.
(1355)
My colleague was saying earlier that this government's
management style is piecemeal. I would say, rather, that all these
programs are much more the government's showcase. What is
important for the federal government is to have a showcase in each
province to establish its presence. But what is the effect? It serves
practically no purpose.
I would ask my colleague to tell me about the advantage, not
only for Quebec but for all the provinces, of having only one
employment window with all the powers and the costs and the
money and of not being constantly stymied by these national
directives.
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec): Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for
his remarks and his question. I could simply say that this
government does not understand the meaning of the words
decentralization and deregulation. When the government wants to
ignore the provinces and negotiate agreements directly with local
organizations and institutions, it is indeed because it wants to have
a window. It insists upon having its place next to the Government
of Quebec or the government of another province to show that, with
its little grants, it will get a little recognition.
As for what the result of all this would be, the answer I would
give my colleague is another word to which this government is
probably allergic: efficiency. That is what we would get. I think
that, if we had the money and the programs, this is the policy we
would like to implement in Quebec, a policy that is agreed upon by
sovereignists and federalists alike in that province. I hope the
government will finally understand that the views we express in
this House are not sovereignist views, but the views of the people
of Quebec and of stakeholders in the social and economic fields in
that province.
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: Colleagues, with your permission I will
call it two o'clock.
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
1654
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. Harold Culbert (Carleton-Charlotte, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the president of Mountain
View Packers, Mr. Byron McGrath, and his company directors who
have accepted a new challenge to join forces with Tri-Winner
Irving Acres Inc. of Presque Isle, Maine. Together these two
companies last Friday announced the creation of a new company,
CANUSA Foods Limited in Centreville, New Brunswick.
This merger will signal the new company to begin construction
this spring on a value added processing plant providing an
additional 25 jobs for the region.
Last Friday's announcement proves once again that confidence
and good aggressive business management, coupled with strategic
government support, helps to create more jobs for Canadians and in
this case in the riding of Carleton-Charlotte.
1655
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec-Est, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in
an issue of
Entre parenthèses, Impératif français reminds us that in
the federal government, English is the real working language.
It says that 22.8 per cent of management positions are held by
francophones whereas 32.8 per cent of support positions are filled
by francophones. In other words, the higher you go on the salary
scale, the less room there is for francophones.
Impératif français also points out that the federal government is
more bilingual in Quebec. While the English minority in Quebec
forms only 10 per cent of the population, 52.7 per cent of positions
in the federal public service are bilingual.
Moreover, according to the most recent statistics issued by the
Treasury Board, in 1994-95, 88 per cent of translation done in the
federal government was from English into French, or roughly the
same proportion as 10 years ago. Impératif français is quite right:
in Canada, 25 years after the coming into force of the Official
Languages Act, English is more official than French.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Bob Mills (Red Deer, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the
Reform Party and all Canadians, I would like to express my sorrow
and shock that a UN base sheltering refugees was shelled by Israeli
forces today resulting in many deaths and injuries.
This tragic occurrence must be condemned by everyone.
Although Israelis said it was an accident, this does not make it
acceptable. Civilians being sheltered by the UN must not only
avoid being targeted but combatants must avoid them in all
circumstances.
This tragedy points to the futility and destructiveness of the
recent violence. I urge Israel, Lebanon and Syria to immediately
begin around the clock negotiations to solve this conflict.
Humanity demands that they act now to sort out their differences
and make sure such tragic events never happen again.
* * *
Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay-Atikokan, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Canadian book publishing companies have been more
than generous with university students in Cuba.
Recently I sent requests to approximately 600 publishing
companies across Canada for donations of Canadiana. These books
are for the library at the recently established department of
Canadian studies at the University of Havana.
The response has been tremendous. On a daily basis we are
receiving eight to ten boxes of books. These donations are a clear
example of the sympathy that Canadians have for the struggle
faced by the people and students of Cuba. We should continue to do
all that we can to help this island nation overcome the hardships
imposed upon it by the unjust embargo.
I congratulate the Canadian book publishing industry for its
gracious support. The people of Cuba are truly grateful. They are
once again reminded of the generosity and humanity for which
Canadians are known worldwide.
* * *
Mr. Andy Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to bring to the attention of the House the
Portage program currently operating in Lac Echo just north of
Montreal. This program is a therapeutic community based
treatment program for young people between the ages of 14 and 19
experiencing substance abuse problems along with significant
difficulties in their personal growth.
The community supports the individual's efforts in living up to
personal obligations and encourages progress. This is done in the
context of a series of groups where achievements are reviewed and
new challenges set.
Portage is widely recognized as one of the most successful and
cost effective programs in existence for rehabilitating substance
abusers. Globally the program boasts that 85 per cent of graduates
remain drug free.
Atlantic Canada is in need of this kind of therapy program as
many of those in need of treatment have been travelling to the U.S.
for rehab.
I am encouraged that Portage will soon be bringing its expertise
to Fredericton. I urge the Government of Canada to support it in
that effort.
* * *
Ms. Bonnie Brown (Oakville-Milton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to acknowledge the efforts of Gloria and Harold
Williams who reside in my riding of Oakville-Milton.
Motivated by the events of the October referendum in Quebec,
Mr. and Mrs. Williams along with 24 of their friends founded
Speak Out Canada, a non-profit, non-partisan, grassroots
community group dedicated to keeping Canada united.
1656
Since December 1995 their organization has grown considerably
with over 200 volunteer members. It is encouraging and assisting
the formation of other unity groups across the country.
They have adopted an extensive agenda for the immediate and
long term future, including planning unity oriented events and
organizing discussion quorums. Their ultimate goal is to reach out
to their fellow Canadians through links with other grassroots
organizations to promote an increased awareness of our country
and the benefits of working together to keep us united and strong.
I commend Mr. and Mrs. Williams for their efforts and I wish
them ongoing success.
* * *
(1405)
[Translation]
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford, BQ): Mr. Speaker, despite the
commitment and the promises made by the Prime Minister of
Canada to renew the Canadian Constitution to better take into
account the traditional and legitimate claims of Quebec, the
Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs is proposing various
constitutional pas-de-deux to repair the damage made in 1982 by
the present Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister's promises, which all in all do not amount to
a great deal, are already too much for some premiers. Trial
balloons, reversals, spectacular parades, such is the agenda
proposed by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs to please
English Canada. Does the minister believe that Quebecers are so
blind that they cannot see through his real game?
The people of Quebec are not fooled by the minister's trickeries
and will not let him pull wool over their eyes.
* * *
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in 1861, the
St. Albert mission was created by Father Albert Lacombe and
about twenty Metis families. Together, they built the first school,
the first bridge and the first hospital in Alberta.
Still today, francophones in Alberta enrich our communities. In
1994, the franco-albertan newspaper Le Franco received several
awards from the Association de la presse francophone. Everywhere
in Alberta, French teaching through immersion programs is a
remarkable success.
I am proud to have among the St. Albert constituents an active
francophone population that follows Father Lacombe's tradition
and fully participates in the development of our community.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Congratulations!
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, today there
are representatives of 500,000 coastal British Columbians on
Parliament Hill. They have come here because they feel their
Liberal MPs for British Columbia have let them down, have
betrayed them, have turned their backs on them.
The so-called Mifflin plan will destroy coastal communities and
take jobs out of thousands of British Columbia households. It will
do nothing for conservation of the stock. It will do nothing to
enhance the salmon and other fisheries on the west coast. Yet the
minister is determined to continue with a program that will destroy
the communities and the lives of people.
I say to my Liberal British Columbia friends opposite, is it not
time that you stood up for British Columbia as opposed to the
government centred here in Ottawa?
* * *
Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today I want
to recognize a P.E.I. farm leader who has given much of his life to
the farm movement.
Urban Laughlin of Sherbrooke, P.E.I. was elected last week for
his 20th one-year term as district director of district one, region one
of the National Farmers Union.
Urban's dedication and that of his wife Mary to the concerns of
primary producers and the family farm in my opinion is
unsurpassed.
Mr. Laughlin has always taken a very principled position on
farm issues within his organization and in farm policy circles. The
motto ``Farmers are Important'' is emphasized time and time
again. His voice has been important in providing focus to debates
and alternatives to the open market approach to marketing, thereby
forcing policymakers to keep farmers in mind in their decision
making.
I offer my congratulations and his continued success as a farm
leader.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Bernard Patry (Pierrefonds-Dollard, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the International Monetary Fund expects that the growth
of the Canadian economy should continue to improve in the next
two years, reaching an annual rate of 2.9 per cent in 1997.
1657
Among the G-7 countries, only Japan would outmatch this
performance. So, Canada's economic situation has greatly
improved since our government was elected.
The IMF also points out, and I quote: ``Following the October
referendum in Quebec, the level of confidence improved and
interest rates went down significantly.''
The people of Quebec and Canada had long felt what the IMF is
telling us. Quebec separation has extremely negative impacts on
the economy. It is high time for the PQ to put this option aside if it
really wants to contribute to the economic recovery.
* * *
(1410)
Mr. Nick Discepola (Vaudreuil, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Normex
Telecom, created almost 25 years ago by its president, Jacques
Coutellier, has just been acquired by an Alberta company called
In-Flight Phone Canada Inc. Following this acquisition, the
company will be in a better position to become the leader in the
communication cable installation industry in Canada.
Normex revenues, which totalled $7 million in 1995, are
expected to exceed $60 million in three years because of this
transaction and to help create more than 300 new jobs in the high
technology industry in Montreal itself.
We are very pleased about this transaction, which confirms
Montreal's leadership in the North American telecommunications
industry. We hope that Canadians from all over the country will
follow the example set by this transaction and continue to work
together to develop a more prosperous and dynamic economy for
all Canadians.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz (Yellowhead, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, on April
10 at 5.30 a.m., armed men surrounded and stormed the Manitoba
farm home of the Desrochers.
One wonders, was the family harbouring foreign criminals, was
it engaged in smuggling activities or was it in Canada illegally?
No. Norman Desrocher had dared to do the unthinkable. He sold his
barley to the Americans without obtaining permission from the
granddaddy of the prairies, the Canadian Wheat Board. It took 14
state employees, one-third of them well armed, to seize a legally
owned grain truck.
Compare this action to the border south of Ottawa where
smuggling is a 24-hour a day business. Is this equality of the law?
On the Dakota border a family is terrorized by government agents.
On the New York border the government does nothing. When will
this cowardly government begin to apply the law equally and
fairly?
* * *
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain (Guelph-Wellington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have bad news for the House today. A recent poll
commissioned by the member for Edmonton Southwest shows that
even in Alberta Canadians think the ideas of the Reform Party are
too extreme. How can that be?
Is it possible that Canadians see the study of caning as too
extreme? Could it be that supporting the dismantling of health care
by the Reform Party is a bit too harsh? Interestingly enough, 64 per
cent of the people surveyed were impressed with our Prime
Minister. The poll was strangely silent on what people felt about
the leader of the Reform Party. I wish they had asked that question.
I have bad news for Reformers. Polls are not very good for them.
Perhaps they will be smiling more if they read them less.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, the Council of the regional county municipalities of
Rivière-du-Loup, Témiscouata, Kamouraska, Des Basques,
Rimouski-Neigette, Matane, Pabos, Côte-de-Gaspé and
Bonaventure have all sent a request to the federal government,
asking for nothing less than the withdrawal of the bill concerning
the unemployment insurance reform.
The RCMs point out the negative impact the reform proposed by
the Minister of Human Resources Development will have. They are
referring to the measures affecting seasonal workers. They think
that the rules restricting the workers' eligibility or requesting 910
hours to become eligible to UI benefits for the first time will only
help to promote the underground economy.
These people are not professional agitators, as the minister has
suggested, but rather the mayors of these various regional county
municipalities, speaking on behalf of the people who elected them.
I think that the minister should realize that the regions affected
by the reform will not accept token changes. The government will
have to go back to the drawing board.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
those proudly serving in the armed forces are disgusted at the way
the defence minister has disregarded the principles of integrity,
duty, respect and decency. I remind the minister and Liberal MPs
that these are the trademarks of every man and woman serving in
1658
uniform, not the litany of irresponsibility, contempt and cover-up
which plagues the Somalia inquiry for which this minister refuses
to accept responsibility.
As a retired soldier with service in many areas, I have seen
cowardly actions but usually it is by Canada's enemies and not
Canada's own. I cannot condone the cheap shots from the defence
minister as he questions the loyalty of Reform MPs to our military
merely to deflect criticism of his own incompetence.
Until the minister puts on a uniform, he has no right to lecture
me or any member on principled behaviour, integrity or even on
being un-Canadian.
* * *
(1415 )
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York-Simcoe, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
Monday, April 22 is Earth Day. Millions of Canadians will take
part in grassroots celebrations and events from St. John's to the
Gulf Islands to Cambridge Bay.
Earth Day is an international event. It is the largest celebration of
environmental awareness and action in the world. Earth Day is a
day of hope, action, responsibility and celebration.
The best example of celebration and hope is the Ekokids Club.
This year Earth Day Canada hopes to see 1,000 Ekokids Clubs
across the country. Thousands of Canadian children have shown
leadership in environmental action. As parents we must stand with
our children. A clean environment today ensures the health of
future generations.
I urge all Canadians to join in local Earth Day celebrations and
renew our commitment to the preservation of the planet.
_____________________________________________
1658
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, historically, Quebec has always been penalized when it
came to federal research and development spending. The proof of
this is that, from 1979 to 1991, Quebec received only 18.6 per cent
of federal funding in this area, while Ontario received 50 per cent.
These funds create many jobs and are highly stimulating to the
economy.
This is an area in which Quebec would like to have its fair share.
It is certainly more positive on the economic level for our tax
dollars to come back to us for research and development instead of
unemployment insurance.
My question is for the Minister of Natural Resources. How,
under these circumstances, can she justify her department's choice
of priorities in cutting off funding for the Tokamak project in
Varennes, when this adds to the inequity from which Quebec has
suffered far too long already in R&D?
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated in this House before, this
government confronted with a significant fiscal crisis has been
forced to make very difficult choices. We have to set priorities as a
government.
We are an energy rich nation and I am sure the hon. member
appreciates that fact. In this energy rich nation, unfortunately
fusion research is not a priority. Therefore, when asked to reduce
my department's budget by some 60 per cent over three and
one-half to four years, we had to set priorities. We set priorities and
unfortunately fusion was not one of them.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, how can the minister justify her decision to end
investments in the Tokamak project without any consultation with
her partners, including the Government of Quebec, despite the fact
that they funded 50 per cent of the project?
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, I come back to the point that we have to make choices
and we have to set priorities. In this country we have done that in
relation to energy research.
I am not suggesting that fusion research does not have a place. I
am sure that the people who do this work do good work.
Unfortunately it is not a priority when we look at the other energy
sources this nation possesses.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Leader of the Opposition, BQ):Mr.
Speaker, I feel obliged to tell the minister that everyone in Quebec
is opposed to her decision and would offer as proof the unanimous
resolution by the National Assembly condemning her decision.
That makes it twice this week that the federal government has
managed to turn Quebec unanimously against it.
How can the minister persist with her decision to cut off her $7.5
million involvement in the Varennes basic research project, in
which she is involved with other partners, while last June she added
$15 million to the TRIUMF project in B.C.? This is also a basic
1659
research project, and one in which the federal government is the
sole investor. Why cut back in Quebec, where there is already anR&D deficit, while stepping up investment elsewhere?
(1420)
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, let me assure the hon. member that my department
has not contributed any funding to the TRIUMPH project.
Let me come back to the basic point. Government, especially in
these difficult fiscal times, is about choices and setting priorities.
We all must do this. The government has set those priorities.
My department, facing a 60 per cent reduction, set priorities and
made choices. In this country fusion as a possible energy source is
not a research priority.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, last night we heard on the news that the government was
on the verge of announcing that it has reached an agreement with
the maritime provinces on the goods and services tax. Under this
agreement, these provinces would receive $1 billion in
compensation from the federal government.
Can the minister confirm that such an agreement has been
reached and, more importantly, that $1 billion will be paid to the
maritime provinces as compensation?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
we are negotiating with several provinces. This being said, there is
no final agreement to date. When we have one, I will be pleased to
make an announcement in this House.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, is the minister aware that, if indeed the maritime
provinces receive compensation, he will be asking Canadians in the
other provinces to pay for it out of their own money? He will reach
into their pockets to compensate for a tax people in the maritimes
will no longer be paying. This is quite a present.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if
ever there were compensation, it would be for losses incurred. As a
matter of fact, if we look at federal adjustment programs, as in the
case of the Crow benefit, even if they were adjustments in
transportation subsidies to the Atlantic provinces and Quebec,
adjustments were made.
This is what our country is all about, the federal government
together with the people of Canada provide assistance to those
regions or parts of the country in need. Is the member saying that
when compensation was specifically geared to Quebec, it should
have been denied? I believe this to be a rather absurd notion
Quebecers would find totally unacceptable.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence.
Chief of Defence Staff Boyle is up to his ears in the Somalia
scandal cover-up, and yet the defence minister continues to allow
Boyle to act as suspect, star witness, judge and jury in the Somalia
affair.
Will the defence minister, in the name of fairness and justice, ask
Boyle, who should never have been made chief of defence staff in
the first place, to step aside until the Somalia inquiry gets to the
bottom of this whole affair?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in the name of
fairness and justice, the hon. member should allow the inquiry to
do its job.
It is quite alarming when the hon. member comes to the House
day after day and attacks a hard working public servant who is
unable to come into the Chamber and defend himself.
The chief of defence staff will be able to give all of his views on
matters relevant to Somalia when the commission begins its
hearings. That is the way Canadians expect justice to be handled,
not by answering such libelled questions coming from the hon.
member day after day.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I do not blame the chief of defence staff. I blame the
Minister of National Defence for this mess.
(1425 )
Canadians will not be surprised if the defence minister refuses to
take any action against his friend Jean Boyle. The defence minister
and the Prime Minister could not have appointed Boyle as chief of
defence staff with the recommendation of the privy council office.
Will the minister admit that the privy council office had serious
reservations about Boyle's suitability for the position of chief of
defence staff? Can he tell the House what concerns the office
expressed and why he rejected them?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member's question is absolute nonsense. I ask him, with all
1660
decency, to cease and desist these horrible personal attacks on a
man who is serving Canada with distinction.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, in view of the attempted cover-up of data relevant to
the Somalia inquiry, the Somalia inquiry had to shut down this
week. The commissioners continue to be concerned about the
integrity of the documents they received from the minister's
department and they are now concerned about the integrity of the
work the commission is able to do.
When will the minister accept responsibility for this entire
scandal and cover-up and resign?
Hon. David M. Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, most Canadians
understand that when one gives the answer no, one means no.
Obviously the Reform Party cannot understand that barest of
two-letter words.
With respect to the question of documentation, the department
has met the deadline established by the commission. The
commission is now evaluating the department's response. The
commission, I assume, will have something to say about this
tomorrow.
The commission will have to decide if it still requires documents
essential to its work which have not yet surfaced. Then it is its job
as a commission, quoting the terms of reference, ``to investigate all
matters, including allegations of cover-up and destruction of
evidence''. The matter is for the commission to investigate and to
decide what has happened to those documents.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Natural Resources.
For some weeks now, Quebec has been trying to reason with the
Minister of Natural Resources. In a letter dated April 2, three
Quebec ministers argued that the Canadian Centre for Magnetic
Fusion represents one of the biggest scientific projects ever
undertaken in the province of Quebec and asked the Minister of
Natural Resources to reconsider her decision.
Does the minister realize that her decision to cut off the $7.5
million federal contribution to the Tokamak project in Varennes
will entail the loss of about 100 high tech jobs in Quebec, including
some 40 international level research jobs in greater Montreal, and
will jeopardize the future of a centre of excellence set up in Quebec
and recognized world wide?
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, as I have said before in the House, government
involves setting priorities and making difficult choices.
Unfortunately expenditures on fusion by the government at this
time are not a priority.
The hon. member talks about high tech jobs and benefits for the
province of Quebec. As I have already mentioned to him on a
number of occasions, Candu research by AECL and the sale of one
Candu reactor in the export market potentially delivers $100
million worth of economic benefits to the province of Quebec. It
delivers 4,000 potential person hours of employment to the
province of Quebec.
I come back to the point I made before that government is about
choices. One of our choices is to develop the export market for the
Candu reactor. That will lead to significant economic opportunities
and high tech, high skilled jobs for the province of Quebec.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
minister is reminding us of the benefits the province of Quebec is
getting from CANDU. She should know that these benefits amount
only to 12 per cent, well under what Quebec should receive in
benefits.
(1430)
The minister always talks about priorities. The province of
Quebec is sick of paying for this government's priorities. Quebec
has had enough of the federal government making miserly
economies at its expense.
Given the unanimous motion passed yesterday in the Quebec
National Assembly and the overwhelming negative impact the
minister's decision will have on the economy of Quebec and on its
international reputation in fundamental research, will the minister
agree to reconsider her decision and to reinstate the $7.5 million
federal subsidy that can save the Tokamak project in Varennes?
[English]
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Natural Resources, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member talks about concepts like fair share
and priorities. My department spends 25 per cent of its R and D
budget in the province Quebec. That is proportionate to the
population of the province of Quebec. We spend that R and D in
part in areas that are an energy priority for the country such as
energy efficiency, renewable energy and remote community energy
efficiency.
As a department we do more than our fair share in the province
of Quebec, and that money is spent on the government's priorities.
* * *
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
GST issue has come to a head.
1661
During the election the Liberals campaigned up and down
streets promising that if they were elected the GST would meet
its end. That was then, this is now.
I want the finance minister to make something very clear for
Canadians and for the House. Was it his position that when they
were campaigning on doorsteps around the country they were
telling Canadians that if elected they would spend $1 billion to
permanently weld into place the most hated tax in Canadian history
by integrating it with the sales taxes of the Atlantic provinces? Is
that what he expects Canadians to believe?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
our position during the election campaign was set out very clearly
on page 22 of the red book. I suggest the member read it. It talks
about ease of administration, it talks about simplification, it talks
about harmonization with the provinces. It talks about making the
tax system more responsive to consumers and to small businesses,
which is clearly the intention of the government.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I do not
know how the finance minister expects Canadians to believe that
when his own caucus does not even believe it. That is why it is
voting against him.
The finance minister knows there are many Liberals in the
government who would not be sitting where they are today if they
had not promised their faces off that the GST would be gone under
a Liberal government.
Why does the finance minister not just ask for the public's
forgiveness and admit the Liberals made a promise they knew they
could not possibly meet?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
how many members of the Reform Party does the member think
would have been elected if they had known that last year Reform
would come forth with a budget which would eviscerate medicare?
How many members of the Reform Party would have been
elected if they had known Reform would virtually eliminate the old
age pension? How many members of the Reform Party would have
been elected had they known that what this party really stands for is
old age pensions for the rich but nothing for the poor and had they
known it would cut transfers?
How many members of the Reform Party would have been
elected if the true colours of that party and the divisions that have
been made manifest had been clear to them at the time of the
election?
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
The conflict in Lebanon is getting worse. Today, the Israeli army
attacked a refugee camp under UN protection. Sixty-eight people,
mainly civilians, including children, and also UN peacekeepers, are
reported to have been killed. Although Israel did acknowledge its
mistake, the fact remains that such mistakes are unforgivable and
could be repeated as long as the conflict rages on.
(1435)
Does the Minister of Foreign Affairs intend to intervene with the
Israeli government as soon as possible to demand an immediate
ceasefire?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, on behalf of the government and the people of Canada, I
wish to express our deep sympathy and regret to the families of the
victims and the people of Lebanon. This morning's attacks, which
killed civilians, including children, and members of the UN
peacekeeping mission, are unacceptable to Canada.
We called a meeting with the Israeli chargé d'affaires to convey
this message. We asked for a ceasefire, a cessation of hostilities,
and the reinforcement of the peace process in Lebanon.
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, can the
minister undertake to intervene with the UN to have the Security
Council present Israel and Lebanon with a plan for a lasting peace?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I welcome the suggestion from the hon. member. The
security council will take up this matter sometime this afternoon
based on a resolution from the Egyptians.
We are not at present a member of the security council. However,
I will certainly have our ambassador there make the position of the
Canadian government known, as I have stated it.
There is a meeting scheduled for Monday in Luxemburg of all
the foreign ministers whose governments were part of the Sharm el
Sheikh meeting a month ago involving a number of Arab states,
Israel, the Palestinians and us.
We will use that forum as well to express our strong concern
about the attacks, to put in place actions against terrorism, to
promote the development of peace and to initiate the kinds of aid or
assistance which my colleague, the Minister for International
Co-Operation, is working on to help the development of the peace
process in the West Bank, for the Palestinian authorities and in
Israel itself.
* * *
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in seeking
the leadership of the Liberal Party, the finance minister said he
would get rid of the GST. He further stated on March 6, 1990 it
1662
would be difficult to do that if the federal tax becomes integrated
with provincial taxes.
If harmonization was bad then, why is it not bad now?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
harmonization obviously leads to a better tax for consumers and for
small business.
With a harmonized tax one still has all of the flexibility required
to administer the tax system both at the federal level and the
provincial levels.
I cannot believe the hon. member is actually suggesting we
should not try to rationalize the system, that we should not try to
reduce the costs, that we should not try to develop a tax system that
would be far more efficient and make us far more competitive as
we face the opposition that exists outside our borders, not inside.
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I guess the
short version of that answer is he is now enlightened.
Not all the Atlantic provinces have jumped on the harmonization
band wagon. The MLAs of Prince Edward Island are seeking
further input because, to quote one, ``a blended levy would broaden
the tax base moving into areas not currently taxed by the PST such
as electricity, heating oil, drugs, some clothing and footwear,
equipment for the physically challenged and textbooks''.
Is this what the finance minister wants to do, tax the physically
challenged?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if
one takes a look at the GST one will see there is an extensive line of
rebates to take care of physically disadvantaged people or lower
income people. This is a great advantage that exists within the GST
that does not exist within the PST.
Mr. Speaker-
(1440 )
Mr. Silye: Do not choke on your own words.
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard): It was a rough trip to Thailand.
An hon. member: Oh, oh.
Miss Grey: What happened in China?
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard): I am sorry, Jim. This is not
working out well for either one of us.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Just stay tuned. We may
come back to it some day.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Gaspé, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Deputy Prime Minister.
Those concerned continue to oppose the coast guard's new fee
structure. One of the major points raised by a majority of
stakeholders is that, if the minister goes ahead without measuring
the impact of the new fee structure, our marine sector will become
less competitive vis-à-vis the U.S.
Does the Deputy Prime Minister admit that the coast guard's
new service fee structure will not apply to ships using the St.
Lawrence Seaway to deliver their cargoes to American ports on the
Great Lakes?
[English]
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the actions of the
ministry are based on very careful consultation with the industry,
based on the principle of user pay, user say.
I should, however, remind the House and the hon. member that
this matter is now the subject of an inquiry by a parliamentary
committee which is currently sitting. It will complete its very
extensive hearing of witnesses from all parts of the country this
afternoon and will write a report this evening.
The minister has engaged himself to read the report, to wait on it
before making decisions. It would be a lack of conformity to the
comity that the government owes to this House and its
parliamentary committees to attempt to anticipate the report.
Therefore, further statements should wait until the minister has
read the report.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Gaspé, BQ): Mr. Speaker, allow me to put a
second question to the Deputy Prime Minister, as the commissioner
himself continues to express his views on this matter.
Since fees will be charged to the ships going to Canadian ports
but not to those bound for the U.S., does the Deputy Prime Minister
recognize that the new fee structure threatens to divert marine
traffic to U.S. ports?
[English]
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will repeat more
succinctly what I have just said. The question is out of order, the
matter being before a parliamentary committee which is to report
and the minister must properly wait on that.
However, the evidence given to the committee, I would suggest,
is at variance with the facts as presented by the hon. member.
* * *
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
1663
The Freshwater Institute in Winnipeg and the Canadian Centre
for Inland Waters in Burlington are facing severe budget cuts,
threatening one of Canada's greatest assets, namely fresh water.
Can the minister commit to maintaining the 1993-94 funding
levels of these two internationally renowned institutions for fresh
water science?
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon.
member for Davenport for his question.
Members of the House will know the distinction the hon.
member has earned by his years of service.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. McWhinney: No one has spoken more eloquently before
the House and in international arenas in support of principles of
environmental protection and conservation of scarce natural
resources.
The hon. member will understand that the government is
committed as a top priority to reducing the deficit, to balancing the
budget. Our treasurer has brought in a magnificent budget that has
commanded general support. This has involved, however, in the
interests of achieving that, across the board economies in all
departments imposed.
(1445)
Consistent with this-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): With the greatest of respect,
the hon. member for Skeena.
* * *
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my question is
also for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
The Government of Canada has provided hundreds of millions of
dollars to the east coast fishery through a variety of programs for
the last decade.
Recently the minister announced an $80 million licence
buy-back in British Columbia. He is aware that virtually all of this
money was contributed by west coast fishermen through licence
fee increases they have had to pay for the past 25 years.
Can the minister of fisheries explain the disparity of treatment
between the east and west coast fishing industries by his
department where billions of dollars are dedicated to the east coast
but only $80 million is dedicated to the west coast, which is really
only a return of fishermen's contributions in the first place?
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the situations on the
east coast and the west coast are not cognate. On the east coast we
face the disappearance of an industry and the loss of 40,000 jobs.
The situation on the west coast is one that involves a crisis in the
year 1996 with the expectation that the industry will get back to
better times in 1997 and 1998.
The measures taken by the government have been taken with the
advice of a round table of 70 people representing all segments of
the industry. We believe they are enough to carry us through this
difficult time.
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the
minister has tried to determine how many jobs on the west coast
will be lost as a result of his plan.
There is a delegation of people here from British Columbia
today representing half a million British Columbians who are very
concerned about their future and the future of their communities in
the wake of the minister's plan. These people participated in these
round table discussions and state unequivocally that their
recommendations in that process were ignored.
Can the minister explain how it is that although he claims wide
consultations with all the stakeholders, there is a delegation
representing half a million British Columbians here today
demanding that he withdraw this plan? Will he listen to them and
do so?
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am happy to assure
the hon. member that I have met with this delegation today on
behalf of the minister. I believe, after a number of years of
experience outside Parliament, that I am good at listening to
representations.
The government is very concerned with the fate of the industry
on the west coast. Urgent measures are being taken to meet the
situation in 1996. The plan put into operation, about which we are
still receiving advice and looking for advice, will carry us to the
better times in 1997 and 1998.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Philippe Paré (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Tran Trieu Quan, a Canadian citizen, is still rotting in a
Vietnamese prison. We learned this morning that the Office of the
Prime Minister knew the whereabouts of Paul Morgan. Moreover,
Excel Cotton, a company owned by Mr. Morgan, submitted its
financial statements to Canada's Department of Industry last
January.
Why is it that, while both the current Minister of Foreign Affairs
and his predecessor claim to have been looking into this matter for
more than a year, the federal government hid from Mr. Quan's
family and the Vietnamese authorities the fact that they knew
where Mr. Morgan was?
1664
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the government is hiding nothing. All the information we
had was shared with the lawyers of the family, the family itself and
with the respective authorities.
This is a matter of very serious consequence. I have watched
with some dismay the statements of the hon. member who rather
than trying to provide a solution simply tries to provoke more
misrepresentation and misinformation.
(1450 )
If we are going to find a solution to this problem we should be
working together, not trying to provoke the kind of uninformed
reaction the hon. member is promoting.
[Translation]
Mr. Philippe Paré (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Foreign Affairs is apparently about to announce the
appointment of a special advisor to deal with cases such as that of
Mr. Quan. But his colleague, the President of the Treasury Board,
stated yesterday that there was nothing more that the federal
government could do to resolve this matter.
How credible are the minister's alleged initiatives, given that his
remarks are contradicted by his own colleague's statements and
that the government keeps developing trade relations with Vietnam
without demanding that human rights be respected, as they should
be in Mr. Quan's case?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in any one year some four to five million Canadians travel
abroad in a wide variety of circumstances. In most cases when they
need assistance it is provided through the consular services of the
government. From time to time there are special or difficult cases
where people get entrapped in local laws, requirements and
regulations.
For that reason I am announcing today that we have set up a
special adviser on consular matters who will take on the
responsibility for dealing with the kinds of cases on an
active-proactive basis such as the Quan case or the
Spencer-Lamont case so that we can provide the full attention of
government. That as much as anything else demonstrates our real
commitment to ensure the full protection of the rights of Canadian
citizens when they go abroad.
* * *
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday,
the Deputy Prime Minister said it was the policy of the government
to protect the viability of the Canada pension plan for seniors in
the long term. That policy was reaffirmed yesterday by the
Minister of Human Resources Development.
Yet when I look at the fine print on page 1.16 of the public
accounts what do I find? ``The government's authority to pay
pensions and benefits is limited to the balance in the account.''
My question is for the Minister of Finance. Is the government
prepared to put its money where its mouth is and demonstrate its
commitment to the Canada pension plan by reporting the unfunded
liability of $500 billion in the public accounts of Canada?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the way in which the government provides for its accounts is
obviously established by a tradition and also by generally accepted
accounting principles established by the auditor general. We will
continue to provide for accounts in that way.
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, that was as
an eloquent reply.
The point I am trying to make is that we hear all kinds of verbal
commitments from the government, but when we look at the fine
print we find out there are all kinds of loopholes for it to escape
through and walk away from its obligation to people.
Can the Minister of Finance preserve the Canada pension plan
for seniors and maintain their faith in the government's pension
plan by putting the unfunded liability in the public accounts of
Canada?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
thank the hon. member for his comment about my eloquence. After
my answer to the member from Calgary I needed that.
The government stands four square behind the Canada pension
plan. The unfunded liability, as the member describes it, is a
natural consequence of a pay as you go plan. One of the options
that is being looked at by the commission is to fund it a great deal
more and that is something we will be discussing with the
provinces.
The fundamental point is that the government is engaging in
these consultations because it supports the Canada pension plan.
The government believes it is important to have a Canada pension
plan there for all Canadians, not simply wealthy Canadians. The
government supports the Canada pension plan because it does not
agree with the position of the Reform Party which is to have
pensions only for the rich and to leave the poor, poor.
1665
[Translation]
Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau-La Lièvre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
The hearts of thousands of Canadians of Lebanese origin are
filled with sadness and despair today because of recent events in
the Middle East. I was approached by their local leaders.
(1455)
I would like to know if the minister intends to contact his Israeli
and Lebanese counterparts to condemn this carnage and to insist
that hostilities should cease and, above all, that resolution 425,
which was passed back in 1978, be implemented.
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as the hon. member knows, I met with Lebanese officials.
I conveyed to them the Canadian government's concern about the
events taking place in southern Lebanon.
We are doing all we can. Today, I sent the Israeli foreign affairs
department a letter stating Canada's position against raids on
civilian populations in southern Lebanon.
I would like to take this opportunity to reiterate Canada's support
for UN Security Council resolution 425.
* * *
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Health.
The Minister of Health and those who attended yesterday's raw
milk cheese tasting organized by the Bloc Quebecois and several
cheese producers were able to see that the various products
currently on the market are simply excellent. In that regard, I am
pleased to see that the Minister is the picture of health.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mrs. Picard: Does the minister realize that, according to data
from his own government, the consumption of raw milk cheese has
not resulted in any case of poisoning in Canada, unlike several
other food items, including cabbage in Nova Scotia? Will the
minister also prohibit the sale of cabbage from Nova Scotia?
[English]
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday I accepted the invitation of my colleague. She is quite
correct. I did attend a very good reception put on by the producers
of cheese in the province of Quebec. I also shared with my hon.
colleague some good wine from the province of Nova Scotia.
As for my side effects, that is probably demonstrable in the
answer I am going to give. The information that we have from the
scientists has now been put out to the scientific industry and the
various experts. They are going to examine it. After their
examination, we will then be in a position to make our decision.
I want to thank the hon. member for bringing this issue to our
attention. However, I want to say to her and to all hon. members, it
is important that we keep our rhetoric down so that we can make
the most appropriate decision for all Canadians.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, will the
minister realize that there is no problem with raw milk cheese, that
the current standards are very adequate, and that the real issue
concerns his public servants who have nothing better to do than bug
people to justify their employment?
[English]
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member again raises the question. As the minister
responsible for health, it is my duty, my fiduciary obligation, that
when scientific evidence and information becomes available I have
to share it with the Canadian people and take the appropriate action
on that information.
In my view, no minister of health, federally or provincially, can
take that scientific information and throw it in the garbage can. It is
very important that we examine it. We will examine it thoroughly
with all the various experts and we will make the appropriate
decision based on scientific information.
* * *
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the Minister
of Finance said once in his career that he would like to eliminate
the GST. When one reads the fine print in the red book it says, not
so.
The Minister of Finance has said here today that the government
wants to guarantee the Canada pension program. When one reads
the public accounts, not so.
(1500 )
What will the Minister of Finance do to guarantee to pensioners
across Canada that they will have their Canada pension guaranteed
most likely in writing by the government and the minister?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
am delighted to see the hon. member taking interest in the
1666
preservation of the Canada pension plan. That is the reason we set
up, along with the provinces, the consultation process which is now
under way.
As the hon. member knows, a number of options are being
looked at within that consultation process, one of which is to
increase substantially the degree of funding so that it will go from
simply a two-year reserve to a much greater degree of funding,
which may well be an option the provinces and the federal
government will come to. It is premature, but it is one of the things
being discussed.
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, could the
Minister of Finance indicate that in follow-up public accounts this
unfunded liability will be noted and that the government is
prepared to accept it on a long term basis, rather than the present
situation where there is not a commitment either by public
accounts, as noted, or by the finance minister?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
there very clearly is a commitment to the Canada pension plan. It
has been stated unequivocally by the government, in terms of
young Canadians coming along, that the Canada pension plan will
be there for them. That is the purpose of the consultation.
I believe the member's question goes beyond that, that he is
talking about the way accounts of this government or any other
government are provided. That is a valid debate, the outstanding
liabilities of any national government or any provincial
government of this country or any other. That certainly is a debate
in which we are prepared to engage. It is precisely to deal with
those kinds of problems that the government is dealing with the
problems the country faces today and also anticipating those in the
decades ahead.
* * *
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, the heritage minister, responsible for Canada's national
parks and historic sites, is about to embark on the implementation
of a new employee takeover program that will only result in
increased costs, reduced service, lower wages and lost jobs for
hundreds of dedicated, long term employees of Parks Canada.
Since she knows that these employees are not supportive of this
plan and that if it fails it threatens the very existence of some of our
parks and historic sites, is she prepared to postpone these foolhardy
plans at least until such time as she has clear evidence of support
for her proposal?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, in a meeting I held
yesterday with my assistant deputy minister, in response to the
concerns expressed by employees about their futures, I issued a
directive that we look at a number of options.
The first option would be to seek further economies, as required
under the program review, the possibility of economies from
within. The second option would be to pursue a number of
expressions of interest by employees interested in takeovers. The
third possibility would be to examine whether there might be an
application for a strict commercialisation of services which would
guarantee employees not only their long term jobs but also their
current union status. Those three options are being explored by the
department.
Canada was the first country to have a national parks system, and
I certainly do not intend to be the minister responsible for in any
way impinging on it.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): This brings question period
to an end. We will now hear Thursday's question.
* * *
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, as is the custom, I would like to know what is on the
agenda for the coming week. I usually put the question to the
government House leader or to his assistant. Today, everyone has
an opportunity to answer.
[English]
Mr. Paul Zed (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if
necessary, tomorrow and Monday the House will continue with
third reading of Bill C-11, concerning HRD reorganization.
When that is completed we will call third reading of Bill C-18,
concerning the health department reorganization, and Bill C-19,
respecting internal trade.
If these bills are completed we will commence second reading
debates of items we have discussed with our friends opposite and
which we will discuss further before setting the precise order.
(1505 )
Tuesday will be an allotted day. Also on Tuesday the government
intends to introduce the bill implementing the budget and it is our
intention to commence second reading debate on that bill on
Wednesday.
_____________________________________________
1666
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-11,
an act to establish the Department of Human Resources Develop-
1667
ment and to amend and repeal certain related acts, be read the third
time and passed, and of the amendment.
Mr. George Proud (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Labour, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am proud to have the opportunity to
speak on Bill C-11.
As hon. members know, the legislation deals essentially with
administrative matters regarding the formation of Human
Resources Development Canada, better known as HRDC.
The government is surprised that the Bloc Quebecois suddenly
decided to attack this legislation. There is certainly nothing sinister
about it. It contains no new powers and simply reiterates HRDC's
existing mandate.
I understand that members opposite are especially concerned
about clauses 6, 20 and 21 of the bill. I will begin by dealing with
clause 6.
This clause addresses strictly the department's mandate.
Apparently there is a misunderstanding that clause 6 would enable
the Government of Canada to intrude in provincial jurisdiction.
This is definitely not the case.
The hon. members who comprise Her Majesty's Loyal
Opposition are reading things into this legislation which are just
not there. If members opposite will read the bill carefully they will
see it limits the minister's powers to ``matters over which
Parliament has jurisdiction''. That seems clear enough to me. The
provision does not give the minister jurisdiction over provincial
matters; it does just the opposite.
There is nothing in clause 6 that does not relate to existing
programs. It simply combines the existing program mandates from
the four former departments which constitute HRDC. There is no
subterfuge designed to undermine provincial legislation at all.
The government does not think it necessary to waste
Parliament's valuable time spelling out in the bill every detail of
every program HRDC is responsible for. Even if we did, something
tells me members opposite still would not be satisfied.
Clause 6 of the bill before us sets out the basic objectives of the
department: enhancing employment, encouraging equality and
promoting social security. These objectives are clearly within the
jurisdiction of the Government of Canada.
Members opposite have also raised concerns regarding clause 20
of Bill C-11. This clause allows the minister to enter into
agreements with the provinces or with financial institutions or
other such bodies. Clause 20 is adapted from section 7 of the
employment and immigration department and commission act,
from section 6 of the heritage act and from section 5 of the labour
act. Under the legislation before the House clause 20 will allow the
minister to enter only into agreements similar to those in the past.
For example, in 1991 the minister of employment signed an
agreement with the Government of Quebec. That agreement
recognized Quebec's Société québécois du développement de la
main d'oeuvre, SQDM, and its vital role in labour force training in
that province.
Nevertheless, apparently members opposite still think clause 20
gives the minister too much discretionary power; that is, too much
power to reach agreements they think will intrude on all areas of
provincial jurisdiction. That is definitely not the case.
Let us look at the wording of clause 20. It states clearly that these
agreements are for the purpose of facilitating programs related to
``the powers, duties and functions referred to in section 6''. This
clause sets out the minister's mandate. There is nothing new in it,
nor does it create any new powers.
(1510)
Surely the members of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition can see
the minister's discretionary powers are limited by the department's
mandate.
The bill clearly states the limitation is to matters over which
Parliament has jurisdiction. Therefore there is no way clause 20
authorizes the minister to encroach on provincial jurisdiction.
Clause 20 allows HRDC to sign contracts with other
organizations. The department could not function without that
authority. The minister has signed thousands of contracts and
agreements with numerous organizations, including the example I
have already given, and organizations in the province of Quebec.
Not only that, HRD has signed agreements with the Government of
Quebec to help unemployed Quebecers return to the labour force.
In fiscal 1994-95 we signed more than 50,000 labour market
contracts in the province of Quebec. Through those contracts we
invested a total of $695 million in program funding and income
support. That was done under existing legislation. Bill C-11 simply
carries forward these arrangements.
As I emphasized, clause 20 will not be used to bypass the
authority of provincial governments or to intrude on their areas of
jurisdiction.
The third clause apparently keeping members opposite awake at
nights is clause 21. I do not know why, because all clause 21 states
is that the minister may delegate his authority, especially to the
Minister of Labour. This section also enables the minister to
delegate authority in order to support single window delivery, a key
component in Human Resources Development Canada's services
delivery network.
The ultimate aim is to provide Canadians with a simplified,
faster and more accessible gateway to HRDC's programs and
services. Single window delivery is a more flexible and a more
efficient means of reaching that goal.
1668
As I speak, in Alma, the home town of the premier of Quebec,
HRDC, SQDM, local municipalities and local clubs are working
in partnership in a single window delivery system. This is one of
a number of similar projects we have with the Government of
Quebec. If the Government of Quebec is willing to work with us,
and we are glad it is, I fail to understand why members of Her
Majesty's Loyal Opposition are upset about these arrangements.
Another consideration is part II of the government's
employment insurance legislation. It contains active measures to
help unemployed Canadians get back to work quickly. This is part
of our comprehensive response to addressing the underlying causes
of unemployment.
To that end, the minister is currently discussing new
arrangements with the provinces. However, these agreements will
not infringe on provincial jurisdiction. On the contrary, the
minister has made it abundantly clear that the Government of
Canada will withdraw fully from labour market training in
recognition of provincial responsibility in this area. We will do this
over three years or less as we work out the details with each
province.
The federal government would provide financial assistance to
skills development but only with provincial agreement. In addition,
the Government of Canada will work in concert with the
governments of each province to put in place new customized
labour market arrangements which will meet the different needs
and circumstances of each province.
The Government of Canada will live up to its constitutional
responsibility. We will retain jurisdiction over the national
employment insurance system and the national dimension of our
labour markets.
If that is not enough assurance for the party opposite, during the
debate and the speech from the throne the Prime Minister stated:
``The federal government is also prepared to withdraw from its
functions in such areas as labour market training, forestry, mining
and recreation. That in the 21st century will be more appropriately
the responsibility of others, provinces, municipalities or the private
sector''.
(1515 )
In conclusion, I say to members opposite that there is nothing in
Bill C-11 to suggest that the Government of Canada is centralizing
national programs. This legislation deals strictly with
administration. I urge the House to pass this bill so that we can
move on to more urgent matters which I am sure all Canadians,
including the people of Quebec, would prefer.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, can I count on the hon. member for Kingston and the
Islands' friendly support? It would motivate me in my
presentation. I would have liked to speak to a bill more concerned
about fighting poverty.
On my way to the House from my office, I was thinking that,
instead of recycling Bill C-96, a bill that was roundly condemned
by just about everyone in Quebec, the Minister of Human
Resources Development would have enjoyed greater support from
us if he had tabled a bill with two objectives.
The first objective would have been to take steps to fight poverty
and the second one, to give back to Quebec some 25 manpower
training programs duplicating provincial initiatives in this area,
because $250 million is being wasted or not used as efficiently as
possible.
Why talk about poverty in 1996? Why should we, as members of
Parliament, talk about poverty when the minister is about to put
forward a centralizing bill? May I remind you that, by and large,
government members took little notice of the annual report tabled a
few days ago by the National Council of Welfare, which-I think it
is important to remember this-pointed out that, globally, the
number of poor people in society is not going down.
The government majority may act as though this was not an issue
but, for all those with a social conscience-and God knows that
includes the opposition-the fact is that even though people in our
society are living longer, the poverty rate is rising.
In Canada, poor people-that is to say those who have to spend
56 per cent of their income on basic necessities, such as food,
clothing and housing-according to Statistics Canada, are
considered as such when they live in a large urban center and have
to spend 56 per cent of their income on clothing, food and housing.
Looking at poverty rates in Canada, while 15 per cent of the
population was living under the poverty line in the 1980s, 14 years
later, 16.6 per cent of Canadians are still living in extremely
difficult conditions and can be considered as poor.
Why did the minister and his government not look into this
matter? Let me remind the House that the National Welfare
Council prefaced its remarks by saying-I realize that some
parliamentarians may not like to hear this, but let us nonetheless
bear in mind the opening line of the council's press conference and
related press release, which said: ``Governments should add
combatting poverty to the list of immediate economic priorities''.
When was the last time we heard any member of this cabinet
protest against the fact that such a situation is tolerated in a society
like ours, where resources are plentiful, new production
technologies available and a gross national product of about $750
billion? Why is this situation being tolerated? How can this
government allow that? In philosophical terms, it means something
to be a liberal. But what did these Liberals do, those Liberals who,
in the 1960s, were calling upon us to live in a just society, an
increasingly just society? What does it mean for this Liberal
government, in
1669
1996, to live in a just society, an increasingly just society, when
poverty rates are allowed to raise as high as 16 per cent?
(1520)
The National Council of Welfare which, as we will see later, the
government is about to muzzle with Bill C-11, tells us that 4.8
million people live at the poverty level. It must be understood that
poverty, like other phenomena in our society, is not evenly spread.
Single parents are hardest hit. Three times out of four, it is the
woman who is alone, often in difficult conditions, to raise her
family. The reality is that, in 67 per cent of the cases, it is these
women who are hit hard and who suffer from poverty.
Mr. Speaker, you may wonder what these comments have to do
with Bill C-11. As you know, since I became a member of this
House, I never allowed myself to be out of order. The connection is
the following: had the minister taken a good look at the situation,
he would have realized that we cannot afford to have two levels of
government investing in programs which are similar in many
respects.
Let me just give you the example of Quebec. Quebec
employment minister Louise Harel, who happens to be the MNA
for my riding of Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, told us during the last
referendum campaign that the province of Quebec alone spends
$10 billion on its labour market policies. If you take the Quebec
territory for the purpose of this comparison, relatively speaking
this is more than what is invested by all OECD countries.
As you can see, the problem is not a lack of money. Considerable
resources are allocated to labour market programs. The problem is
the duplication of resources.
The minister is asking us to pass a bill which, for all intents and
purposes, seeks to allow federal involvement in areas over which
this government has no mandate. Try for a moment to imagine one
of the 33 Fathers of Confederation coming back here and trying to
understand what provision of the Constitution Act gives this
government the authority to get involved in the area of labour or
manpower.
Yet, if we were to accept this bill, the human resources branch
would get involved, as it does unfortunately too often, in income
security, post-secondary education, social welfare and student
loans.
On the train earlier this week I read-maybe you heard about it
because I know you have a sharp mind and that nothing escapes
you in social matters-the Fortin report, which was commissioned
by Quebec's minister of income security. The economist Pierre
Fortin is not a research officer for the Bloc. Moreover, he has never
declared himself in favour of sovereignty. You will be surprised,
but even more disappointed, to see the analysis made in the Fortin
report. I take the liberty of quoting from it, with the consent of my
colleagues.
Part of the report reads as follows: ``The federal government has
already reacted to its own financial crisis in several ways. Of
course, as we very well know, the federal government's debt is
rather astronomical, and its deficit out of control''. It goes on to
say: ``Three federal measures directly affect income security in
Quebec. First, access to unemployment insurance benefits has been
reduced in 1990, 1993 and 1994''. In fact, Mr. Fortin should or
could have gone even further back to 1988, when the
unemployment insurance program was first attacked by the now
infamous Conservatives.
(1525)
The report reads: ``For the year 1996-97, a cumulative reduction
of 15 per cent of transfers to provinces under the CHST has been
announced. Third, the elimination of the Canada Assistance Plan in
1996 has been announced''. Hon. members will remember that,
under CAP, Ottawa used to share the cost of welfare programs
fifty-fifty with the provinces. The most interesting part in this
report is that it estimates that the federal retrenchment-in other
words, the kind of policy being adopted here with regard to
unemployment insurance-will create a very heavy burden for
Quebec because 70,000 households will go onto income security if
the bill is not amended. The direct and indirect costs of this will not
translate into a deficit, but into unforeseen expenses of $1 billion
for the province. All of this, because of the offloading the federal
government is doing. That is how harmful this system is.
In a system such as this, it is getting extremely difficult, even for
the best Quebec government-and I think Quebec has a pretty good
government right now-to plan effectively and to abide by its
budgetary decisions, because the federal government can at any
moment, without prior notice and without negotiating anything,
wreak havoc with Quebec public finance. That is exactly what
happened during the last three recessions.
As many have said before and as the hon. member for Mercier
put it so eloquently, this bill which the government side wants us to
pass is unanimously opposed. It is hard to think of another bill that
brought together, in a unanimous show of displeasure, the
employers, the unions, and various associations and co-ops.
What I am saying is so true that the hon. member for Kingston
and the Islands, a lawyer by profession-not his best quality, but
then it was his choice-will perhaps want to raise a question of
order at the end of my speech to have this document tabled. Should
that be the case, I would be glad to table a resolution concerning the
first version of this bill, numbered C-96, adopted by the Société
1670
québécoise de développement de la main-d'oeuvre, whose work
the hon. member from Kingston may be following.
Pursuant to this unanimous resolution, the tripartite board of the
Société, made up of representatives from the unions, the employers
and the Quebec government, is asking the federal government to
take a very praiseworthy initiative, which meets the consensus
reached in Quebec, and to give back to the province about 25
programs it currently manages.
This is no small achievement when a non-political organization,
authorized and mandated by the government of Quebec to review
the labour market policies, has its board, where the Bloc is not
represented of course, pass a unanimous resolution to urge the
federal government to give back the areas of jurisdiction related to
manpower.
What are we seeing instead? How can the human resources
minister be so insensitive, ill-advised and confused as to fail to
recognize that by passing and supporting Bill C-11, we would
thoroughly not only violate Quebec's interests but a consensus,
which is a sacred thing in democracy.
If all this was only academic, there would be no reason for
concern. These would only be rhetoric debates that would have
nothing to do with the day-to-day life of our fellow citizens.
(1530)
Here are some of the consequences resource duplication in the
management of labour training programs can have. First, as it is
now well known, there are 25 manpower training programs in
Ottawa and 25 others in Quebec.
When his party was in power in Quebec, former minister
Bourbeau, a Liberal, estimated that human resource duplication
costs us $275 million that could be put to a better use.
Even more dramatic is the fact that the system's inconsistency is
such that, at this very moment, people really need help, really need
training. You know full well that, as we near the year 2000, more
and more the jobs that will be created will require 13, 14 or 15
years of schooling. This is a fact.
My father, who is almost 60, worked all his life for the same
company. He succeeded in earning his life, supporting his family
and making his children happy, but he spent all his working years
with only one company.
I am only 33 years old, or rather I will be on May 13, and I
already have three careers to my name. It is said that in the year
2000, people will accumulate five careers. That is why continuing
education is so vital. It is not true that once you have a university
degree or a technical of vocational diploma you will have the same
job for all your working life without having to go through
adjustment periods. On the contrary, nobody, in the young
generation, can think that he or she will have only one employer for
all his or her life.
We will be committing a sin, a crime if we do not establish a
manpower training system that is more rational, more coherent,
and is based on the single-window concept.
This is so true that, at this very moment, there are approximately
25,000 people on the waiting lists in Quebec. There are 25,000
people in Quebec who, at different levels, need to improve their
skills, who need to acquire experience, who need guidance
services, but who are deprived of this resource, who are deprived of
the assistance to which they are entitled because the system is
inefficient.
You will ask: ``Yes, but did the minister learn the lesson?'' No,
this minister is stubborn. This minister is looking ahead without
concerning himself with what is going on in his environment. All
Liberals are not like him, but I must say a majority of them seems
to be of that type.
We can only wish, and anybody in their right mind would agree,
that the minister will realize that the best thing that can happen to
Quebec is that he changes his mind, that he does not authorize, as
proposed in Bill C-11, various bodies which do not represent the
Government of Quebec to obtain mandates directly from the
Department of Human Resources Development, that he respects
Quebec's jurisdiction and that he contributes.
He would become famous should he accept to put an end to
duplication and work towards the establishment of a single
window, as he has been asked to do by Quebec's Minister of
Employment and Concerted Action, Louise Harel. This would
ensure a more productive use of the resources that are available in
the system, because it is absolutely wrong to suggest a lack of
resources as an excuse. That is the challenge facing a minister who
has been too stubborn until now.
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I listened
carefully to my colleague for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, who once
again has expressed social concerns, and not just for the people in
his riding, which is very large.
(1535)
I obviously support all he said on the attitude of the government,
which, despite the message it sent during the referendum promising
change and greater sensitivity towards Quebec, spoke
gobbledegook.
Unfortunately, we are forced to recognize that it was
gobbledegook, that the government's centralizing approach
continues unabated. I know he has many more examples of this
centralizing approach and of the government's desire to meddle
even more in provincial jurisdictions. With Bill C-96, creating the
Department of
1671
Human Resources Development, there is the example of training,
education. Unfortunately, we can see that it is still not resolved.
I would like to ask the following question, because we have to
comment and ask a question. I know I will not bother him at all, but
I would like his opinion on the government's alleged
decentralization, when we can see in the bill that the Minister of
Human Resources Development is giving himself the power to go
over the heads of the provincial governments and conclude specific
agreements with organizations, even with businesses, in training or
other areas. I would like his opinion on that.
Mr. Ménard: Mr. Speaker, you will understand that no matter
how repetitive and expected this question is, it is still relevant.
Allow me to stress the excellent work the member did on the
human resources development committee; he was a very vocal
representative of the Bloc Quebecois on this issue.
I appreciate his question all the more as there are certain
parallels to be drawn between Lévis and
Hochelaga-Maisonneuve. We both have in our ridings people
who have experienced de-skilling. For the most part, this is the
history of my riding. It used to be a thriving city. It is hard to
believe that between 1883 and 1918 Hochelaga-Maisonneuve had
such a vibrant industrial sector that it was called the Pittsburg of
Canada. I know that in his riding too, I am thinking about shipyard
workers among others, there has been a de-skilling process.
What the member for Lévis is asking us to realize is that
periodically through the history of federalism and through the
history of the Liberal Party, we have witnessed a profoundly
despicable, not to say shameful, and I believe totally unacceptable
manoeuvre on the part of a government refusing to accept the
position of a legitimately elected government, its counterpart in
Quebec, and instead going through intermediaries.
This was done in the sixties on the language issue, such an outcry
was raised that the government had to back down. What is
unacceptable in this bill, I believe, is the push toward centralization
and the lack of respect for the authorized agencies.
As far as manpower policies are concerned, the authorized
agency is the Government of Quebec. So by what authority, what
rationale would a government, even a Liberal government, think it
has the right to use a CDEC, a municipality or any other agency or
corporate entity to ignore Quebec's wishes?
All this must not keep us from seeing-I will try to be brief
because I would be most honoured if the member for Kingston and
the Islands were to be so daring as to ask me a question-that as
long as there will be duplication of resources, some people will not
receive training. Mr. Speaker, look at the member for Kingston and
the Islands, I think he wants to talk to me.
(1540)
[English]
Mrs. Georgette Sheridan (Saskatoon-Humboldt, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I hope the hon. member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve
will not be disappointed, but I will try to stand in for my colleague
from Kingston and the Islands as best I can.
I would preface my remarks by saying that as a woman I have
often been plagued by the question: What do women want? I could
translate that by saying: What does a Bloc Quebecois want?
I listened to my colleague opposite asking for the minister to do
away with duplication and overlap and to deal with the province of
Quebec, i would answer him by saying that is exactly what this bill
proposes.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, when the bill now before us was tabled in this
House last June 7, and this March 7, a number of us were amazed
that the Bloc was so strongly opposed to it. Many of us were
amazed at their heroic efforts to delay passage of a bill which has as
its sole purpose the regularization of a government administrative
restructuring that took place two years before. Amazed yes, but not
in the least surprised.
At that point we were on the verge of the referendum campaign
and the opposition wasted no opportunity to try and convince
Quebecers of the dark intentions of the federal government. Nor
did they waste any opportunity to hinder the smooth operations of
government, to hold up to scrutiny every little action or statement
by members of the government, as a diversionary tactic. It is easy
to understand what was behind their actions at that time, but then
the referendum came along and Canada remained Canada.
When the bill came back, the opposition began to sing the same
tune again, to throw up the same roadblocks, but for a different
reason. This time it was a sort of warm up in preparation for their
opposition to the employment insurance bill the minister was going
to introduce shortly. Here again, their reasons for acting on the
federal level to immobilize and oppose any proposed change are
easily understood.
[English]
The reasons were clearly demonstrated recently, on March 12,
when it proposed that the bill on employment insurance be
withdrawn even though everyone agrees that the current
employment insurance program is in need of reform.
However, one important change has taken place since the last
time the bill to establish the Department of Human Resources
Development was debated.
1672
[Translation]
Meanwhile, the Quebec employment minister agreed, after
meeting with the federal minister, to discuss our proposal regarding
employment insurance. Discussions are still going on with Quebec,
as well as with all other provinces. Quebec is interested in the
formula proposed because it will allow updating the management
of worker adjustment programs; because it is consistent with its
own goals regarding decentralization in favour of regions; and
because the federal government has clearly indicated its intention
to withdraw from manpower training.
For a large part employment insurance entails decentralization
and partnership with provinces. If clause 20 allows the minister to
enter into agreements with a province, financial institutions or
similar agencies it is simply because we have taken into
consideration, by adapting them, section 7 of the Employment
Department and Commission Act, section 6 of the Heritage
Department Act and section 5 of the existing Department of Labour
Act.
[English]
The Department of Human Resources Development Act does not
give the minister any powers other than those already being
exercised. It does not confer any powers that were not previously
exercised, respectively, by the ministers responsible. What is
involved, essentially, is internal management. In other words,
hypothetically even if the bill were never passed the minister would
still continue to do everything he does now. When the bill is passed
the minister will not be doing anything more or anything less than
what he has been doing until now.
(1545)
[Translation]
We all know we must invest in our human resources if we want
to stay ahead of the world's nations in terms of quality of life.
This bill reconfirms the basic mission given to that department
by the Government of Canada by bringing under the same roof all
initiatives and programs designed to help Canadians at all stages of
life: learning, work and retirement. In fact, as the bill stipulates, the
powers, duties and functions of the minister ``are to be exercised
with the objective of enhancing employment, encouraging equality
and promoting social security''.
The act to establish the Department of Human Resources
Development is especially designed to allow the department to
continue helping put Canadians back to work.
To do so, we need a legislation which provides a simple and
integrated mechanism in order to clarify the role of the department
and the responsibilities of the minister with respect to the Canadian
people.
[English]
Members of this House have had ample opportunity to
thoroughly examine and discuss the bill which will put an end to
this transitional phase, a transitional phase not only for this
department but for the entire government reorganization.
[Translation]
I therefore believe it is time to put an end to it now and to
consider other issues far more crucial for Canadians and the future
of this country.
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I listened
carefully to the speech of my colleague opposite. I want to
comment on it and perhaps ask her a question in closing.
As you know, I am the member for Shefford. The main town in
my riding is Granby. Granby is an industrial town of approximately
45,000 inhabitants. There are about 90,000 people in the region.
Cuts were announced under both human resources development
ministers. This reminds of the dismantling of railways in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, you are a federalist-I have no doubt about that,
Mr. Speaker-and I believe that all across Canada, employment
centres are considered as a symbol of Canada. They are actually
closing them down, doing away with them, so much so that Granby
now receives only $36,000 from the federal government in lieu of
taxes. Might as well say there is no federal presence in our region.
When our great country was created, the federal government's
goal was to distribute wealth fairly across the territory. But now,
my region is cut off by this government. Some 50 or 55 people
were working in the employment centre, and now the government
is considering going down to 12 or maybe 18 employees-no
decision has been made yet.
This is sad for my region. It is a heavy blow since the
employment centre, as it was organized, was making a significant
contribution to the region's development. It is a whole network
they are breaking up. This network is important for the regions. It is
important for Quebec, for its development. Usually, all kinds of
people are represented on boards of trade, people from every
political affiliation, mostly federalists.
(1550)
The Granby Board of Trade circulated a petition that was signed
by over 6,000 people to condemn the government's attitude and to
ask it to give more consideration to regions. As I said earlier,
employment centres are a symbol of the Government of Canada,
but this symbol is about to disappear because of the policies of the
department and the minister.
1673
My question is this: When the government makes decisions like
the one to reform the system, why does it ignore the other
governments? I would like to hear the member's comments on that
matter.
[English]
Mrs. Sheridan: Mr. Speaker, my initial response to the
member's question would be the same as the introduction to my
speech: What does the Bloc Quebecois want? On the one hand it is
saying to keep our nose out of its affairs; on the other hand it is
saying to do more for it specifically and do not worry about the
interests of other Canadians.
The business of governing this country as a country is to take
into account the interests of all Canadians. The minister is taking a
positive step forward in doing that. He is doing it in Quebec in the
same way he is doing it in any other region of the country. As part
of the family, we all share and share alike.
Sooner or later the member opposite will have to figure out what
he wants.
[Translation]
Mr. Leroux (Shefford): Mr. Speaker, what do we want? That is
a good question. As I said before, we want the government to
behave in an equitable manner. The hon. member says this is done
everywhere in the country. That does not mean it is a good thing.
That is not the problem. We know there are structures, we know
there is some co-operation between Canadian employment centres
and those responsible for employment in Quebec, where there is a
tradition of co-operation at the local level. However, what is
happening at the present time is that they are dismantling the
network, and this will do considerable damage to job creation. It is
as if the federal government were withdrawing while continuing to
exercise control over programs. It wants control but it does not
want to invest in the area, and that is unacceptable.
The federal government has a certain responsibility in that
regard and, frankly, you will agree with me that it should give all its
support to the level of government best able to decide and closest to
the people of the regions.
What I am asking, and I would like the opinion of the hon.
member on this, is for the federal government to stop, once and for
all, interfering needlessly in our affairs and give back to the regions
what they are entitled to.
[English]
Mrs. Sheridan: Mr. Speaker, again I think the member is
encumbered with a lot of rhetoric and misapprehension of the facts
as they exist.
As I said in my speech, it was that member and all of his friends
across the way who wanted the Government of Canada to keep its
nose out of their affairs during the time leading up to the
referendum in Quebec.
In response to the concerns of people in Quebec and all across
the country the Prime Minister made a commitment at the end of
last year. He stated that the Government of Canada would withdraw
from labour market training, apprenticeship programs,
co-operative education programs and so on. This seems to be
exactly what the member opposite was saying, that we should let
the government that is in the best position to understand local needs
design the programs. This has been delivered on.
I know the member is full of fuss and bother this afternoon but it
has nothing to do with any failure of this government to deliver on
those promises.
(1555 )
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, for the
last two and one-half years the Department of Human Resources
Development has been operating without a mandate and some
would say without any direction or agenda.
Back in January 1994 amid the fanfare of the speech from the
throne, Canadians were promised social program reform. One
would have thought the government would have quickly given this
department a mandate to operate and then tackled the task of
bringing Canada's outdated social programs into the 21st century.
The fact that it has taken the government two years and two
ministers to get this far is further evidence that real reform will not
happen before the next election. No doubt social program reform
will turn up as an election promise in the 1997 version of the
Liberal red book of broken promises.
One of the most intriguing parts of the bill was the appointment
of the Minister of Labour and the deputy minister. When the old
department of labour was amalgamated with the new superministry
of human resources development, the whole idea behind it was
incorporation. At last, we thought, here was a department whose
function would be transferred to the provinces and to the private
sector. What a step forward for labour relations in Canada. Then
along came the Quebec referendum and suddenly we needed a
labour minister. At the last minute, to accommodate the member
for Saint-Henri-Westmount, this strange reporting structure was
included in what was then Bill C-96.
According to Bill C-11 the Minister of Labour may be appointed
but if there is no labour minister, the duties fall to the human
resources development minister. The question has to be asked: Do
we need a full time labour minister, a secretary of state for labour,
or just a parliamentary secretary? Maybe the minister was included
so there would be no question about the need for a deputy minister.
If labour requires a full minister, should such a position not be
designated by statute rather than just simply an optional position?
If labour requires a minister other than a junior minister, will it
ultimately break away from human resources development and
1674
become a department unto itself? This bill raises a lot more
questions than it answers. These are things that have not been
debated fully and should have been considered by the author ofthe bill.
By bringing the labour department under the human resources
umbrella and its superminister, perhaps the government hoped to
get the unions onside and perhaps take advantage of the decline in
popularity of the faltering New Democrats.
If the government was really concerned about labour relations, it
would not have allowed things to deteriorate to the point where in
two years time it would have to legislate grain handlers and railway
workers back to work three times. Three times in two years the
system did not work properly. If the government was truly
concerned about workers in Canada and management, it would
have amended the Canada Labour Code or at least looked at
amending the Canada Labour Code to include final offer arbitration
as a mechanism for solving labour disputes.
The government would be introducing more legislation like Bill
C-3. Bill C-3 brings all workers in nuclear facilities under
provincial jurisdiction and certainly is a step in the right direction.
The labour component of the department of HRD would cease to
exist and would not require the services of a minister or of a deputy
minister.
If the government had allowed passage of Motion No. 2 as
presented by my colleague for Mission-Coquitlam, it would not
be presented with the problem of court rulings over who has
jurisdiction in overlapping industrial sectors as was the case which
necessitated the drafting of Bill C-3.
(1600 )
It is time to move forward with the devolution of federal control
in labour matters to the provinces. Certainly there is much support
for that on this side of the House. I would encourage members
opposite to come to like thinking.
Part I of the Canada Labour Code is currently under review and
would be an appropriate starting point for the minister who is
anxious to do away with duplication of services.
I would like to remind members that Canada has a $580 billion
debt. The minister opposite and certainly the finance minister are
very cognizant of that. They are looking for ways in which to
whittle down that debt.
The Minister of Labour could contribute to this reduction if he
initiates measures to do away with overburdensome bureaucracy
and duplication by giving the provinces control over labour
standards, labour relations and occupational health and safety. I
suggest that he would find that workers and management alike
would support his action because both sides want and deserve a
level playing field.
Labour and management have the common goal of maintaining a
productive workplace. As legislators, we should do all we can to
advance that goal. We can facilitate this by relinquishing control
over the bureaucratic regulations that stand in the way of sound
labour relations.
Reflecting back to Bill C-3, I again say that it is a step in the
right direction. Bill C-11 would be worthy of support had it
followed along the same path.
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Madam Speaker, I
would like to put a question to my colleague after making a few
remarks.
The Quebec government, Quebec as a whole and labour
confederations would most certainly agree with the total takeover
of all the labour sector. However, we cannot talk about this issue
without referring once again to the Constitution, since the Privy
Council in London established, in a 1925 decision, after a seven
year delay, I believe, that labour relation jurisdiction belonged to
the provinces, except that all businesses that, one way or another,
came under more than one province would come under federal
jurisdiction. That is what brought about this duplication that is
causing so many problems for workers.
I would like to point out to the member that in Quebec, for
instance, the act respecting occupational health and safety provides
that women who find out they are pregnant and believe that their
work may affect them or their child have the right to ask for a
change of position. If the employer cannot transfer them to another
position, they have the right to stay home with 90 per cent of their
salary. The same thing applies when the mother breast-feeds her
child.
You can understand that women work for businesses that come
under federal jurisdiction are not allowed the same right, they say it
is not fair and the whole union movement has been doing the same
for years now. This goes to prove what our colleague just said,
except that we cannot deal with this matter without going through
the Constitution.
In my speech this morning, I have demonstrated how Bill C-11
calls for a constitutional debate.
(1605)
The only way provinces disagreeing with decisions taken by the
central government, by the Department of Human Resources
Development under this bill, can have their way would be to
sidestep this decision and manage the money themselves.
1675
This calls for a constitutional type amendment, or the
government should agree to recognize the full jurisdiction of the
provinces, which it does not, even in the throne speech.
So, my question to my colleague is whether he and his party
should not have chosen to criticize more than the labour relation
considerations of the bill.
[English]
Mr. Johnston: Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for the
question.
My Reform colleague spoke to the bill this morning. Although
she touched on some labour issues, she had broader criticisms of
the bill.
I would like to address an issue that my Bloc colleague has
raised. It is the overlap in provincial and federal jurisdiction. The
position of our party is that jurisdiction should be given to the level
of government which is closest to the people. Less government is
the best government. To decrease the bureaucracy would be of
benefit to all Canadians. The bureaucracy would be closer to the
people it serves.
As is sometimes the case now with the federal government, there
would not be a nameless, faceless entity. Canada is a huge place
and the capital cannot be everywhere. For the vast majority of
Canadians the capital is a long way from home.
[Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Madam Speaker, my
colleague argues that a department of labour is not necessary, that a
minister of labour is not necessary. I totally disagree. As you know,
there are labour disputes in several areas still under federal
jurisdiction, and a minister is needed to try to settle these disputes.
The labour code must be revamped. Anti-scab legislation is
needed, for instance. The union movement needs a full-time
minister of labour, and I ask the hon. member why he is against
appointing a minister of labour, a position that has always existed
in Canada.
[English]
Mr. Johnston: Madam Speaker, my Bloc colleague suggests
that the Minister of Labour is needed because he adjudicates or
solves problems that arise between labour and management. I
submit to him that I have never seen a labour minister, provincial or
federal, who has solved a labour problem.
I would like to cite the three instances in the two and a half years
that I have been here when the House voted to force workers back
to work, whether they were locked out or on strike, in order for
grain transportation to continue. That is not ministerial
intervention. That is intervention by the entire House of Commons.
The minister does not solve those problems. If he really wanted to
do something to solve those problems he would look at
implementing final offer arbitration selection so that both groups,
management and labour, would have the tools to resolve their
problems without involving either the minister or the House of
Commons.
(1610)
All due respect to my friend, just because we have had a minister
of labour for years and years is no justification for us to continue
with that position.
[Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
to participate in the debate at third reading of Bill C-11, the old Bill
C-96, an act to establish the Department of Human Resources
Development and to amend and repeal certain related acts. I had the
opportunity last November to participate in the debate at second
reading of Bill C-96.
Only a few minor changes, which increase the number of
departments and organizations allowed to consult recipients' files,
were made to this bill in committee. This breach of confidentiality
is another reason why I will vote against this bill.
I, however, support the motion requiring this department and the
department of labour to table an annual activity report. This
requirement is not new. The public as well as parliamentarians
need to be informed of the actions and decisions taken by the
department, the unemployment insurance commission and the
national council of welfare.
In essence, this bill provides for the administrative restructuring
of the department, merging sections and services from the former
departments of employment and immigration, health and welfare,
labour and the old secretary of state. At the same time, the bill
gives the Prime Minister the authority to appoint a Minister of
Labour and a Deputy Minister of Labour. I am all in favour of
having a labour minister. We absolutely need one, especially if we
want a thoroughly revised Canadian Labour Code, and more
specifically anti-strikebreaking legislation, to be submitted to us as
soon as possible.
This bill promotes a greater federal presence and gives the
minister new powers, enabling him, among others things, to go
over the heads of the provinces, and Quebec in particular, and
negotiate directly with local authorities and organizations. Under
clause 20, the minister may enter into agreements with agencies
and bodies other than the provinces.
According to clause 6, the powers, duties and functions of the
minister extend to all matters relating to the development of human
resources in Canada. He is responsible in particular for enhancing
employment, encouraging equality and promoting social security.
That is a far cry from what has been happening in Canada for the
past two and a half years.
1676
However noble these goals may be, the situation is deteriorating
rapidly in these areas. Statistics Canada data show that, while 9.3
per cent of the population, or 1,407,000 people, were unemployed
in Canada in March 1996, 10.9 per cent of the population, or
400,000 people, were unemployed in Quebec.
Just last week, Kenworth announced it was shutting down its
truck manufacturing plant in Sainte-Thérèse, but this government
did not lift a finger to save the 900 jobs at stake. I urge the federal
government once again to make every effort to ensure this plant
remains in operation to provide employment to its workers.
(1615)
The new Department of Human Resources Development must
increase efficiency and productivity. People often tell me that the
processing of claims takes too long. We must shorten the amount of
time needed to process unemployment insurance claims, appeals of
unemployment insurance decisions, old age pension claims, etc.
Once again, I am strongly opposed to the closure of the Canada
Employment Centre located on Papineau Street, in Montreal,
which serves constituents in my riding of Bourassa, hard hit by
unemployment. By 1997, this office will be closed. People in
Montreal North need help, services and resources, but they do not
need government cuts when they are going through hard times. My
riding is already poverty-stricken.
Given the situation, the federal government should also provide
more resources for the Program for Older Worker Adjustment, or
POWA.
Other employment centres have closed or will be closed on
Montreal Island. I vigorously oppose such measures because they
smack of partisan politics.
I took advantage of the Easter recess to invite representatives of
community agencies in my riding to participate in a discussion on
the changes made in the unemployment insurance system. Once
again, I wish to thank all the agencies represented at this meeting,
including the local community service centre of Montreal North,
and the CDEC in my riding which, fortunately, is starting to receive
the necessary resources to carry out its much needed mission. The
meeting was also attended by representatives of the following
agencies: Maison des jeunes l'Ouverture, Impulsion travail,
Rond-point Jeunesse au travail, Centre multiculturel Claire,
Maison Saint-Laurent, Fondation de la Visite, Centre d'activités
pour le maintien de l'équilibre émotionnel de Montréal-Nord,
Association des travailleurs haïtiens au Canada, Entre-Parents,
Centre Louis-Fréchette, etc.
Almost all these organizations have clients who receive
unemployment insurance benefits, and they often rely on the
various programs offered by the Papineau employment centre.
Participants were shocked to see that, once again, the cuts will
affect the unemployed. These new measures will intensify the
exclusion process and make it worse.
Last March, I condemned the federal government's refusal to
include social clauses in the bilateral trade agreement between
Canada and Chile. It is officials from the human resources
department who negotiate labour issues on Canada's behalf.
Thanks to our representations and to the very effective action of the
Canadian and Chilean union movements, the government relented
and agreed to that very legitimate request. We must congratulate
the Chilean government for always recognizing the social
dimension of NAFTA and of this trade agreement.
However, the Canadian government is not willing to go further
than what is provided in the parallel agreement that is already part
of NAFTA but which is inadequate. The agreement should include
more effective ways to protect the rights of workers, as well as
better labour standards.
During my trip to Chile last January, I was shocked to learn from
Chilean workers and union members that some Canadian
businesses, including mining companies, do not always comply
with basic health and safety standards. Among other things, they
mentioned the use of toxic substances which are prohibited in
Canada.
I am pleased that the value of Canadian and Quebec investments
in Chile has reached $7 billion.
(1620)
I take this opportunity to send a message of social responsibility
to Canadian companies investing in Latin America and other
continents.
To conclude, I would like to talk briefly about pensions, another
matter the human resources development department is responsible
for. I was shocked to learn that some people are considering the
privatization of the Canada pension plan. True, other countries
have tried that, and it has been a disaster.
I am against any reduction in benefits, and we must have full
access to the plan. Universality has to be maintained. However, I
would agree to raising the maximum insurable income above
$35,000 to collect more contributions. I am strongly opposed to the
idea of raising the age of retirement to 67. We need to make room
for the young. The existing Canada pension plan should be
improved and not reduced.
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Madam Speaker, once again
the hon. member for Bourassa has shown that he understands the
problems of his constituents, the people he represents. He has
shown also that he has a good understanding of the nature and the
scope of the Department of Human Resources Development.
It must be remembered that, except for the servicing of the debt,
this is the one that accounts for the largest share of the money
allocated in the federal budget, more than 40 per cent. It is
1677
responsible for a huge number of programs and services. The hon.
member for Bourassa recalled, and rightly so, the closing down of
some employment centres, including the one in the district of
Papineau, as he mentioned. That happened also elsewhere.
The debate today deals with the legislation establishing the
Department of Human Resources Development; we see on the
cover that it is Bill C-11, the former Bill C-96, which brings back
the previous legislation unchanged. We see that this legislation
could be called the law of silence.
I would like to ask my colleague what he thinks about it. This
bill will strengthen the powers of the Minister of Human Resources
Development. It will give him authority to encroach even further
on and bypass provincial jurisdictions, especially in the area of
manpower training. It will allow the minister to bypass the
provincial government and deal directly with organizations and
businesses in matters of training, among others. Therefore, this is
something important that raises the constitutional issue. The Bloc
Quebecois is not pleased to deal with this issue, but the government
is grabbing even more constitutional powers to interfere in areas
under provincial jurisdiction.
At the moment, I am asking questions to my colleague, but the
answers should come from members opposite. We are surprised to
see that members opposite, especially those from Quebec, are not
making speeches and not taking part in the debate on the bill
establishing the largest federal department, and that members of
the third party, who usually deal so meticulously with
expenditures, are not interested either in that topic. Where are we?
I would like the hon. member for Bourassa to comment on that law
of silence that is in force, on yet another operation designed to put
Quebec in its place.
Mr. Nunez: Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member
for Lévis, who is doing a remarkable job both in the House and on
the human resources development committee.
(1625)
Of course, I agree with him and with my party that Bill C-11
reinforces the powers of the federal government as opposed to
those of the provinces. As I said in my speech, the minister will be
able to go over the provinces' heads and negotiate directly with
organizations, and that is unacceptable.
There are a lot of community organizations in my riding. These
organizations would rather deal with the Government of Quebec,
which has a better understanding of the situation and the problems
in Montreal and Montreal North in particular, than with Ottawa,
which is so far away. This is why I wholeheartedly agree with what
the member said. Again, I want to stress that, with this bill, the
federal government is infringing upon provincial areas of
jurisdiction, especially the labour training area.
Mr. Maurice Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead,
BQ): Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to take part in this debate
on Bill C-11. As my colleague from Lévis mentioned a few minutes
ago, it is amazing to see how government members and even
members of the third party in this House, the Reform Party, are
silent on this subject.
This has to be noted since, as mentioned by the member for
Lévis, this is the most important department in terms of its budget
and even, I would say, in terms of its repercussions on the lives of
Canadians. Forty per cent of the federal budget is allocated to that
department.
So we have to wonder why government members are silent on
this subject. How is it that only the official opposition, the Bloc
Quebecois, wants to take part in this debate to inform the people, to
tell them how dangerous this bill is and what could happen if we
give so much power to the Minister of Labour. In the few minutes I
have, I will do my best to explain what powers the minister is
getting in this bill.
To do so I will refer to the legislation itself. Clauses 6 and 7 of
Bill C-11 talk about the powers, duties and functions of the
minister.
Clause 6 says:
6. The powers, duties and functions of the Minister extend to and include all
matters over which Parliament has jurisdiction relating to the development of
the human resources of Canada not by law assigned to any other Minister,
department, board or agency of the Government of Canada, and are to be
exercised with the objective of enhancing employment, encouraging equality
and promoting social security.
Everybody should agree with that since clause 6 says that, in
creating this department, the federal government wants to enhance
employment, encourage equality and promote social security. This
is really apple pie; of course everybody wants to attain such goals.
Moreover, it says in this clause that the minister recognizes that
he will have to exercise these powers, duties and functions in his
own areas of jurisdiction. It is said specifically that his department
cannot infringe upon the powers of other federal departments or
agencies. Consequently, we could say: ``At last, the federal
government intends to mind its own business, to play in its own
backyard, and, therefore, to respect the powers of the provinces''.
(1630)
In order to understand if such is the government's intent, we
must also read clause 7 as well as clause 20, which go together.
Clause 7 reads as follows:
1678
7. In exercising the powers or performing the duties or functions assigned to the
Minister under this or any other Act of Parliament, the Minister may
That is the Minister of Human Resources Development.
(a) subject to the Statistics Act, collect, analyse, interpret-
And so on. These are all formalities. Paragraph (
b) reads as
follows:
(b) cooperate with provincial authorities with a view to the coordination of
efforts made or proposed for preserving and improving human resources
development.
It is there in black and white, if words mean anything, even in the
House: ``The Minister may cooperate''; it is not written that the
minister must cooperate, but that he ``may'' cooperate with
provincial authorities. Therefore, the minister has all the leeway he
needs to accept or refuse to cooperate with a provincial
government.
In clause 6, it is said that the minister cannot exercise powers
assigned to other federal departments, boards or agencies, but in
paragraph 7(b), it is said he ``may'' cooperate with the provinces.
We know that, since its inception, the federal government has used
all acceptable and unacceptable means available to it to invade
provincial fields of jurisdiction.
We have seen it time and time again in the past, such as in the
case of old age security, family allowances and unemployment
insurance, which were all provincial fields of jurisdiction. And,
over the years, for all manner of reasons, including the depression
in the 1920s and then later on the war, the federal government has
laid its hands on powers, supposedly temporarily, but the situation
then became permanent. Over time, some have been entrenched in
the Constitution, as is the case with unemployment insurance.
So there is nothing reassuring about clause 6, when read in
conjunction with clause 7.
If I may, let us jump ahead a bit to examine clause 20. What does
clause 20 of Bill C-11 say? Since we are still looking at the same
bill, it is appropriate to link them up. Clause 20 states:
20. For the purpose of facilitating the formulation, coordination and
implementation of any program or policy relating to the powers, duties and
functions referred to in section 6, the Minister may
-repeating the wording of clause 7-
enter into agreements with a province or group of provinces, agencies of
provinces, financial institutions and such other persons or bodies as the
Minister considers appropriate.
So, as the saying goes, the thing has come full circle; we have
just grasped that the minister can decide to co-operate with a
province, as it says in paragraph 7(
b). So,if by chance the minister
does not feel like co-operating with a province, he can pass on it.
But what will he do then, according to clause 20? He will go over
the heads of the provinces, and negotiate directly or conclude
agreements with bodies in each of the provinces.
(1635)
Clause 20 does not say so because, naturally, the federal
government wants to deceive, to hide the truth. Clause 20 does not
say that the federal government or one of its agencies will be able
to deal directly with a municipality, but it must be understood that
provincial public agencies are just like municipalities.
Municipalities are agencies, creatures of provincial governments.
Therefore, as I understand it, under this clause the federal
government is giving itself the necessary leeway to bypass
provincial governments and deal directly with municipalities and
agencies at the provincial level.
This is the government's, the minister's intention and we know
that this minister more than anyone else will not hesitate to push
provinces aside, especially Quebec, and to try to enter into
agreements which will go against the wishes, goals and policies of
the Government of Quebec.
During the few minutes I have left, I want to talk about the
common will and consensus regarding professional training
policies. This is not the only area where Quebec will stand alone,
where it will be a distinct homeland-the Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs may wish to use another expression
since ``distinct society'' and ``principal homeland'' seem to have
disappeared; we could perhaps use ``distinct homeland'' for a few
weeks. In Quebec there has been for many years, I repeat, for many
years a consensus between all stakeholders, all interested parties.
This includes the Government of Quebec, labour confederations
and employers. For the first time in the history of Quebec, I would
say, a consensus was reached to ask the federal government to
withdraw from manpower training, to take its paws off this
provincial jurisdiction and to put a stop to the duplication and
endless meddling in this sensitive area, not only in economic terms,
but in the day-to-day existence of our fellow citizens. We are
talking about real people, who work or who need retraining or
additional training because of the closure of their place of work.
As my colleagues have pointed out here and elsewhere, how
many times do we have to reiterate the need for a clean-up in
manpower training? In Quebec, management, unions and
government have all said the same thing. When I speak of
government, I do not mean the separatist government of Mr.
Bouchard currently in power, but the federalist government before
it, the governments of Mr. Johnson and Mr. Bourassa, and no one
can accuseMr. Bourassa of even the slightest hint of a separatist tendency.
1679
(1640)
If there was ever someone ready to compromise, I would say to
make every concession, in order to keep Quebec within the
Canadian Federation, it was the former premier of Quebec,Mr. Bourassa. Yet, even he and his government joined in the
consensus, in QUebec, that manpower training should be under
exclusive provincial jurisdiction, as already provided for in the
Constitution, and that the federal government should be asked to
withdraw from this area.
However, when reading clauses 6, 7(b) and 20 of the bill before
us, we see that the federal government does not intend to abide by
this consensus, but intends on the contrary to continue to do what it
has been doing for years, that is to interfere in any way, at any time
and with anyone it wants to.
Question period after question period, the Prime Minister, the
Deputy Prime Minister, the former Minister of Human Resources
Development and the present minister of this portfolio, have all
stood in this House one after the other to state their intention, their
firm resolve to decentralize, to withdraw from this area of
provincial jurisdiction in order to abide by the Constitution.
That is what they are saying day after day, question period after
question period, election campaign after election campaign but, in
reality, when the time comes to make a decision, the first thing they
do is to write, in black and white, that they intend to do just the
opposite.
After that, one hardly wonders at the cynicism-not to call it
something worse-of the population with respect to politics and
politicians. This is called double talk. One cannot say one thing,
then say the opposite, and claim there is no inconsistency.
The federal government says over and over that it is ready to
withdraw from manpower training. Why did not they write in their
bill that they are leaving this responsibility to the provinces and
that they recognize once and for all the consensus arrived at in
Quebec? It would have been simple and easy. I am convinced that,
for once, the House would have been unanimous on a bill, since
that is what all stakeholders in Quebec are demanding.
I think the minister can still act before the bill is passed.
Consequently, it is necessary for the Minister of Human Resources
Development and his Prime Minister to have a serious discussion
as soon as possible and for them agree that this bill is flawed-that
is the least we can say. In fact, the bill does not follow through on
the federal government's intentions to withdraw from manpower
training. The Minister could see to it that the necessary changes are
made.
Nothing would do more to prove the government's good will
than if it announced during this debate that it is once and for all
withdrawing from manpower training. If it did so, it would gain
the full support of stakeholders in Quebec and of the official
opposition. I think there would be no better way to conclude this
debate.
(1645)
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Madam Speaker, I
would like to thank my colleague for his excellent statement, which
illustrates once again the importance of the manpower issue.
Before I ask a question, I want to say that this bill has a greater
scope than what we might think since human resources
development can mean much more than training and labour
adjustment. It can pertain directly to training but it can also
concern family policies. In fact, it can relate to anything that affects
human development.
He is right in stressing how outrageous it is, for instance, that the
manpower training issue has not yet been resolved in view of the
fact that the consensus in Quebec is so strong and has been so for so
long. This morning, I quoted a 1991 letter in which Mr. Bourbeau,
then labour minister, was making the same requests to Mr.
Valcourt, the federal minister, and stating Quebec's opposition to
any federal action that would bypass the province in that area.
The minister referred to some correspondence between himself
and Mr. Valcourt, but reminded him also that he had discussed the
issue with Mrs. McDougall and that she had agreed not to bypass
the province. He made the following interesting comment on the
relation between that issue and the constitutional debate:``Mrs. McDougall told me that the federal government sees a
connection between whatever Quebec requests and the
constitutional review process. I disapproved of that idea, because
even if there was perfect constitutional harmony in the
country-which is not the case as we know, especially since
October 30-Quebec would still make the same requests, since it is
urgent for the economic development of Quebec to make all
manpower programs efficient and in line with Quebec's own
priorities''. This is Mr. Bourbeau, a Liberal minister, a federalist
talking.
Needless to say, five years later, when we see that the minister is
claiming as his own Bill C-96, which is now C-11, and that he
believes he can bypass the province in all areas of manpower
development, make agreements with anybody without granting the
province the power to opt out of an agreement and to manage the
related funds, we can only react with outrage. Why? Because this is
not a quarrel between two levels of government. It is of the highest
urgency that the little money we have be put to work on behalf of
the people; the Quebec government is responsible for the economic
and social development of Quebec. The Quebec government is the
one closest to citizens. It has the duty and responsibility to provide
its citizens with the tools they need.
1680
It is not for nothing that we have the Société québécoise de
développement de la main-d'oeuvre cooperating with labour,
management and everybody. It is because things are terribly
urgent.
I would like to ask my colleague how the need to put all the
resources available at the service of citizens can be felt in his
riding, in a concrete way?
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead, BQ): Madam
Speaker, I thank my colleague from Mercier who, as everyone
knows, is an expert in this field and who always brings us down to
earth.
(1650)
I do not want to talk about agriculture, even though this would
make the hon. member for Beauséjour happy. Some of the bills
passed by this House may be a little ``far out'', if I may use this
term, or have little impact on people's everyday lives. However, on
reading Bill C-11, an act to establish the Department of Human
Resources Development and to amend and repeal certain related
acts, for the first time, members may wonder what impact this bill
could have on their fellow citizens' daily lives.
The hon. member for Mercier has just reminded us that the
perverse effects of this bill, and to an even larger extent those of the
decisions made by the Minister of Human Resources Development,
can be seen every day. In fact, in my riding, as in all ridings in
Quebec, how many times have we heard unemployed people and
owners of small, medium size and large businesses complain about
the time-in business time is money-needed to deal with
bureaucrats, to meet the requirements of officials from all
departments? They also have to deal with other bureaucrats asking
the same questions in the same area. There is one official from the
Quebec government and one from the federal government.
That is why, as my hon. colleague indicated, the Department of
Human Resources Development interferes in a multitude of aspects
relating to manpower development, and the same could be said
about other areas over which the department has authority. Over
time, this has created such confusion that we do not know if we are
coming or going. It is a well-known fact that has been stated and
demonstrated time and time again. That is the explanation, and it
has nothing to do with their generosity of spirit or with the various
organizations losing sight of their mandate or clientele. I am
thinking of the Conseil du patronat negotiating with the CSN or the
FTQ. They do not do so for the fun of it, to take advantage of the
CSN, but rather because they believe it is in everyone's best
interest to reach a consensus.
The same goes for the unions. I do not think Gérald Larose is
crazy about sitting at the same table as Ghislain Dufour, from the
Conseil du patronat. But dealing with manpower training and
making sure Quebecers receive appropriate training to become not
only competitive on the work market but also more efficient in
their jobs, which in turn ensures that we produce higher quality
products, is good for everybody. That is what the consensus in
Quebec is all about.
It is quite simple. We must achieve tangible results. Labour,
management, governments, we all have to work together to ensure
that our workers are well trained and our plants operating to the
satisfaction of the consumers, so that everybody is happy. We must
revisit various programs to avoid duplication, implement programs
in line with reality, so that where cooks are needed, we train cooks,
not engineers.
As my colleague from Mercier mentioned, this affects people in
their daily lives. Finally, it is important that the Liberal members
who are listening to the debate talk to their colleague and try to
convince him, if possible. I wish them good luck, because we are
having a hard time trying to convince the Minister of Human
Resources Development that he should improve his bill and
announce he will not interfere in areas of provincial jurisdiction.
(1655)
[English]
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I would
like to take exception to the member's speech. In his opening
remarks he said that he was quite surprised and expressed
disappointment that the government and the third party were very
silent on this bill. I take exception to that.
We have not been silent on this bill. I would like him to
acknowledge the fact that we have not been silent on this bill. Our
two critics stood in this House today and expressed this party's
point of view. They expressed it quite clearly and very eloquently. I
would like the hon. member to acknowledge that fact.
Just because his party wishes to prolong the debate and wishes to
have more people speak on this issue, he should not then put down
members of the third party who have spoken to this bill. Would he
please acknowledge that?
[Translation]
Mr. Maurice Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead,
BQ): Madam Speaker, my answer will be very brief.
In making these comments, it was indeed my intention to help
Reform Party members realize the importance of this debate and
take part in it. However, their interest is limited to say the least,
since we have heard very few of them.
As for us, our intention is not to unduly prolong this debate, but
to make people aware of the importance of this bill and particularly
of its dreadful consequences.
1681
Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil, BQ): Madam Speaker, indeed I
come from the riding of Longueuil, the nicest one in Quebec.
Located along the St. Lawrence River, it reflects the history of
French Canadians, the history of Quebec. There are some very old
houses. I myself own a house built in 1854. It was bought by the
Oblate Fathers when they first came to Canada. They settled on
Saint-Charles street, in Longueuil. As you know, the Oblate
Fathers were missionaries and discoverers. They promoted
Quebec's development and we are very proud of that.
As regards Bill C-11, the Liberal government is once again
helping itself. It creates a new department, it changes the name of
the department so as to give itself more power, much more power
as was explained by the Bloc Quebecois members who spoke
before me. It seeks to provide the minister with the authority to get
involved with the private sector, with the provinces, or some of
them, for the purpose of creating a system that will be detrimental
to the Quebec employment department.
In Quebec, a manpower development agency was set up a few
years ago. This structure reflects the unanimous will of all
Quebecers, whether they are from business or labour, and whether
they belong to either one the two main parties, namely the Parti
Quebecois and the Quebec Liberal Party. There is a definite
consensus. All Quebecers agree that the province must have its
own way of dealing with the unemployed or with welfare
recipients, who had the misfortune of losing their job. There are
some who had the misfortune of losing their employment because
of the federal government's way of managing.
(1700)
We know that the federal government, through its policies of
concentrating all the powers here in Ottawa, wants to show
Quebecers that it is the big leader of this country. It wants to show
that, without the federal government, it would be impossible to
survive in Quebec. All the measures it has taken have had the effect
of bringing about inflation in some cases; after having caused
inflation, it increased interest rates, which generated recessions
between 1970 and 1980.
Between 1984 and 1986, we experienced the same problem when
inflation and recession were brought about. So, the real cause of the
social problems we have in Quebec is particularly related to the
inappropriate actions taken by the federal government. Today, the
minister wants to give himself powers to manage the
unemployment insurance program better. But the government is the
cause of unemployment.
I want to point out that we cannot have much confidence in this
Liberal government. Only three weeks ago, I asked questions of the
secretary of state for finance, who was saying that he wanted to set
up an unemployment insurance fund, adding that he wanted to use
the moneys collected from both employees and employers, some
$5 billion a year, to collect even more and then give it back under
the new way of managing the unemployment insurance program.
He was saying that this fund could be used to reduce Canada's
debt, and that he also wanted to set up a fund to accumulate money
for lean years to come. Let me remind him that these are lean years.
If the government wants to build up a reserve during the lean
years, how much more money will it collect when prosperity
returns? Apparently, it will collect $5 billion during a lean year like
this one. How much will it collect when times are good? Will it be
$10 billion, or $15 billion? Where will all that money go? In the
consolidated revenue fund, to reduce the Canadian debt.
The poor are being squeezed, and the small businesses too. We
know that the maximum insured income has been reduced. The
higher the salary, the lower the relative contribution will be.
Quebec has many have small businesses, and our salaries are lower.
That means that small businesses will pay more. In a way, workers
and employers will have to pay a new tax to reduce the federal
deficit.
It is a strange way to put government finance back in order. They
squeeze money out of workers and small businesses in Quebec to
reduce the federal deficit. As you can see, we do not trust this way
of doing things. This bill gives more powers to the minister, so you
will understand why we are apprehensive, and why we worry so
much about the future.
My colleagues have already mentioned that Quebec wants to
have complete jurisdiction over manpower training. That has been
said so many times in the past. There reasons why Quebec wants
this. Quebec is a distinct society, whether you like it or not. It is a
fact of life.
(1705)
It is a reality. English Canada has to understand once and for all
that Quebec is a distinct society.
We are a distinct society, not necessarily because of our French
language. The fact that we speak French is patently obvious, of
course. Quebecers speak French and quite a high percentage of
French speaking Quebecers do not speak English. For instance, the
minister could ask a Quebec worker who just lost his job to take a
job in Toronto or in Vancouver. That is what is called manpower
mobility.
Any worker who loses his or her job could be asked to move to
Vancouver for example or Toronto to get a job. However, a French
speaking Quebecer who does not speak English could refuse to take
a job in Toronto or in Vancouver, but then he would stand to lose his
UI benefits, because a French speaking Quebecer can be forced to
1682
move to an area where he, in principle, cannot work, and where he
is not at all interested to go. It is too big a change to ask of him.
Because Quebec is a distinct society, we cannot make the same
rules for Quebecers as for the rest of Canadians. This is one of the
reasons we believe Quebec should be responsible for
unemployment insurance and for manpower training. Everybody
agrees with that in Quebec.
Quebec is not a distinct society just because of its language.
Quebec is not a distinct society just because of its folklore. Our
folk dances are not the only difference. We dance the typical square
dances of the Scotch and the Irish. If ours is a distinct society, it is
not only because of folklore. We have a distinct culture.
In particular, we are distinct because of our financial institutions.
Quebec's financial institutions are distinct, as is again obvious
when we deal with amendments concerning financial institutions.
This is of the utmost importance.
The Mouvement Desjardins alone, for example, has assets of
more than $80 billion. This is quite significant. Why did Quebecers
have to put in place their own financial institutions? Because
English Canada would not give loans to good French speaking
Quebecers who needed money. No loans were given. In Quebec,
loans were only for English speaking individuals and for their
businesses.
So we had to set up our own financial institutions with Quebec
charters and rules. But there is not only the Mouvement Desjardins.
Quebec chartered mutual insurance companies were created
specifically to answer Quebec's needs. There is also the Quebec
Deposit and Investment Fund which manages more than $50
billion. The money is used to develop our economy, give loans to
Quebec businesses and to create partnerships with certain
companies. This is what distinct society is all about. It means that
we created our own financial institutions, our own corporations and
all that.
Now, you will understand that we do not intend to lose what we
duly earned by the sweat of our brow. How could we accept that the
federal government should decide how we are to be trained, and
what rules are to be established even without our consent?
Just look at what the government did our fusion project in
Varennes. It decided unilaterally that the federal government's
priority was not nuclear fusion.
(1710)
It acted unilaterally. It did not talk to Quebec, to other investors,
and Hydro-Quebec is one of them. It decided unilaterally to pull
out of this research.
The great federal master decided on his own to suddenly
withdraw or change the rules without taking into account the efforts
that we made in Quebec to develop ourselves. We have created
many things. In spite of all our efforts, if we succeed in having an
unemployment rate no higher than 10 or 12 per cent, we are
considered to be top players, extraordinary people. The federal
government has never helped us much in terms of economic
development, we have had to do it all by ourselves with a lot of
hard work.
Do you think we can have confidence in the federal government
for our development? When we think that in R&D in 1989, and I
have had the opportunity to do a study of this, federal contracts to
Quebec using our tax money for R&D-which is somewhat linked
to training, because businesses need to develop, as people need to
be trained, it is all connected-research and development contracts
or assistance from the government, to businesses or educational
institutions were $1.2 billion less than to Ontario.
I do not recall all the figures exactly, since it is quite some time
since I did the research, but I do remember clearly that the shortfall
for Quebec in R&D contracts from the federal government was
$1.2 billion. So, if you wonder why there is more unemployment in
Quebec than in Ontario, there is the reason.
In the industry committee this morning I asked the people from
Statistics Canada who were there testifying what the distribution of
Statistics Canada staff was. They said the distribution was good,
and relatively representative of the population, but when I asked
for details, they told me that there were 4,600 employees at
Statistics Canada, and some 3,500 of those were in Ottawa. Now, as
far as I know, Ottawa is in Ontario, so when you look at the $346
million spent by Statistics Canada, and think of the relationship
between the total of 4,600 employees and the 3,600 Ontario
employees, you will see that the repercussions for Ontario are
markedly greater, and that is where the difference lies.
The purpose of all that is to say that we cannot count on the
federal government to help us develop. We really have no
confidence in them. As the saying goes, once burned twice shy, and
let me tell you that we have absolutely no confidence in the federal
government to look after manpower training, to look after our
jobless.
They say unemployment is running at only 10 per cent, 11 per
cent in Quebec. Unemployment is still much too high in Quebec
compared with the United States, where it is at about 5 per cent.
The worst of it is that there are somewhat fewer unemployed than
there should be because those who have run out of unemployment
insurance are now on welfare.
Welfare in Quebec is very high. Why? Because people are
getting less unemployment insurance, because they are working
less. Why is there more unemployment in Quebec? For the reasons
I mentioned earlier. Because the federal government has never
taken Quebec seriously, and we have always had to work a lot
harder to achieve economic growth.
1683
(1715)
That is what the distinct society is all about. Quebec will never
agree to let the federal government manage its affairs, unless major
changes are made.
On that point I conclude and I thank you very much, Madam
Speaker.
Mr. Stéphan Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ): Madam
Speaker, I would like to start my maiden speech in the House by
thanking my riding for trusting me since, as you can see, I am the
youngest member in the House of Commons. It was not certain,
when I first stood as a candidate, that my youth would be an asset.
As a mater of fact, I would also like to congratulate the Bloc
Quebecois for being an open and forward looking party which is
ready to forge ahead with young people and the whole gamut of
society. I am very proud of our party.
I am very happy and greatly honoured to represent the riding of
Lac-Saint-Jean. A Tremblay representing Lac-Saint-Jean, a riding
which does not shy away from innovation, a riding which could be
called the heartland of Quebec. My colleagues here are very close
to me, but the riding of Lac-Saint-Jean was the first one to say yes
to sovereignty along with the area of Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean-I
am talking about the 1980 referendum, of course-and which
showed the way to the rest of Quebec, as we saw during the last
referendum. It is practically the birth place of the Bloc Quebecois
thanks to my predecessor, Mr. Lucien Bouchard, who is now the
Premier of Quebec.
When I say that it is Quebec heartland, I do not mean only in
political terms. Michel Gauthier comes from Roberval, the riding
next to mine, which is also part of the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean
area; this is truly the heartland of Quebec. People in my riding are
warm, welcoming, fun-loving people who are easy to get along
with.
Unfortunately, it is a riding faced with some problems, and this
is one of the reasons why I decided to enter politics. Like many
other remote areas in Quebec, in the rest of Canada, and even
throughout the world, it is plagued by a serious problem: young and
not so young people are leaving in search of a job.
Another reason is the fact that my riding is the victim of the
transition from the industrial era to the era of the small and medium
size businesses. We will probably need, and I hope so, the help of
the federal government to support businesses.
This is also a riding that, I think, is full of potential, full of
natural resources and full of people with great potential. Last
September, this riding, this region of Quebec showed it can
innovate by developing a regional strategic planning. When they
noticed things were going badly, they got all the stakeholders
together to establish a guideline. The main element that came out
was decentralization.
Which brings me to the bill before us, a bill that goes against
what our region and Quebec as a whole, what all Quebecers want,
namely decentralization. Ultimately, we want to take matters in our
own hands. We want to manage our own business. And the more
things will be close to the people, the better it will be.
(1720)
At the last referendum we lost-we lost it, these are very big
words-
Mr. Leroux (Shefford): We almost won it.
Mr. Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean): Yes, we almost won it. I had a
glimmer of hope. I was thinking: Jean Chrétien's government had
promised us it would decentralize, it had promised us a new
country. But with this bill, it is obvious we were had. Again it is
obvious we cannot trust this government, we cannot trust the
federalist system.
This bill increases the federal government's presence in many
sectors. We must keep in mind the unemployment insurance sector.
It is a well-known fact that a region such as mine needs
unemployment insurance. The new bill will have negative effects
on my region.
There are also income security programs for children and
seniors. This bill also affects support to the provinces for
post-secondary education, welfare, labour market adjustment,
social development as well as student loans. This is a bill that
centralizes far too much.
When we travel throughout Canada, people ask us: ``What does
Quebec want?'' I will tell you: we want decentralization, we want
to be masters in our own home. There is a wide consensus around
managing our own affairs and decentralizing. A simple example is
manpower development. Practically everyone is part of this wide
consensus: the current Quebec government and the previous one.
Mr. Bourassa, the Conseil du patronat, the labour bodies, the
education system, the employment fora, they all agreed. We simply
wish to manage our own affairs.
I will conclude my maiden speech by saying that I hope the
Minister will have the nerve to amend his bill and to listen to his
people, who really want that decentralization. Finally, I wish to
thank once again the constituents of Lac-Saint-Jean who showed
confidence in one of their young people. I can say that I will always
be there to represent my riding, which I consider as one of the most
beautiful in Quebec.
An hon. member: Hurray for Lac-Saint-Jean!
Some hon. members: Hear, hear!
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Madam Speaker, I wanted to
make a comment because, when the new member for
Lac-Saint-Jean arrived in this House, my duties as training and
youth critic were transferred to him. I agreed that this duty should
be given to him since he is the youngest member in the Bloc
Quebecois and indeed in the House of Commons. I was once a
young man myself,
1684
of course, youth comes with age, and I think the member showed us
in his maiden speech, which was very eloquent, that he has a lot of
heart.
He expressed his concerns, and I think I have heard him talk
about his concerns for youth before.
He talked a lot about his riding and he talked about youth. I
would like to ask him this question-
Mr. Silye: Question, question.
Mr. Discepola: Give him a chance to answer the question at
least.
Mr Dubé: It is interesting, Madam Speaker. After total silence
this afternoon during this debate on the creation of an important
department, the arrival of a new member, a young member who has
shown some enthusiasm, has finally waken up this House, and I am
very happy about that.
(1725)
I would like to ask him what he thinks about young people
moving away to find work. Does he thinks it is important that this
responsibility be given to the Government of Quebec to ensure
consistency and is it possible to finally put an end to the duplication
of programs? Does he agree that Quebec should regain control over
all its tools? He has already talked about that but, in the few
minutes he has left, I would like to hear him say a few more words
about his concerns for youth.
Mr. Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean): Madam Speaker, before I
answer, I would like to make a comment. It is true I am young, but I
was elected by my constituents. In politics, people often talk about
youth to make political hay. They like to surround themselves with
young people. We all know parties which court young people to
show they are open to all age groups and are looking to the future,
whereas the Bloc Quebecois and Lac-Saint-Jean riding do not
believe in tokenism.
They really give tangible examples by electing a young member
to Parliament, even if it might be risky; but if you never take risks
in life, you never make any progress and those who do not progress
regress. That was only a short comment I wanted to add.
I will reply to my colleague that, in a way, youth is in a way a
symbol of decentralization. The closer the decision-making body is
to the public, the more the people feel they are involved. I do
believe in decentralization and the more we decentralize, the more
people will feel involved, including young people. Too often, they
feel lost in the political debate because they feel it does not concern
them. So we just have to get closer to the population for the people
to feel more concerned.
[English]
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I would
like to congratulate the member for Lac-Saint-Jean on his maiden
speech, his first presentation in the House of Commons.
I would like to make two comments. The first is that I hope this
new member does not feel too guilty about taking away the crown
of the youngest member of the House of Commons from his
colleague from Témiscamingue who held the crown until he
showed up. I worked with the former youngest member of the
House in the Standing Committee on Finance. I know he tried to
hold this government accountable, as he should, and he did a good
job. I hope the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean does the same in
holding the government accountable.
Having said that, hopefully the member will have time to answer
my second comment. In delivering his speech, I noticed some
traces and hints of the former leader of the Bloc Quebecois. The
member's style is very similar. However I hope there is a little
more substance to what the member says and does.
The former leader is all things to all people. He is able to deliver
everything to everybody in Quebec. He is able to walk on water. He
is able to save social programs yet cut at the same time. He is able
to promote youth employment. He is able to do all those things but
the money is not there.
How does the member propose to add some substance to what he
has talked about?
[Translation]
Mr. Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean): Madam Speaker, I believe my
first achievement was to run in that election. I am not bragging, but
I can tell you that it took a lot of courage. One of the things I
wanted to do was not simply talk, but to show that there are still
young people out there who want to take part in the political
process of this country.
When I decided to go for it, I asked myself: ``Are people ready to
vote for someone who is only 22?'' It was not obvious.
The first concrete sign I got was when students and other young
people told me that I was showing them the way and giving them a
reason to go for it. Therefore, concretely, I had already done more
than just talk. With due respect, I am saying time will tell what I
will be able to do in the future, but at the very least I tried, I jumped
the fence, as for what will come of it, tomorrow will tell. I had two
alternatives: give up or roll up my sleaves and go for it. I decided to
try my best and I am ready and willing to start building the Quebec
of tomorrow.
1685
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): It being 5.30
p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private
Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
PRIVATE MEMBER'S BUSINESS
[
English]
Mr. Darrel Stinson (Okanagan-Shuswap, Ref.) moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the
advisability of amending section 3 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms, according to the amending formula provided for in section 38 of the
Constitution Act, 1982, which amendment would read as follows: ``Every
citizen of Canada, except one who is (a) confined in a penitentiary, a prison, or a
psychiatric institution, or (b) at large from a place referred to in paragraph (a),
with or without a lawful excuse, has the right to vote in an election of Members
of the House of Commons or of a legislative assembly and to be qualified for
membership therein.''
He said: Madam Speaker, less than 100 years ago a woman from
Victoria, B.C. shocked local citizens by showing up to vote. As a
widow she had inherited property from her husband and as a new
property owner she was therefore qualified to vote according to the
way the franchise was limited at that time of Canadian history.
How times have changed. For the law-abiding adult citizens of a
nation to have a real voice in how affairs are conducted now is
regarded as a hallmark of democracy. In our lifetime thousands of
young Canadians have fought and died on foreign soil to defend
that basic principle.
Most recently much of the world was shocked when mainland
China conducted war games using live ammunition to discourage
the citizens of Taiwan from casting their ballots for Taiwan's new
president, the first time voting for president had been allowed in
the 5,000 year history of the most populated nation on the planet.
With great courage over 76 per cent of eligible Taiwanese voters
cast ballots, a great testament to how much those free Chinese
valued their new found democracy.
Within our commonwealth of nations the Republic of South
Africa based the right to vote on racial qualifications which
allowed a small white minority to control the much larger black
majority, including through a seemingly endless list of human
rights violations until the practice of apartheid recently was ended.
I mention these examples to point out what a precious privilege
it is to be able to vote and to be able to run for public office rather
than have our lives controlled by totalitarian dictators, or by
communist or fascist parties, or by members of a particular race.
Citizens of Canada value that right very highly. Therefore many
Canadian citizens were shocked when they realized that our charter
of rights and freedoms now has given the right to vote to criminals.
Section 51 of the Canada Elections Act disqualified many citizens
from voting:
The following persons are not qualified to vote at an election and shall not
vote at an election:
(e) Every person undergoing punishment as an inmate in any penal institution
for the commission of any offence;
(f) Every person who is restrained of his liberty of movement or deprived of
the management of his property by reason of mental disease.
(1735 )
These election act provisions were what Canadians expected.
It is also interesting to note that in the United States, a great
democracy and our nearest neighbour, the 14th amendment to the
United States Constitution excludes prisoners from voting. Its
Constitution has been in the possession of the American people
since the 1700s, whereas the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms dates from only the 1980s. It is not surprising that
Americans have passed many Constitutional amendments.
At the present time section 748 of the Criminal Code of Canada
provides that persons convicted of an indictable offence for which
they are in prison for a term exceeding five years cannot hold
public office or any employment under the crown. They cannot be
elected or sit or vote as a member of Parliament or of a legislative
assembly and cannot exercise any right of suffrage.
However, convicted killers have challenged section 51(e) of the
Canadian elections act based on the charter of rights and freedoms
which now states this in section 3:
Every citizen of Canada has the right to vote in an election of members of the
House of Commons or of a legislative assembly and to be qualified for
membership therein.
This issue has been taken before various courts a number of
times. For example, in 1992 the federal government lost a case to
Richard Sauvé, who was serving a life sentence in Kingston
Penitentiary and had sued the government for the right to vote.
Decisions of the court have been divided and appeals have gone
to the highest levels regarding both provincial and federal
elections. The courts have decided that the Canada Elections Act
does not stand up against the charter of rights and freedoms.
I know from talking with Canadian people that the fact the courts
have removed those limitations on who gets to vote is offensive to
1686
the majority of Canadians who are too busy earning a living to
appear before royal commissions.
It is a typical example of bleeding hearts who are more
concerned with advancing the rights of prisoners than with
demonstrating that serious punishments are attached to the
commission of crimes.
One of the biggest complaints I hear from many voters in my
riding is that offenders get a slap on the wrist for virtually any
crime they commit. Working police officers also tell me they feel it
is not even worth the paperwork they must complete to get an
offender convicted and sent to jail.
It is not as though we throw people into jail at the drop of a hat,
even though Canada has one of the highest per capita prisoner rates
in the world, second only to the United States. It is not because the
Canadian law is so tough that we have so many people in jail. The
truth is that crimes of violence have increased by 782 per cent from
1971 to 1994 in Canada. Property crime has increased by 1,031 per
cent, although our population has increased by only 27 per cent.
In 1994 almost three million crimes were committed compared
with just over a quarter of a million back in 1971. This is an
astonishing fact. It is time the government woke up to that. The
bleeding hearts, including the justice minister, like only to refer to
the past couple of years when certain categories of crime have
decreased a little.
Law-abiding Canadians do not feel safe and they want to see
offenders punished. One of those punishments should remain that
going to jail means losing voting rights. Once offenders have paid
their debt to society they should get their voting rights back, but not
until that debt is paid.
This position was clearly stated by some witnesses who appeared
before the royal commission on electoral reform and party
financing which submitted its report in November, 1991. One
witness told the commission in Edmonton: ``It is a punishment.
The reason why they should not receive a vote is that they are not in
society in a sense. Until they return to society and act within the
confines of our laws, they are barred from certain privileges, one of
them being, in my feeling, the right to vote in an election''.
(1740)
In Thompson, Manitoba the commission was told: ``We believe
that the right to vote is a very special privilege in our country. We
believe that once you break the law of the land, part of the deterrent
would be the loss of the right to vote as long as you are in prison. I
do not believe the charter, at any point, says you have the right to
break the law''.
The commissioners pointed out that most witnesses supported
giving prisoners the right to vote, but none advocated allowing
prisoners to stand as candidates.
It also mentioned a brief from the John Howard Society which
pointed out that prisoners have the right to vote in Italy, Sweden,
Norway and Denmark but not in the United Kingdom, France,
Switzerland or the United States.
The number of prisoners and costs raise two more points against
allowing inmates to vote. According to testimony of Mr.
Jean-Claude Léger, director of operations, office of the Chief
Electoral Officer, to the procedure and House affairs committee on
April 21, 1994, 6,800 inmates used special voting rules.
According to testimony of the Chief Elector Officer, Mr.
Jean-Pierre Kingsley, to the same committee, there were 7,502
incarcerated electors. The cost per elector was $23.81 compared
with the cost of $9.38 for the average registered elector outside the
penal system.
That number of votes cast in prison could very well mean that
prisoners wanting weaker laws to punish crime could determine the
outcome in many elections. Votes of prisoners are being sent to
their home ridings to be counted, and many elections are won and
lost by small margins.
In the riding of Edmonton Northwest the Minister of Natural
Resources won over the Reform Party opponent by a mere 12
votes. I wonder how many were cast from the penal system.
Another close call saw the Liberal member for Edmonton East
defeat the Reform candidate by 115 votes. With those numbers, it is
clear that in prison voters could readily tip the scales of an election.
How fair is that to law-abiding citizens who must support these
prisoners at considerable expense? I do not think it is fair at all.
Some on the other side of the House probably do.
The other section of the Canada Elections Act to which I draw
attention in my motion is that inmates of mental institutions should
not be allowed to vote. That may not be the best way to word my
concern, but this is a motion intended to push the government in
this direction, not for a finished piece of legislation.
The justice department has hundreds of lawyers. Private
members have access to only three. Regarding mental hospital
inmates voting, in October 1988 the Canadian Disability Rights
Council challenged the present wording of section 51(f) of the
Canada Elections Act. In its decision, the court basically said that
any mental patient 18 and over who can recite his or her name, age
and address can be on the voter's list.
Many Canadians are offended by such a low standard to
determine who is eligible to vote; lest we forget that anybody who
is allowed to vote is allowed to run for office. I am sure Canadians
do
1687
not want inmates of mental institutions running for either federal or
provincial governments.
Since I have been here I have been told it seems as though for
years perhaps the inmates are running the asylum here. Sometimes
we wonder.
Witnesses appearing before the Royal Commission on Electoral
Reform and Party Financing were divided about voting rights for
the mentally ill or the mentally handicapped.
A member of a hospital volunteer committee stated: ``We are
fiercely opposed to voting by proxy for persons who are mentally
ill. We believe the right to vote is essentially personal and can be
exercised only by the holder of the right, not by the third party. The
psychiatric population is very vulnerable in that risks of abuse are
higher than for so-called normal people''.
(1745 )
Many people pointed out how difficult it would be to develop a
competency test unless the same test were applied to the general
voting population. A common sense solution is simply to require
that voters be able to get to their home polling station and once
there to be able to complete a ballot properly.
The Conservative government issued a white paper in 1986 on
election law reform which recommended that mentally disabled
Canadians have the right to be enumerated and vote. The white
paper also recommended that no polling stations be established in
mental hospitals and that residents of such institutions should not
have the right to vote by proxy. However, the legislation died on the
Order Paper.
There is one category of residents in mental institutions which I
know Canadians do not want to see voting, namely, those confined
because they are not criminally responsible, the NCR, or not
criminally responsible because of a mental disorder, NCRMD, the
two terms used by the provinces for mental institution patients
forcibly confined for criminal reasons.
Although the rules and details vary from province to province,
basically these patients are detained under federal legislation which
is administered by the provinces. Having that label means they
were deemed to be ill at the time of the criminal offence and
therefore were never convicted of an offence. It is a label which has
been applied to some of the nastiest criminals in our history.
Currently in British Columbia there are 130 NCR patients
detained in the mental institution which has a total of 174 detainee
beds.
In Alberta, 36 NCR patients are lodged in two mental
institutions. Overall Alberta has 1,000 psychiatric beds and about
10 per cent of those are for forensic.
The figures are small for Saskatchewan and Manitoba with 16
NCR patients under board review in Saskatchewan. Twelve are in
Saskatchewan Hospital. Manitoba reports 35 NCR patients in
mental institutions representing about half of the psychiatric
patients of that province.
Newfoundland reports six to eight in the provincial mental
hospital's forensic unit. There were seven or eight in New
Brunswick and four or five in Prince Edward Island. Nova Scotia
seems to have the greatest difficulty providing this information for
me as they are in the process of restructuring.
Neither of the territories has its own forensic mental facilities.
Instead NCRs are sent to B.C. from the Yukon and are sent to
Alberta from the Northwest Territories.
With the largest populations in Canada, Ontario and Quebec also
have the highest numbers of mental patients who are not criminally
responsible. In Ontario approximately 550 NCRs account for about
20 per cent of the overall mental patient count of 2,400 to 2,600
beds.
Quebec has 750 NCR patients but it also has review board
hearings on others. In 1994-95 there were 988 Quebec hearings,
plus six judged unfit for hearing, for a total of 994 patients who
were in some form of mental treatment for criminal reasons.
I hope all hon. members are aware that there are many Canadians
with mental illnesses of one sort or another. For example, a friend
checked herself into the mental illness unit of our local hospital
when a drinking problem led to a suicide attempt. She was
voluntarily confined but only briefly. She had absolutely no interest
in politics at that period in her life.
Section 51(f) of the Canada Elections Act excluded from voting
persons confined involuntarily or not able to manage their own
affairs due to mental illness.
Canada's standards are changing about including people with
various mental disabilities in group homes, sheltered workshops
and so on where they often make a real contribution to their
immediate families and to the community in which they reside.
The fact that the mentally disabled are loved and valued does not
mean they must be allowed to vote. All too often the mentally
disabled merely become the pawns of their caregivers. These
mentally disabled Canadians are not independent. Even their
sources of information can be readily controlled. Therefore, for
their own protection as well as to protect the voting process, I
believe it is simply common sense not to turn over the running of
Canada to people who are mentally incapable either of managing
their own affairs or of standing trial for crimes they may have
committed.
(1750)
I must repeat that the people who are allowed to vote are also
allowed to run for office. That role is not appropriate for the
mentally handicapped.
1688
A final point I wish to raise is a recommendation for an
amendment to section 3 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms. Sections 2 and 7 to 15 can be overridden by an action
of Parliament alone, as provided by the override clause in section
33. According to section 33 of the charter, Parliament or a
provincial legislature can insert a clause stating that it is passing
a given piece of legislation notwithstanding specific provisions of
the charter.
Additionally, any federal or provincial law containing such a
notwithstanding or overriding clause has to be reviewed and the
declaration re-enacted at least every five years or it will not remain
in force.
In conclusion, I would like to quote Mr. Chuck Cadman,
president of an organization called CRY, for crime, responsibility
and youth. He stated:
I certainly support Darrel on this motion. Anybody who's been convicted of a
crime against Canadian society has lost their right to vote. When they come out
of an institution, fine, but while they are serving their time they should not be a
factor in any decision making on who is in power or what the law should be.
Also, Mr. Dave Langlois of the Vernon Courtwatch Society
stated:
The members of Citizens Courtwatch Society entirely support your private
member's motion No. 143 to amend the charter of rights and freedoms to
prevent convicted criminals from voting.
Our government, supreme court and citizens must come to realize that the
charter acknowledges that all rights are not absolute and must be in balance with
the rights of the law-abiding citizen. A vast majority of our democratic citizens,
I can assure you, agree fully with this motion.
I would therefore like to ask for the unanimous consent of the
House to make this a votable motion.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is there
unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: No.
[Translation]
Mr. Nick Discepola (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor
General of Canada, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I would like to
participate in order to give the government's response to the
Reform member for Okanagan-Shuswap on this private
member's bill.
[English]
This motion raises the issue of whether individuals confined to
penal and psychiatric institutions should be restricted in the
exercise of their democratic rights. We are urged to consider
equally the advisability of an amendment to section 3 of the charter
which enshrines the right of all Canadian citizens, without
exception, to vote in an election of members of the House of
Commons or of a legislative assembly and to be qualified for
membership therein.
I would begin by stating that we on this side of the House do not
consider that a constitutional amendment restricting the
application of this guarantee is advisable. I say this for several
important reasons, related both to the nature of rights protected
under the charter and to the legislative history of these issues.
The charter itself recognizes the need for a balance between
individual rights and societal interests and provides a mechanism
for achieving this balance quite equitably.
Section 1 of the charter provides that the rights and freedoms it
guarantees are subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by
law, and can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic
society. The existence of this special balancing provision provides
legislators with a significant measure of flexibility. Although
legislation may contravene individual sections of the charter, such
as section 3, the government had the opportunity to demonstrate
that this legislation is justified, once again, in a free and democratic
society.
The charter has therefore established an important dialogue
between the courts and the government, as legislation is scrutinized
by the judiciary for consistency with constitutional requirements.
The Supreme Court of Canada has indicated that government
restrictions on rights will be justifiable under section 1 of the
charter when they are designed to accomplish a pressing and
substantial government objective and when the means used to
accomplish the objective are proportional. Legislation that does not
conform to these criteria will be struck down, but this does not
preclude Parliament from introducing new, and often better,
legislation on the same subject, with qualifications added to ensure
the full protection of charter rights.
(1755 )
This dialogue between Parliament and the courts is clearly
illustrated by the legislative history relating to inmate voting. The
1985 enactment of the Canada Elections Act defranchised all
inmates and in 1993 the prohibition was struck down as
unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of Canada in the Richard
Sauvé case.
It is clear from the supreme court's decision that restrictions on
the right of inmates to vote will violate section 3 of the charter. But
as I have stated, that does not mean the government is precluded
from acting, for it always has recourse to section 1.
In the Sauvé case the court found that the government had not
met the burden of demonstrating that a complete ban on inmate
voting was demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society,
as the prohibition was drawn too broadly. This step opened the
possibility that certain more narrow restrictions on inmate voting
might be justifiable.
The challenge for Parliament is to find a reasonable restriction
that can be justified as an appropriate limit on individual rights in
light of the compelling public objects.
1689
In seeking to find an acceptable compromise after the Sauvé
decision Parliament reviewed two major reports on electoral
reform, both of which have been critical of the disenfranchisement
of all inmates and both of which proposed concrete alternatives.
In 1991 the Royal Commission on Electoral Reform and Party
Financing, more commonly referred to as the Lortie commission,
had recommended that only persons convicted of an offence
punishable by a maximum of life imprisonment and sentenced for
10 years or more be disqualified from voting.
In 1992, the special committee on the electoral reform of the
House of Commons had recommended in its all party report that
inmates convicted of an offence punishable by a maximum term of
life imprisonment be disenfranchised.
While noting these options, Parliament chose a different
approach. Under Bill C-114 the impuged paragraph of the Canada
Elections Act was re-enacted in 1993 to provide that all prisoners
serving a sentence of two years or more be disqualified from
voting. It was felt that individuals sentenced to a term of two years
or more should be viewed as serious offenders and that forfeiting
their right to vote would send a powerful message that serious
crimes are inconsistent with the concept of civic responsibility and
respect and rule for the law. The voting prohibition was also
viewed as a means of further sanctioning the offender. In other
words, the measure supported the punitive objective of the law.
Perhaps not surprisingly, Parliament's new proposals soon ended
up back in court. Inmate Sauvé and others filed court actions in the
Federal Court, trial division, challenging the constitutionality of
the newly enacted provision of the Elections Act under section 3 of
the charter and also under section 15, the equality to rights
provision.
The cases were heard jointly by Mr. Justice Wetston and in his
decision released in January of this year, Justice Wetston concluded
that the restriction on inmate voting did not violate section 15.
However it violated the inmates right to vote in section 3.
Although Justice Wetston found that the objective of the voting
prohibition were pressing and substantial, he felt that the wording
of the legislation provision was overly broad and, therefore, failed
the test of section 1. He pointed out equally that Parliament could
provide sentencing judges with the authority to disenfranchise
convicts on a case by case basis rather than enact a blanket
disqualification for persons serving two years or more.
The federal government has filed an appeal of Mr. Justice
Wetston's decision to the Federal Court of Appeal. Until this
litigation runs its course it would be premature to consider any
further legislative action, be it constitutional or otherwise and to
address the issue of inmate voting.
It would be prudent for Parliament to wait to receive guidance
from the Federal Court of Appeal and perhaps even the Supreme
Court of Canada on whether the existing prohibition on inmate
voting is sustainable under the charter. If not, what other sorts of
options for restricting the right to vote would be permissible?
Any reconsideration of this issue by Parliament prior to
obtaining this input would not only be premature but might well
colour the government's defence on existing legislation.
Governments should not consider amending the charter each
time an adverse court ruling is handed down. The constitutional
amendment procedure, as we know, is lengthy and complex and is
not the proper way to address these issues. The charter was never
intended to be amended on a piecemeal basis in response to
discrete court decisions. Our challenge therefore in the case of
restrictions on inmate voting is not to amend the charter but to
sustain reasonable legislative provisions that strike an appropriate
balance between individual and collective interests.
(1800)
Although both the Lortie commission and the special committee
recommended the continued disenfranchisement of certain
individuals on the ground of mental incapacity, the government of
the day chose not to accept these recommendations. Instead, the
law prohibiting voting by mentally ill persons was repealed as part
of Bill C-114.
Finally I should say that the question of who has the right to be
qualified for membership in the House of Commons under section
3 of the charter is a separate and distinct question from who should
have the right to vote. The Supreme Court of Canada has not yet
had the opportunity to pronounce on the extent to which it is
possible for the government to restrict the conditions of
membership in the House and still remain within the bounds of
section 3 of the charter without recourse to section 1. It is not clear
that it would be inconsistent with section 3 of the charter as
currently worded.
These and other reasons mean that restrictions imposed on the
rights of inmates and those of psychiatric institutions to become
qualified for membership in the House of Commons may be
sustainable within the bounds of section 3. In short, incarcerated
persons may not be-
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Order. The
member's time has expired.
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
it is a pleasure to speak to this issue which my colleague from
Okanagan-Shuswap has brought to this House. This is an issue
1690
which is very critical in this day an age: should federal inmates
have the right to vote.
We just heard from the Liberal member that the government has
filed an appeal to Judge Wetston's decision that inmates should
have the right to vote. I find that very interesting because it was not
too long ago that a judge in this country made the decision that the
use or abuse of cocaine and alcohol were an excuse for murder.
These very same Liberals came back into the House in a hurry to
reverse that decision. Now the member stands up and says that gee
whiz, they are going to have to file an appeal and they will see if it
works and so on. The fact is that they just do not have the intestinal
fortitude to turn that decision around.
Should federal inmates have the right to vote is the big question.
There are some questions which have to be answered here and I am
going to make an attempt at that. Why are we at this stage today?
Why are we even discussing this here when it could have been a
votable issue? And why is this not votable? Why are we discussing
Motion No. 143 on a non-votable basis? I will cover that in a
moment. Another question relative to federal inmates having a vote
in this country today is: When will this government start putting
the affairs and issues that are relative to victims in this country on
the front plate instead of those affairs relative to criminals?
Why is this motion not votable? The solicitor general said on the
day this issue broke that the government believes that withholding
the right to vote is reasonable. If the solicitor general believes that
withholding the right to vote from federal inmates is reasonable,
then why is it that this motion could not have been voted on tonight
in the affirmative? Why is that so unreasonable? What is most
obvious is that there is no will to do so in the federal government.
Why are we at this stage today? Why is it that judges appear to
be making decisions that are not in the best interests of the country
and not in the best interests of victims?
One of the Liberal members is suggesting that we whip the
judges. We can understand the methodology and the logic coming
from over there.
(1805 )
Let me give these folks across the way a little lesson in some of
the decisions judges are making today. I ask whether judges are
making rational decisions today and whether decisions like that of
Judge Wetston to allow criminals, federal inmates, the right to vote
is a good one.
Let us hear what B.C. Supreme Court Justice Sherman Hood said
before acquitting a man of sexually assaulting a North Vancouver
waitress: ``No sometimes means maybe or wait a while''. That is a
judicial decision in this country which will be used as
jurisprudence in other decisions. Does that make any sense? That is
supposed to be a rational decision coming from this country's
judiciary.
Northwest circuit Judge Michael Bourassa on sexual assaults in
the Northwest Territories said: ``Sexual assaults occur when the
woman is drunk and passed out; the man comes along, sees a pair
of hips and helps himself''. That is another judicial decision that is
a total avoidance of the protection of victims. The government, just
like on the issue of the right of federal inmates to vote, does
absolutely nothing about it. Government members sit here and pass
rhetoric off as though we were supposed to buy it.
I will give another example. Members are asking over there how
is this relevant. It is relevant because judges are making bad
decisions and Justice Wetston made a terrible decision. Members
over there just do not like to hear this.
In my province in February 1996: ``Port Hardy, British
Columbia provincial court Judge Brian Saunderson gave 57-year
old Vernon Logan `an absolute discharge' even though Logan
pleaded guilty to possessing child pornography. The judge said the
law banning child pornography violates the charter of rights'', it
sounds familiar, ``because it is an infringement of one's freedom of
thought, belief or opinion as unfettered access to reading material
is necessary to exercise those freedoms''.
With this kind of charter of rights decision by a judge to let off
someone who possesses or is dealing in pornography, the very
criminal act he was charged with, because it is a violation of his
rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, how far
is this government going to allow this to go? That is the question.
David Snow was charged in Vancouver with kidnapping two
women and trying to strangle a third. The judge declared: ``I cannot
conclude that the placing of the wire around the neck of the victim
and the placing of the plastic over her head are sufficient enough to
establish intent to kill''.
I ask that group, which is somewhat more quiet now, are these
kinds of decisions made by judges, including the decision to allow
federal inmates the right to vote, in the best interests of law-abiding
Canadian citizens? The answer is no.
If the solicitor general is to be believed, if he says he believes
that withholding the right to vote is reasonable, then why does this
government not come in here and do it? What is wrong? The fact is
this government, those people who are speaking on the other side
of the House, believe it is fair.
(1810 )
Let us deal with what criminals are getting today. Are we going
too far to the left where the Liberals are? What do criminals have?
1691
We know they get their conjugal visits. We know they get GST
rebates. We all know they are getting the Canada pension plan-
Mr. Milliken: They do not.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): The member says that they do
not but they do. He is not well informed about these issues. We
know they get old age security and the guaranteed income
supplement. We know they have access to legal aid at the cost of
the taxpayer. I believe that Clifford Olson is up to his 32nd
litigation at the cost of the taxpayer. We know they have the right to
sue. We know they have the right to refuse work. We know they get
overtime and on and on it goes.
The final insult to law-abiding Canadian citizens is in front of
them: Offenders now have the right to vote. This government
refuses to do anything about it. However the government will not
have to because when it is replaced in the next election, something
will be done.
Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I want to correct a few of the inaccurate suggestions made
in the speeches by my colleagues opposite.
The Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada
made an excellent speech, although he did not remember certain
facts which occurred during the course of the last Parliament in
relation to the bill he was referring to, Bill C-114. It was passed
toward the end of the last Parliament in a successful effort to
amend the Canada Elections Act.
Had he been a member of the electoral reform committee which
was an all-party committee established in this House that basically
drafted Bill C-114, he would have been aware-
An hon. member: Oh, oh.
Mr. Milliken: The hon. member opposite does not want to listen
to this. I recognize that facts are always troublesome to members of
the Reform Party.
It was a government bill but the basic outline of the bill had been
designed by a committee. No matter what the hon. member for
Fraser Valley East has said, there had been a previous court
decision on this very issue. The law as it existed before Bill C-114
was passed provided that no person incarcerated in a prison had the
right to vote. There had already been a decision, I believe by the
Supreme Court of Canada, although my recollection is hazy. It has
been some years since I have looked at this problem and I did not
plan on speaking today, but hearing so many inaccuracies I thought
I should try to correct the record.
There had been a court decision concerning the previous law. It
was for that reason that when Bill C-114 came along, the
committee considered the issue of the right of inmates to vote and
came to a decision.
There was a referendum in Canada prior to the passage of Bill
C-114. In that referendum because of the court decision throwing
out the provision in the electoral law that prohibited all persons in
prisons from voting, all federal inmates in Canada had the right to
vote in that referendum. Some did exercise their franchise and
voted in the referendum. If we listened to members of the Reform
Party we would think the sky had fallen in but it did not. The
referendum took place and those persons exercised certain voting
rights.
Then the committee studied the whole issue and decided to
recommend there be a limited right to vote for persons incarcerated
in prisons. My recollection of the committee report is hazy. I will
tell the member that I am accurate within two years. I am surprised
he has not looked at this because it might have been relevant to his
speech, but as I say, facts are troublesome to members of the
Reform Party. The fact is the committee recommended that all
inmates who were serving a sentence of seven years or more be
permitted to vote. In my recollection that was a unanimous
recommendation from the committee.
(1815 )
The Conservative government, notwithstanding the fact that it
had a majority on the committee which agreed to that
recommendation, decided that was too generous and so it opted for
a two-year term. That is, every person serving a sentence of two
years or more would be disqualified from voting. It meant that all
federal inmates were automatically disqualified because by
definition persons serving prison sentences in a federal institution
must have been sentenced to two years or more.
I recall very well the day the bill was debated because I was the
electoral reform critic for the Liberal Party. I moved amendments
to this section because I said at the time, and it is on the record, that
this section would be thrown out by the courts as being too
restrictive.
Seven years was chosen based on the legal advice that the
committee received at the time. We had to have something
reasonable in terms of length in order to justify it under the charter
of rights and freedoms. It was the committee's unanimous view
that seven years was a reasonable time and could be defended
before a court. It also constituted a reasonable restriction on the
right to vote given in the charter which granted to every Canadian
citizen the right to vote.
The members of the Reform Party want to take that right away
from citizens that they consider unworthy of the right. Once you
start inching away at who is unworthy you can start to whittle away
other rights.
I know there will be some members in the House who might
want to take away rights of members of the Bloc Quebecois to vote.
I know there are some who would like to take away the right of
members of the Reform Party to vote. I am not one of them. I am a
firm believer in the principle that citizens should have the right to
1692
vote. That principle is stated in the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms which I fully support.
I moved amendments that would have taken away any
restriction. I moved a seven-year amendment. I believe I moved a
five-year amendment in an effort to get a compromise that I
thought could be supported before the courts and that would win
the support of members of the House. The Conservative House
leader at the time, the Hon. Harvie Andre, would hear none of it.
He was insisting on the two-year rule and it was that or nothing.
Because the bill had a lot of other amendments in it besides this one
item, we agreed to pass the bill.
I remember the day we did it because some fancy agreements
were made between the parties to get the bill through. I think it was
a Friday afternoon before Easter or something like that. It was
certainly a time before the House was to break for a period of at
least a week.
I remember the day. This particular clause caused great difficulty
because in my view it was unconstitutional and would be found to
be so by a court. And it was. The surprising thing is that the
government is bothering to appeal this. In my view it is a waste of
money. This clause is contrary to the Canadian Charter of Rights
and Freedoms.
Mr. Stinson: We already know your view.
Mr. Milliken: Obviously the hon. member shares my view in
this regard, otherwise he would not have brought forward this
motion. He wants to change the charter. He obviously shares my
view that this is unconstitutional. He wants to fix it so that it will be
constitutional. He wants to take away the right of all persons in
prison to vote as I read it.
It says a penitentiary and everyone knows what a penitentiary is.
He says everyone in a psychiatric institution should not have a right
to vote. A person who checked in because he or she needs treatment
for depression would not be allowed to vote. That is the effect of
the hon. member's motion. That is why the committee when it
considered this matter was so reluctant to move in this area. It was
because of the difficulty in choosing who should be voting and who
should not. It was an extremely difficult question.
The committee did not think it was something that it ought to
make a decision on and ought to fix in the law. It was better to give
the franchise on a broad spectrum, allow everybody to vote, than
try to determine who is reasonable and who is not. If we went on
reasonability I am sure we would have psychiatrists in here
checking out some of the members of the House to see if they were
suitable for voting.
Mr. Stinson: Yes, and you would be the first.
Mr. Milliken: The hon. member says I would be the first one. I
think I would find more of the opinion that he would be higher on
list than where he put me on the list. I am happy to humour him by
volunteering to undergo psychiatric observation for the purpose of
determining whether I should vote or not if his rule ever became
law.
Fortunately the hon. member was unable to persuade the
procedure and House affairs subcommittee to make this motion
votable. I assume he went there and made his pitch and the
subcommittee members decided that this motion ought not be
votable. There were other motions that were more important and I
can understand why. The hon. member is really nit-picking.
(1820 )
There is a wide variety of opinions on whether or not inmates
ought to have the right to vote. I am inclined to the view that they
ought to have that right. I say that directly.
Taking away the right to vote makes practically no difference.
There are something like 12,000 inmates in federal penitentiaries
in this country. In the referendum, very few of them exercised their
right to vote. I do not have the precise figures, but I would guess it
was something around a third of that group at the most who
exercised their right to vote in the referendum.
The same figure would apply in an election campaign. Most of
these people would not be interested in voting and would not cast a
vote. If they had the right, under the rules that were in place in the
referendum which, no doubt, would apply during an election, their
voting rights would be exercised in the area from which they came
and not in the area where they are incarcerated.
I have a very large prison population in my riding and, frankly, I
would not mind if they were each voting in Kingston. That will not
happen. They will be voting across the country. If the hon. member
does not think he can persuade some of these people to vote for
him, I can understand why he might oppose allowing them the right
to vote.
Most hon. members would find that in terms of the voting
patterns of inmates, they reflect that of the general population.
They are not a group that is going to vote as a block on any issue. In
my view, the casting of 12,000 votes out of the millions that are
cast in an election campaign would have practically no substantial
effect on the outcome.
I know it bothers hon. members opposite to think that people
who have been sentenced to prison are somehow exercising this
kind of democratic right. I am at a loss to understand how it hurts
the rest of us.
Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I am
very pleased to speak to the motion presented by the hon. member,
my colleague from Okanagan-Shuswap. I will read the motion
again so that we know what we are debating today.
1693
This is a motion that is meant to be a guideline for future
legislation. We are not debating legislation now. The motion reads:
That, in the opinion of the House, the government should consider the
advisability of amending section 3 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms, according to the amending formula provided for in section 38 of the
Constitution Act, 1982, which amendment would read as follows: ``Every
citizen of Canada, except one who is (a) confined in a penitentiary, a prison, or a
psychiatric institution, or (b) at large from a place referred to in paragraph (a),
with or without a lawful excuse, has the right to vote in an election of Members
of the House of Commons or of a legislative assembly and to be qualified for
membership therein''.
I would like to touch on three areas related to this motion. First, I
would like to talk a little about how we got to where we are, how
we got to be in the House debating whether or not prisoners should
be allowed to vote. It seems absolutely incredible that things have
slipped far and we have to be here debating this motion today.
Second, I want to talk a little about what my constituents said
when a court decided that prisoners should have the right to vote.
Third, I would like to discuss briefly the issue of people who
have committed so-called less serious crimes and whether they
should be allowed to vote.
What was the direct cause for the debate today was the decision
in Sauvé v. the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada. There are many
other things behind that and I will talk a little about a few of them.
Prior to this decision, persons imprisoned in a correctional
institute who were sentenced for two years or more could not vote
in federal elections. In Sauvé, the court declared this law to be
invalid because it violated the prisoners' right to vote under the
charter and because there was no compelling justification for
violating this right.
I would like to touch briefly on the purpose for removing the
right to vote in the first place. Some of the reasons given was the
enhancement of civic responsibility, the respect for the rule of law
and the imposition of an additional sanction on persons committing
serious anti-social acts.
(1825 )
The hon. member for Okanagan-Shuswap covered very well
why prisoners should not be given the right to vote so I will not get
into any more discussion on that. The question I have to ask is: Are
these not far more important to society than the rights of individual
prisoners? In other words, are these reasons given that disallow
prisoners from voting not more important than the rights of the
individual prisoner? I will talk a little bit more about that later.
The Sauvé decision concludes that disenfranchising prisoners
would make prisoners feel isolated from the community, would
impede the subsequent reintegration of prisoners into the
community and would prevent prisoners from experiencing any of
the rehabilitative effects which flow from political participation.
These are the main reasons given by Sauvé in his decision.
Again, by removing the franchise from prisoners, Judge Sauvé
reasoned that this could make prisoners feel isolated from the
community. Well, prisoners are isolated from the community. The
intent is for prisoners to be isolated from the community. That is
part of the punishment and part of the deterrent for criminals to
discourage them from committing crimes. The other reasons given
by Judge Sauvé really do not make any more sense than that.
When my constituents heard that the supreme court had ruled
that all prisoners, including people like Clifford Olson, would have
the right to vote, they could not believe it. Few issues had sparked
this kind of reaction from my constituents as this issue had. People
just could not believe it had happened. They asked me how we had
come to this. They wanted to know how this kind of thing would
happen and how we had arrived at this. They also wanted to know
how the court in Canada was making the law. They asked me
whether it was not my job as a member of Parliament and the job of
the House of Commons to make the law.
Those were some of the feelings, some of the questions and
some of the reactions of my constituents to this decision. I wonder
whether the constituents of the members across the floor, who are
heckling and speaking out against the motion presented by my hon.
colleague, reacted any differently. I doubt very much that they did.
In fact, they have acknowledged that their constituents reacted in
exactly the same way which does not surprise me.
How have we arrived at this point? If we could pick a pivotal
time in history, we would have to go back to 1972. It was a Liberal
government. I have seen the quote in Hansard where Solicitor
General Goyer said that the Government of Canada should change
the main focus and the priorities of the justice system so that no
longer was the protection of the citizenry the most important focus
and the top priority. He said that we should change that focus so
that the rights and rehabilitation of the criminal were top priority
and only secondary were the rights of citizens to be safe and to feel
safe in their homes. It is unbelievable. That is not a direct quote; it
is a paraphrase but it is accurate.
It was a Liberal solicitor general and the present Liberals have
no different view from that. They still believe that the rights and
rehabilitation of the criminal should be top priority. They are
wrong and Canadians say they are wrong. The top priority should
be the protection of our citizens in all cases.
1694
Some people would argue that criminals who have committed
so-called petty crimes should be given the right to vote while those
who have committed more serious crimes should not have the
right to vote.
I want to refer to something that happened in New York City a
few years back. William J. Bratton was a former police officer who
became head of security for the New York subway system. Bratton
enforced this kind of environment in the subway system. He said
all criminals, including those who commit the crime of writing
graffiti on walls or panhandling, should be treated as serious
offenders. He cracked down on this so-called petty crime.
By cracking down on petty crime Mr. Bratton lowered the
serious crime as well in a dramatic way. When he later became the
police commissioner of New York City he engaged the same policy
to take petty crime seriously. When he did that the crime rate in
New York City dropped dramatically.
When considering this motion it is important that people who
commit petty crimes know that even a petty crime is serious and is
a good enough reason to lose the right to vote.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): There being no
further speakers rising and as the motion has not been deemed
votable, the time allotted for the consideration of Private Members'
Business has now expired and the order is dropped from the Order
Paper.
It being 6.30 p.m., the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at
10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6.31 p.m.)