GOVERNMENT ORDERS

BANK ACT

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.

* * *

DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT

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-

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

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

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-

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.

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.

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-

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;

(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.

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''.

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'''.

(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

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.''

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

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.

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

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?

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.

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

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

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

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.

(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.

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.

(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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

(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

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.

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.

_____________________________________________