GOVERNMENT ORDERS

DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT

ment and to amend and repeal certain related acts, be read the third time and passed, and of the amendment.

Mr. George Proud (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am proud to have the opportunity to speak on Bill C-11.

As hon. members know, the legislation deals essentially with administrative matters regarding the formation of Human Resources Development Canada, better known as HRDC.

The government is surprised that the Bloc Quebecois suddenly decided to attack this legislation. There is certainly nothing sinister about it. It contains no new powers and simply reiterates HRDC's existing mandate.

I understand that members opposite are especially concerned about clauses 6, 20 and 21 of the bill. I will begin by dealing with clause 6.

This clause addresses strictly the department's mandate. Apparently there is a misunderstanding that clause 6 would enable the Government of Canada to intrude in provincial jurisdiction. This is definitely not the case.

The hon. members who comprise Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition are reading things into this legislation which are just not there. If members opposite will read the bill carefully they will see it limits the minister's powers to ``matters over which Parliament has jurisdiction''. That seems clear enough to me. The provision does not give the minister jurisdiction over provincial matters; it does just the opposite.

There is nothing in clause 6 that does not relate to existing programs. It simply combines the existing program mandates from the four former departments which constitute HRDC. There is no subterfuge designed to undermine provincial legislation at all.

The government does not think it necessary to waste Parliament's valuable time spelling out in the bill every detail of every program HRDC is responsible for. Even if we did, something tells me members opposite still would not be satisfied.

Clause 6 of the bill before us sets out the basic objectives of the department: enhancing employment, encouraging equality and promoting social security. These objectives are clearly within the jurisdiction of the Government of Canada.

Members opposite have also raised concerns regarding clause 20 of Bill C-11. This clause allows the minister to enter into agreements with the provinces or with financial institutions or other such bodies. Clause 20 is adapted from section 7 of the employment and immigration department and commission act, from section 6 of the heritage act and from section 5 of the labour act. Under the legislation before the House clause 20 will allow the minister to enter only into agreements similar to those in the past.

For example, in 1991 the minister of employment signed an agreement with the Government of Quebec. That agreement recognized Quebec's Société québécois du développement de la main d'oeuvre, SQDM, and its vital role in labour force training in that province.

Nevertheless, apparently members opposite still think clause 20 gives the minister too much discretionary power; that is, too much power to reach agreements they think will intrude on all areas of provincial jurisdiction. That is definitely not the case.

Let us look at the wording of clause 20. It states clearly that these agreements are for the purpose of facilitating programs related to ``the powers, duties and functions referred to in section 6''. This clause sets out the minister's mandate. There is nothing new in it, nor does it create any new powers.

(1510)

Surely the members of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition can see the minister's discretionary powers are limited by the department's mandate.

The bill clearly states the limitation is to matters over which Parliament has jurisdiction. Therefore there is no way clause 20 authorizes the minister to encroach on provincial jurisdiction.

Clause 20 allows HRDC to sign contracts with other organizations. The department could not function without that authority. The minister has signed thousands of contracts and agreements with numerous organizations, including the example I have already given, and organizations in the province of Quebec. Not only that, HRD has signed agreements with the Government of Quebec to help unemployed Quebecers return to the labour force.

In fiscal 1994-95 we signed more than 50,000 labour market contracts in the province of Quebec. Through those contracts we invested a total of $695 million in program funding and income support. That was done under existing legislation. Bill C-11 simply carries forward these arrangements.

As I emphasized, clause 20 will not be used to bypass the authority of provincial governments or to intrude on their areas of jurisdiction.

The third clause apparently keeping members opposite awake at nights is clause 21. I do not know why, because all clause 21 states is that the minister may delegate his authority, especially to the Minister of Labour. This section also enables the minister to delegate authority in order to support single window delivery, a key component in Human Resources Development Canada's services delivery network.

The ultimate aim is to provide Canadians with a simplified, faster and more accessible gateway to HRDC's programs and services. Single window delivery is a more flexible and a more efficient means of reaching that goal.

As I speak, in Alma, the home town of the premier of Quebec, HRDC, SQDM, local municipalities and local clubs are working in partnership in a single window delivery system. This is one of a number of similar projects we have with the Government of Quebec. If the Government of Quebec is willing to work with us, and we are glad it is, I fail to understand why members of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition are upset about these arrangements.

Another consideration is part II of the government's employment insurance legislation. It contains active measures to help unemployed Canadians get back to work quickly. This is part of our comprehensive response to addressing the underlying causes of unemployment.

To that end, the minister is currently discussing new arrangements with the provinces. However, these agreements will not infringe on provincial jurisdiction. On the contrary, the minister has made it abundantly clear that the Government of Canada will withdraw fully from labour market training in recognition of provincial responsibility in this area. We will do this over three years or less as we work out the details with each province.

The federal government would provide financial assistance to skills development but only with provincial agreement. In addition, the Government of Canada will work in concert with the governments of each province to put in place new customized labour market arrangements which will meet the different needs and circumstances of each province.

The Government of Canada will live up to its constitutional responsibility. We will retain jurisdiction over the national employment insurance system and the national dimension of our labour markets.

If that is not enough assurance for the party opposite, during the debate and the speech from the throne the Prime Minister stated: ``The federal government is also prepared to withdraw from its functions in such areas as labour market training, forestry, mining and recreation. That in the 21st century will be more appropriately the responsibility of others, provinces, municipalities or the private sector''.

(1515 )

In conclusion, I say to members opposite that there is nothing in Bill C-11 to suggest that the Government of Canada is centralizing national programs. This legislation deals strictly with administration. I urge the House to pass this bill so that we can move on to more urgent matters which I am sure all Canadians, including the people of Quebec, would prefer.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Speaker, can I count on the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands' friendly support? It would motivate me in my presentation. I would have liked to speak to a bill more concerned about fighting poverty.

On my way to the House from my office, I was thinking that, instead of recycling Bill C-96, a bill that was roundly condemned by just about everyone in Quebec, the Minister of Human Resources Development would have enjoyed greater support from us if he had tabled a bill with two objectives.

The first objective would have been to take steps to fight poverty and the second one, to give back to Quebec some 25 manpower training programs duplicating provincial initiatives in this area, because $250 million is being wasted or not used as efficiently as possible.

Why talk about poverty in 1996? Why should we, as members of Parliament, talk about poverty when the minister is about to put forward a centralizing bill? May I remind you that, by and large, government members took little notice of the annual report tabled a few days ago by the National Council of Welfare, which-I think it is important to remember this-pointed out that, globally, the number of poor people in society is not going down.

The government majority may act as though this was not an issue but, for all those with a social conscience-and God knows that includes the opposition-the fact is that even though people in our society are living longer, the poverty rate is rising.

In Canada, poor people-that is to say those who have to spend 56 per cent of their income on basic necessities, such as food, clothing and housing-according to Statistics Canada, are considered as such when they live in a large urban center and have to spend 56 per cent of their income on clothing, food and housing.

Looking at poverty rates in Canada, while 15 per cent of the population was living under the poverty line in the 1980s, 14 years later, 16.6 per cent of Canadians are still living in extremely difficult conditions and can be considered as poor.

Why did the minister and his government not look into this matter? Let me remind the House that the National Welfare Council prefaced its remarks by saying-I realize that some parliamentarians may not like to hear this, but let us nonetheless bear in mind the opening line of the council's press conference and related press release, which said: ``Governments should add combatting poverty to the list of immediate economic priorities''.

When was the last time we heard any member of this cabinet protest against the fact that such a situation is tolerated in a society like ours, where resources are plentiful, new production technologies available and a gross national product of about $750 billion? Why is this situation being tolerated? How can this government allow that? In philosophical terms, it means something to be a liberal. But what did these Liberals do, those Liberals who, in the 1960s, were calling upon us to live in a just society, an increasingly just society? What does it mean for this Liberal government, in

1996, to live in a just society, an increasingly just society, when poverty rates are allowed to raise as high as 16 per cent?

(1520)

The National Council of Welfare which, as we will see later, the government is about to muzzle with Bill C-11, tells us that 4.8 million people live at the poverty level. It must be understood that poverty, like other phenomena in our society, is not evenly spread.

Single parents are hardest hit. Three times out of four, it is the woman who is alone, often in difficult conditions, to raise her family. The reality is that, in 67 per cent of the cases, it is these women who are hit hard and who suffer from poverty.

Mr. Speaker, you may wonder what these comments have to do with Bill C-11. As you know, since I became a member of this House, I never allowed myself to be out of order. The connection is the following: had the minister taken a good look at the situation, he would have realized that we cannot afford to have two levels of government investing in programs which are similar in many respects.

Let me just give you the example of Quebec. Quebec employment minister Louise Harel, who happens to be the MNA for my riding of Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, told us during the last referendum campaign that the province of Quebec alone spends $10 billion on its labour market policies. If you take the Quebec territory for the purpose of this comparison, relatively speaking this is more than what is invested by all OECD countries.

As you can see, the problem is not a lack of money. Considerable resources are allocated to labour market programs. The problem is the duplication of resources.

The minister is asking us to pass a bill which, for all intents and purposes, seeks to allow federal involvement in areas over which this government has no mandate. Try for a moment to imagine one of the 33 Fathers of Confederation coming back here and trying to understand what provision of the Constitution Act gives this government the authority to get involved in the area of labour or manpower.

Yet, if we were to accept this bill, the human resources branch would get involved, as it does unfortunately too often, in income security, post-secondary education, social welfare and student loans.

On the train earlier this week I read-maybe you heard about it because I know you have a sharp mind and that nothing escapes you in social matters-the Fortin report, which was commissioned by Quebec's minister of income security. The economist Pierre Fortin is not a research officer for the Bloc. Moreover, he has never declared himself in favour of sovereignty. You will be surprised, but even more disappointed, to see the analysis made in the Fortin report. I take the liberty of quoting from it, with the consent of my colleagues.

Part of the report reads as follows: ``The federal government has already reacted to its own financial crisis in several ways. Of course, as we very well know, the federal government's debt is rather astronomical, and its deficit out of control''. It goes on to say: ``Three federal measures directly affect income security in Quebec. First, access to unemployment insurance benefits has been reduced in 1990, 1993 and 1994''. In fact, Mr. Fortin should or could have gone even further back to 1988, when the unemployment insurance program was first attacked by the now infamous Conservatives.

(1525)

The report reads: ``For the year 1996-97, a cumulative reduction of 15 per cent of transfers to provinces under the CHST has been announced. Third, the elimination of the Canada Assistance Plan in 1996 has been announced''. Hon. members will remember that, under CAP, Ottawa used to share the cost of welfare programs fifty-fifty with the provinces. The most interesting part in this report is that it estimates that the federal retrenchment-in other words, the kind of policy being adopted here with regard to unemployment insurance-will create a very heavy burden for Quebec because 70,000 households will go onto income security if the bill is not amended. The direct and indirect costs of this will not translate into a deficit, but into unforeseen expenses of $1 billion for the province. All of this, because of the offloading the federal government is doing. That is how harmful this system is.

In a system such as this, it is getting extremely difficult, even for the best Quebec government-and I think Quebec has a pretty good government right now-to plan effectively and to abide by its budgetary decisions, because the federal government can at any moment, without prior notice and without negotiating anything, wreak havoc with Quebec public finance. That is exactly what happened during the last three recessions.

As many have said before and as the hon. member for Mercier put it so eloquently, this bill which the government side wants us to pass is unanimously opposed. It is hard to think of another bill that brought together, in a unanimous show of displeasure, the employers, the unions, and various associations and co-ops.

What I am saying is so true that the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands, a lawyer by profession-not his best quality, but then it was his choice-will perhaps want to raise a question of order at the end of my speech to have this document tabled. Should that be the case, I would be glad to table a resolution concerning the first version of this bill, numbered C-96, adopted by the Société

québécoise de développement de la main-d'oeuvre, whose work the hon. member from Kingston may be following.

Pursuant to this unanimous resolution, the tripartite board of the Société, made up of representatives from the unions, the employers and the Quebec government, is asking the federal government to take a very praiseworthy initiative, which meets the consensus reached in Quebec, and to give back to the province about 25 programs it currently manages.

This is no small achievement when a non-political organization, authorized and mandated by the government of Quebec to review the labour market policies, has its board, where the Bloc is not represented of course, pass a unanimous resolution to urge the federal government to give back the areas of jurisdiction related to manpower.

What are we seeing instead? How can the human resources minister be so insensitive, ill-advised and confused as to fail to recognize that by passing and supporting Bill C-11, we would thoroughly not only violate Quebec's interests but a consensus, which is a sacred thing in democracy.

If all this was only academic, there would be no reason for concern. These would only be rhetoric debates that would have nothing to do with the day-to-day life of our fellow citizens.

(1530)

Here are some of the consequences resource duplication in the management of labour training programs can have. First, as it is now well known, there are 25 manpower training programs in Ottawa and 25 others in Quebec.

When his party was in power in Quebec, former minister Bourbeau, a Liberal, estimated that human resource duplication costs us $275 million that could be put to a better use.

Even more dramatic is the fact that the system's inconsistency is such that, at this very moment, people really need help, really need training. You know full well that, as we near the year 2000, more and more the jobs that will be created will require 13, 14 or 15 years of schooling. This is a fact.

My father, who is almost 60, worked all his life for the same company. He succeeded in earning his life, supporting his family and making his children happy, but he spent all his working years with only one company.

I am only 33 years old, or rather I will be on May 13, and I already have three careers to my name. It is said that in the year 2000, people will accumulate five careers. That is why continuing education is so vital. It is not true that once you have a university degree or a technical of vocational diploma you will have the same job for all your working life without having to go through adjustment periods. On the contrary, nobody, in the young generation, can think that he or she will have only one employer for all his or her life.

We will be committing a sin, a crime if we do not establish a manpower training system that is more rational, more coherent, and is based on the single-window concept.

This is so true that, at this very moment, there are approximately 25,000 people on the waiting lists in Quebec. There are 25,000 people in Quebec who, at different levels, need to improve their skills, who need to acquire experience, who need guidance services, but who are deprived of this resource, who are deprived of the assistance to which they are entitled because the system is inefficient.

You will ask: ``Yes, but did the minister learn the lesson?'' No, this minister is stubborn. This minister is looking ahead without concerning himself with what is going on in his environment. All Liberals are not like him, but I must say a majority of them seems to be of that type.

We can only wish, and anybody in their right mind would agree, that the minister will realize that the best thing that can happen to Quebec is that he changes his mind, that he does not authorize, as proposed in Bill C-11, various bodies which do not represent the Government of Quebec to obtain mandates directly from the Department of Human Resources Development, that he respects Quebec's jurisdiction and that he contributes.

He would become famous should he accept to put an end to duplication and work towards the establishment of a single window, as he has been asked to do by Quebec's Minister of Employment and Concerted Action, Louise Harel. This would ensure a more productive use of the resources that are available in the system, because it is absolutely wrong to suggest a lack of resources as an excuse. That is the challenge facing a minister who has been too stubborn until now.

Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, who once again has expressed social concerns, and not just for the people in his riding, which is very large.

(1535)

I obviously support all he said on the attitude of the government, which, despite the message it sent during the referendum promising change and greater sensitivity towards Quebec, spoke gobbledegook.

Unfortunately, we are forced to recognize that it was gobbledegook, that the government's centralizing approach continues unabated. I know he has many more examples of this centralizing approach and of the government's desire to meddle even more in provincial jurisdictions. With Bill C-96, creating the Department of

Human Resources Development, there is the example of training, education. Unfortunately, we can see that it is still not resolved.

I would like to ask the following question, because we have to comment and ask a question. I know I will not bother him at all, but I would like his opinion on the government's alleged decentralization, when we can see in the bill that the Minister of Human Resources Development is giving himself the power to go over the heads of the provincial governments and conclude specific agreements with organizations, even with businesses, in training or other areas. I would like his opinion on that.

Mr. Ménard: Mr. Speaker, you will understand that no matter how repetitive and expected this question is, it is still relevant. Allow me to stress the excellent work the member did on the human resources development committee; he was a very vocal representative of the Bloc Quebecois on this issue.

I appreciate his question all the more as there are certain parallels to be drawn between Lévis and Hochelaga-Maisonneuve. We both have in our ridings people who have experienced de-skilling. For the most part, this is the history of my riding. It used to be a thriving city. It is hard to believe that between 1883 and 1918 Hochelaga-Maisonneuve had such a vibrant industrial sector that it was called the Pittsburg of Canada. I know that in his riding too, I am thinking about shipyard workers among others, there has been a de-skilling process.

What the member for Lévis is asking us to realize is that periodically through the history of federalism and through the history of the Liberal Party, we have witnessed a profoundly despicable, not to say shameful, and I believe totally unacceptable manoeuvre on the part of a government refusing to accept the position of a legitimately elected government, its counterpart in Quebec, and instead going through intermediaries.

This was done in the sixties on the language issue, such an outcry was raised that the government had to back down. What is unacceptable in this bill, I believe, is the push toward centralization and the lack of respect for the authorized agencies.

As far as manpower policies are concerned, the authorized agency is the Government of Quebec. So by what authority, what rationale would a government, even a Liberal government, think it has the right to use a CDEC, a municipality or any other agency or corporate entity to ignore Quebec's wishes?

All this must not keep us from seeing-I will try to be brief because I would be most honoured if the member for Kingston and the Islands were to be so daring as to ask me a question-that as long as there will be duplication of resources, some people will not receive training. Mr. Speaker, look at the member for Kingston and the Islands, I think he wants to talk to me.

(1540)

[English]

Mrs. Georgette Sheridan (Saskatoon-Humboldt, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I hope the hon. member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve will not be disappointed, but I will try to stand in for my colleague from Kingston and the Islands as best I can.

I would preface my remarks by saying that as a woman I have often been plagued by the question: What do women want? I could translate that by saying: What does a Bloc Quebecois want?

I listened to my colleague opposite asking for the minister to do away with duplication and overlap and to deal with the province of Quebec, i would answer him by saying that is exactly what this bill proposes.

[Translation]

Mr. Speaker, when the bill now before us was tabled in this House last June 7, and this March 7, a number of us were amazed that the Bloc was so strongly opposed to it. Many of us were amazed at their heroic efforts to delay passage of a bill which has as its sole purpose the regularization of a government administrative restructuring that took place two years before. Amazed yes, but not in the least surprised.

At that point we were on the verge of the referendum campaign and the opposition wasted no opportunity to try and convince Quebecers of the dark intentions of the federal government. Nor did they waste any opportunity to hinder the smooth operations of government, to hold up to scrutiny every little action or statement by members of the government, as a diversionary tactic. It is easy to understand what was behind their actions at that time, but then the referendum came along and Canada remained Canada.

When the bill came back, the opposition began to sing the same tune again, to throw up the same roadblocks, but for a different reason. This time it was a sort of warm up in preparation for their opposition to the employment insurance bill the minister was going to introduce shortly. Here again, their reasons for acting on the federal level to immobilize and oppose any proposed change are easily understood.

[English]

The reasons were clearly demonstrated recently, on March 12, when it proposed that the bill on employment insurance be withdrawn even though everyone agrees that the current employment insurance program is in need of reform.

However, one important change has taken place since the last time the bill to establish the Department of Human Resources Development was debated.

[Translation]

Meanwhile, the Quebec employment minister agreed, after meeting with the federal minister, to discuss our proposal regarding employment insurance. Discussions are still going on with Quebec, as well as with all other provinces. Quebec is interested in the formula proposed because it will allow updating the management of worker adjustment programs; because it is consistent with its own goals regarding decentralization in favour of regions; and because the federal government has clearly indicated its intention to withdraw from manpower training.

For a large part employment insurance entails decentralization and partnership with provinces. If clause 20 allows the minister to enter into agreements with a province, financial institutions or similar agencies it is simply because we have taken into consideration, by adapting them, section 7 of the Employment Department and Commission Act, section 6 of the Heritage Department Act and section 5 of the existing Department of Labour Act.

[English]

The Department of Human Resources Development Act does not give the minister any powers other than those already being exercised. It does not confer any powers that were not previously exercised, respectively, by the ministers responsible. What is involved, essentially, is internal management. In other words, hypothetically even if the bill were never passed the minister would still continue to do everything he does now. When the bill is passed the minister will not be doing anything more or anything less than what he has been doing until now.

(1545)

[Translation]

We all know we must invest in our human resources if we want to stay ahead of the world's nations in terms of quality of life.

This bill reconfirms the basic mission given to that department by the Government of Canada by bringing under the same roof all initiatives and programs designed to help Canadians at all stages of life: learning, work and retirement. In fact, as the bill stipulates, the powers, duties and functions of the minister ``are to be exercised with the objective of enhancing employment, encouraging equality and promoting social security''.

The act to establish the Department of Human Resources Development is especially designed to allow the department to continue helping put Canadians back to work.

To do so, we need a legislation which provides a simple and integrated mechanism in order to clarify the role of the department and the responsibilities of the minister with respect to the Canadian people.

[English]

Members of this House have had ample opportunity to thoroughly examine and discuss the bill which will put an end to this transitional phase, a transitional phase not only for this department but for the entire government reorganization.

[Translation]

I therefore believe it is time to put an end to it now and to consider other issues far more crucial for Canadians and the future of this country.

Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech of my colleague opposite. I want to comment on it and perhaps ask her a question in closing.

As you know, I am the member for Shefford. The main town in my riding is Granby. Granby is an industrial town of approximately 45,000 inhabitants. There are about 90,000 people in the region.

Cuts were announced under both human resources development ministers. This reminds of the dismantling of railways in Canada.

Mr. Speaker, you are a federalist-I have no doubt about that, Mr. Speaker-and I believe that all across Canada, employment centres are considered as a symbol of Canada. They are actually closing them down, doing away with them, so much so that Granby now receives only $36,000 from the federal government in lieu of taxes. Might as well say there is no federal presence in our region.

When our great country was created, the federal government's goal was to distribute wealth fairly across the territory. But now, my region is cut off by this government. Some 50 or 55 people were working in the employment centre, and now the government is considering going down to 12 or maybe 18 employees-no decision has been made yet.

This is sad for my region. It is a heavy blow since the employment centre, as it was organized, was making a significant contribution to the region's development. It is a whole network they are breaking up. This network is important for the regions. It is important for Quebec, for its development. Usually, all kinds of people are represented on boards of trade, people from every political affiliation, mostly federalists.

(1550)

The Granby Board of Trade circulated a petition that was signed by over 6,000 people to condemn the government's attitude and to ask it to give more consideration to regions. As I said earlier, employment centres are a symbol of the Government of Canada, but this symbol is about to disappear because of the policies of the department and the minister.

My question is this: When the government makes decisions like the one to reform the system, why does it ignore the other governments? I would like to hear the member's comments on that matter.

[English]

Mrs. Sheridan: Mr. Speaker, my initial response to the member's question would be the same as the introduction to my speech: What does the Bloc Quebecois want? On the one hand it is saying to keep our nose out of its affairs; on the other hand it is saying to do more for it specifically and do not worry about the interests of other Canadians.

The business of governing this country as a country is to take into account the interests of all Canadians. The minister is taking a positive step forward in doing that. He is doing it in Quebec in the same way he is doing it in any other region of the country. As part of the family, we all share and share alike.

Sooner or later the member opposite will have to figure out what he wants.

[Translation]

Mr. Leroux (Shefford): Mr. Speaker, what do we want? That is a good question. As I said before, we want the government to behave in an equitable manner. The hon. member says this is done everywhere in the country. That does not mean it is a good thing.

That is not the problem. We know there are structures, we know there is some co-operation between Canadian employment centres and those responsible for employment in Quebec, where there is a tradition of co-operation at the local level. However, what is happening at the present time is that they are dismantling the network, and this will do considerable damage to job creation. It is as if the federal government were withdrawing while continuing to exercise control over programs. It wants control but it does not want to invest in the area, and that is unacceptable.

The federal government has a certain responsibility in that regard and, frankly, you will agree with me that it should give all its support to the level of government best able to decide and closest to the people of the regions.

What I am asking, and I would like the opinion of the hon. member on this, is for the federal government to stop, once and for all, interfering needlessly in our affairs and give back to the regions what they are entitled to.

[English]

Mrs. Sheridan: Mr. Speaker, again I think the member is encumbered with a lot of rhetoric and misapprehension of the facts as they exist.

As I said in my speech, it was that member and all of his friends across the way who wanted the Government of Canada to keep its nose out of their affairs during the time leading up to the referendum in Quebec.

In response to the concerns of people in Quebec and all across the country the Prime Minister made a commitment at the end of last year. He stated that the Government of Canada would withdraw from labour market training, apprenticeship programs, co-operative education programs and so on. This seems to be exactly what the member opposite was saying, that we should let the government that is in the best position to understand local needs design the programs. This has been delivered on.

I know the member is full of fuss and bother this afternoon but it has nothing to do with any failure of this government to deliver on those promises.

(1555 )

Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, for the last two and one-half years the Department of Human Resources Development has been operating without a mandate and some would say without any direction or agenda.

Back in January 1994 amid the fanfare of the speech from the throne, Canadians were promised social program reform. One would have thought the government would have quickly given this department a mandate to operate and then tackled the task of bringing Canada's outdated social programs into the 21st century.

The fact that it has taken the government two years and two ministers to get this far is further evidence that real reform will not happen before the next election. No doubt social program reform will turn up as an election promise in the 1997 version of the Liberal red book of broken promises.

One of the most intriguing parts of the bill was the appointment of the Minister of Labour and the deputy minister. When the old department of labour was amalgamated with the new superministry of human resources development, the whole idea behind it was incorporation. At last, we thought, here was a department whose function would be transferred to the provinces and to the private sector. What a step forward for labour relations in Canada. Then along came the Quebec referendum and suddenly we needed a labour minister. At the last minute, to accommodate the member for Saint-Henri-Westmount, this strange reporting structure was included in what was then Bill C-96.

According to Bill C-11 the Minister of Labour may be appointed but if there is no labour minister, the duties fall to the human resources development minister. The question has to be asked: Do we need a full time labour minister, a secretary of state for labour, or just a parliamentary secretary? Maybe the minister was included so there would be no question about the need for a deputy minister.

If labour requires a full minister, should such a position not be designated by statute rather than just simply an optional position? If labour requires a minister other than a junior minister, will it ultimately break away from human resources development and

become a department unto itself? This bill raises a lot more questions than it answers. These are things that have not been debated fully and should have been considered by the author ofthe bill.

By bringing the labour department under the human resources umbrella and its superminister, perhaps the government hoped to get the unions onside and perhaps take advantage of the decline in popularity of the faltering New Democrats.

If the government was really concerned about labour relations, it would not have allowed things to deteriorate to the point where in two years time it would have to legislate grain handlers and railway workers back to work three times. Three times in two years the system did not work properly. If the government was truly concerned about workers in Canada and management, it would have amended the Canada Labour Code or at least looked at amending the Canada Labour Code to include final offer arbitration as a mechanism for solving labour disputes.

The government would be introducing more legislation like Bill C-3. Bill C-3 brings all workers in nuclear facilities under provincial jurisdiction and certainly is a step in the right direction. The labour component of the department of HRD would cease to exist and would not require the services of a minister or of a deputy minister.

If the government had allowed passage of Motion No. 2 as presented by my colleague for Mission-Coquitlam, it would not be presented with the problem of court rulings over who has jurisdiction in overlapping industrial sectors as was the case which necessitated the drafting of Bill C-3.

(1600 )

It is time to move forward with the devolution of federal control in labour matters to the provinces. Certainly there is much support for that on this side of the House. I would encourage members opposite to come to like thinking.

Part I of the Canada Labour Code is currently under review and would be an appropriate starting point for the minister who is anxious to do away with duplication of services.

I would like to remind members that Canada has a $580 billion debt. The minister opposite and certainly the finance minister are very cognizant of that. They are looking for ways in which to whittle down that debt.

The Minister of Labour could contribute to this reduction if he initiates measures to do away with overburdensome bureaucracy and duplication by giving the provinces control over labour standards, labour relations and occupational health and safety. I suggest that he would find that workers and management alike would support his action because both sides want and deserve a level playing field.

Labour and management have the common goal of maintaining a productive workplace. As legislators, we should do all we can to advance that goal. We can facilitate this by relinquishing control over the bureaucratic regulations that stand in the way of sound labour relations.

Reflecting back to Bill C-3, I again say that it is a step in the right direction. Bill C-11 would be worthy of support had it followed along the same path.

[Translation]

Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Madam Speaker, I would like to put a question to my colleague after making a few remarks.

The Quebec government, Quebec as a whole and labour confederations would most certainly agree with the total takeover of all the labour sector. However, we cannot talk about this issue without referring once again to the Constitution, since the Privy Council in London established, in a 1925 decision, after a seven year delay, I believe, that labour relation jurisdiction belonged to the provinces, except that all businesses that, one way or another, came under more than one province would come under federal jurisdiction. That is what brought about this duplication that is causing so many problems for workers.

I would like to point out to the member that in Quebec, for instance, the act respecting occupational health and safety provides that women who find out they are pregnant and believe that their work may affect them or their child have the right to ask for a change of position. If the employer cannot transfer them to another position, they have the right to stay home with 90 per cent of their salary. The same thing applies when the mother breast-feeds her child.

You can understand that women work for businesses that come under federal jurisdiction are not allowed the same right, they say it is not fair and the whole union movement has been doing the same for years now. This goes to prove what our colleague just said, except that we cannot deal with this matter without going through the Constitution.

In my speech this morning, I have demonstrated how Bill C-11 calls for a constitutional debate.

(1605)

The only way provinces disagreeing with decisions taken by the central government, by the Department of Human Resources Development under this bill, can have their way would be to sidestep this decision and manage the money themselves.

This calls for a constitutional type amendment, or the government should agree to recognize the full jurisdiction of the provinces, which it does not, even in the throne speech.

So, my question to my colleague is whether he and his party should not have chosen to criticize more than the labour relation considerations of the bill.

[English]

Mr. Johnston: Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question.

My Reform colleague spoke to the bill this morning. Although she touched on some labour issues, she had broader criticisms of the bill.

I would like to address an issue that my Bloc colleague has raised. It is the overlap in provincial and federal jurisdiction. The position of our party is that jurisdiction should be given to the level of government which is closest to the people. Less government is the best government. To decrease the bureaucracy would be of benefit to all Canadians. The bureaucracy would be closer to the people it serves.

As is sometimes the case now with the federal government, there would not be a nameless, faceless entity. Canada is a huge place and the capital cannot be everywhere. For the vast majority of Canadians the capital is a long way from home.

[Translation]

Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Madam Speaker, my colleague argues that a department of labour is not necessary, that a minister of labour is not necessary. I totally disagree. As you know, there are labour disputes in several areas still under federal jurisdiction, and a minister is needed to try to settle these disputes.

The labour code must be revamped. Anti-scab legislation is needed, for instance. The union movement needs a full-time minister of labour, and I ask the hon. member why he is against appointing a minister of labour, a position that has always existed in Canada.

[English]

Mr. Johnston: Madam Speaker, my Bloc colleague suggests that the Minister of Labour is needed because he adjudicates or solves problems that arise between labour and management. I submit to him that I have never seen a labour minister, provincial or federal, who has solved a labour problem.

I would like to cite the three instances in the two and a half years that I have been here when the House voted to force workers back to work, whether they were locked out or on strike, in order for grain transportation to continue. That is not ministerial intervention. That is intervention by the entire House of Commons. The minister does not solve those problems. If he really wanted to do something to solve those problems he would look at implementing final offer arbitration selection so that both groups, management and labour, would have the tools to resolve their problems without involving either the minister or the House of Commons.

(1610)

All due respect to my friend, just because we have had a minister of labour for years and years is no justification for us to continue with that position.

[Translation]

Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate at third reading of Bill C-11, the old Bill C-96, an act to establish the Department of Human Resources Development and to amend and repeal certain related acts. I had the opportunity last November to participate in the debate at second reading of Bill C-96.

Only a few minor changes, which increase the number of departments and organizations allowed to consult recipients' files, were made to this bill in committee. This breach of confidentiality is another reason why I will vote against this bill.

I, however, support the motion requiring this department and the department of labour to table an annual activity report. This requirement is not new. The public as well as parliamentarians need to be informed of the actions and decisions taken by the department, the unemployment insurance commission and the national council of welfare.

In essence, this bill provides for the administrative restructuring of the department, merging sections and services from the former departments of employment and immigration, health and welfare, labour and the old secretary of state. At the same time, the bill gives the Prime Minister the authority to appoint a Minister of Labour and a Deputy Minister of Labour. I am all in favour of having a labour minister. We absolutely need one, especially if we want a thoroughly revised Canadian Labour Code, and more specifically anti-strikebreaking legislation, to be submitted to us as soon as possible.

This bill promotes a greater federal presence and gives the minister new powers, enabling him, among others things, to go over the heads of the provinces, and Quebec in particular, and negotiate directly with local authorities and organizations. Under clause 20, the minister may enter into agreements with agencies and bodies other than the provinces.

According to clause 6, the powers, duties and functions of the minister extend to all matters relating to the development of human resources in Canada. He is responsible in particular for enhancing employment, encouraging equality and promoting social security. That is a far cry from what has been happening in Canada for the past two and a half years.

However noble these goals may be, the situation is deteriorating rapidly in these areas. Statistics Canada data show that, while 9.3 per cent of the population, or 1,407,000 people, were unemployed in Canada in March 1996, 10.9 per cent of the population, or 400,000 people, were unemployed in Quebec.

Just last week, Kenworth announced it was shutting down its truck manufacturing plant in Sainte-Thérèse, but this government did not lift a finger to save the 900 jobs at stake. I urge the federal government once again to make every effort to ensure this plant remains in operation to provide employment to its workers.

(1615)

The new Department of Human Resources Development must increase efficiency and productivity. People often tell me that the processing of claims takes too long. We must shorten the amount of time needed to process unemployment insurance claims, appeals of unemployment insurance decisions, old age pension claims, etc.

Once again, I am strongly opposed to the closure of the Canada Employment Centre located on Papineau Street, in Montreal, which serves constituents in my riding of Bourassa, hard hit by unemployment. By 1997, this office will be closed. People in Montreal North need help, services and resources, but they do not need government cuts when they are going through hard times. My riding is already poverty-stricken.

Given the situation, the federal government should also provide more resources for the Program for Older Worker Adjustment, or POWA.

Other employment centres have closed or will be closed on Montreal Island. I vigorously oppose such measures because they smack of partisan politics.

I took advantage of the Easter recess to invite representatives of community agencies in my riding to participate in a discussion on the changes made in the unemployment insurance system. Once again, I wish to thank all the agencies represented at this meeting, including the local community service centre of Montreal North, and the CDEC in my riding which, fortunately, is starting to receive the necessary resources to carry out its much needed mission. The meeting was also attended by representatives of the following agencies: Maison des jeunes l'Ouverture, Impulsion travail, Rond-point Jeunesse au travail, Centre multiculturel Claire, Maison Saint-Laurent, Fondation de la Visite, Centre d'activités pour le maintien de l'équilibre émotionnel de Montréal-Nord, Association des travailleurs haïtiens au Canada, Entre-Parents, Centre Louis-Fréchette, etc.

Almost all these organizations have clients who receive unemployment insurance benefits, and they often rely on the various programs offered by the Papineau employment centre.

Participants were shocked to see that, once again, the cuts will affect the unemployed. These new measures will intensify the exclusion process and make it worse.

Last March, I condemned the federal government's refusal to include social clauses in the bilateral trade agreement between Canada and Chile. It is officials from the human resources department who negotiate labour issues on Canada's behalf. Thanks to our representations and to the very effective action of the Canadian and Chilean union movements, the government relented and agreed to that very legitimate request. We must congratulate the Chilean government for always recognizing the social dimension of NAFTA and of this trade agreement.

However, the Canadian government is not willing to go further than what is provided in the parallel agreement that is already part of NAFTA but which is inadequate. The agreement should include more effective ways to protect the rights of workers, as well as better labour standards.

During my trip to Chile last January, I was shocked to learn from Chilean workers and union members that some Canadian businesses, including mining companies, do not always comply with basic health and safety standards. Among other things, they mentioned the use of toxic substances which are prohibited in Canada.

I am pleased that the value of Canadian and Quebec investments in Chile has reached $7 billion.

(1620)

I take this opportunity to send a message of social responsibility to Canadian companies investing in Latin America and other continents.

To conclude, I would like to talk briefly about pensions, another matter the human resources development department is responsible for. I was shocked to learn that some people are considering the privatization of the Canada pension plan. True, other countries have tried that, and it has been a disaster.

I am against any reduction in benefits, and we must have full access to the plan. Universality has to be maintained. However, I would agree to raising the maximum insurable income above $35,000 to collect more contributions. I am strongly opposed to the idea of raising the age of retirement to 67. We need to make room for the young. The existing Canada pension plan should be improved and not reduced.

Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Madam Speaker, once again the hon. member for Bourassa has shown that he understands the problems of his constituents, the people he represents. He has shown also that he has a good understanding of the nature and the scope of the Department of Human Resources Development.

It must be remembered that, except for the servicing of the debt, this is the one that accounts for the largest share of the money allocated in the federal budget, more than 40 per cent. It is

responsible for a huge number of programs and services. The hon. member for Bourassa recalled, and rightly so, the closing down of some employment centres, including the one in the district of Papineau, as he mentioned. That happened also elsewhere.

The debate today deals with the legislation establishing the Department of Human Resources Development; we see on the cover that it is Bill C-11, the former Bill C-96, which brings back the previous legislation unchanged. We see that this legislation could be called the law of silence.

I would like to ask my colleague what he thinks about it. This bill will strengthen the powers of the Minister of Human Resources Development. It will give him authority to encroach even further on and bypass provincial jurisdictions, especially in the area of manpower training. It will allow the minister to bypass the provincial government and deal directly with organizations and businesses in matters of training, among others. Therefore, this is something important that raises the constitutional issue. The Bloc Quebecois is not pleased to deal with this issue, but the government is grabbing even more constitutional powers to interfere in areas under provincial jurisdiction.

At the moment, I am asking questions to my colleague, but the answers should come from members opposite. We are surprised to see that members opposite, especially those from Quebec, are not making speeches and not taking part in the debate on the bill establishing the largest federal department, and that members of the third party, who usually deal so meticulously with expenditures, are not interested either in that topic. Where are we? I would like the hon. member for Bourassa to comment on that law of silence that is in force, on yet another operation designed to put Quebec in its place.

Mr. Nunez: Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Lévis, who is doing a remarkable job both in the House and on the human resources development committee.

(1625)

Of course, I agree with him and with my party that Bill C-11 reinforces the powers of the federal government as opposed to those of the provinces. As I said in my speech, the minister will be able to go over the provinces' heads and negotiate directly with organizations, and that is unacceptable.

There are a lot of community organizations in my riding. These organizations would rather deal with the Government of Quebec, which has a better understanding of the situation and the problems in Montreal and Montreal North in particular, than with Ottawa, which is so far away. This is why I wholeheartedly agree with what the member said. Again, I want to stress that, with this bill, the federal government is infringing upon provincial areas of jurisdiction, especially the labour training area.

Mr. Maurice Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead, BQ): Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to take part in this debate on Bill C-11. As my colleague from Lévis mentioned a few minutes ago, it is amazing to see how government members and even members of the third party in this House, the Reform Party, are silent on this subject.

This has to be noted since, as mentioned by the member for Lévis, this is the most important department in terms of its budget and even, I would say, in terms of its repercussions on the lives of Canadians. Forty per cent of the federal budget is allocated to that department.

So we have to wonder why government members are silent on this subject. How is it that only the official opposition, the Bloc Quebecois, wants to take part in this debate to inform the people, to tell them how dangerous this bill is and what could happen if we give so much power to the Minister of Labour. In the few minutes I have, I will do my best to explain what powers the minister is getting in this bill.

To do so I will refer to the legislation itself. Clauses 6 and 7 of Bill C-11 talk about the powers, duties and functions of the minister.

Clause 6 says:

6. The powers, duties and functions of the Minister extend to and include all matters over which Parliament has jurisdiction relating to the development of the human resources of Canada not by law assigned to any other Minister, department, board or agency of the Government of Canada, and are to be exercised with the objective of enhancing employment, encouraging equality and promoting social security.

Moreover, it says in this clause that the minister recognizes that he will have to exercise these powers, duties and functions in his own areas of jurisdiction. It is said specifically that his department cannot infringe upon the powers of other federal departments or agencies. Consequently, we could say: ``At last, the federal government intends to mind its own business, to play in its own backyard, and, therefore, to respect the powers of the provinces''.

(1630)

In order to understand if such is the government's intent, we must also read clause 7 as well as clause 20, which go together.

Clause 7 reads as follows:

7. In exercising the powers or performing the duties or functions assigned to the Minister under this or any other Act of Parliament, the Minister may

(a) subject to the Statistics Act, collect, analyse, interpret-

(b) cooperate with provincial authorities with a view to the coordination of efforts made or proposed for preserving and improving human resources development.

In clause 6, it is said that the minister cannot exercise powers assigned to other federal departments, boards or agencies, but in paragraph 7(b), it is said he ``may'' cooperate with the provinces. We know that, since its inception, the federal government has used all acceptable and unacceptable means available to it to invade provincial fields of jurisdiction.

We have seen it time and time again in the past, such as in the case of old age security, family allowances and unemployment insurance, which were all provincial fields of jurisdiction. And, over the years, for all manner of reasons, including the depression in the 1920s and then later on the war, the federal government has laid its hands on powers, supposedly temporarily, but the situation then became permanent. Over time, some have been entrenched in the Constitution, as is the case with unemployment insurance.

So there is nothing reassuring about clause 6, when read in conjunction with clause 7.

If I may, let us jump ahead a bit to examine clause 20. What does clause 20 of Bill C-11 say? Since we are still looking at the same bill, it is appropriate to link them up. Clause 20 states:

20. For the purpose of facilitating the formulation, coordination and implementation of any program or policy relating to the powers, duties and functions referred to in section 6, the Minister may

enter into agreements with a province or group of provinces, agencies of provinces, financial institutions and such other persons or bodies as the Minister considers appropriate.

(1635)

Clause 20 does not say so because, naturally, the federal government wants to deceive, to hide the truth. Clause 20 does not say that the federal government or one of its agencies will be able to deal directly with a municipality, but it must be understood that provincial public agencies are just like municipalities. Municipalities are agencies, creatures of provincial governments. Therefore, as I understand it, under this clause the federal government is giving itself the necessary leeway to bypass provincial governments and deal directly with municipalities and agencies at the provincial level.

This is the government's, the minister's intention and we know that this minister more than anyone else will not hesitate to push provinces aside, especially Quebec, and to try to enter into agreements which will go against the wishes, goals and policies of the Government of Quebec.

During the few minutes I have left, I want to talk about the common will and consensus regarding professional training policies. This is not the only area where Quebec will stand alone, where it will be a distinct homeland-the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs may wish to use another expression since ``distinct society'' and ``principal homeland'' seem to have disappeared; we could perhaps use ``distinct homeland'' for a few weeks. In Quebec there has been for many years, I repeat, for many years a consensus between all stakeholders, all interested parties. This includes the Government of Quebec, labour confederations and employers. For the first time in the history of Quebec, I would say, a consensus was reached to ask the federal government to withdraw from manpower training, to take its paws off this provincial jurisdiction and to put a stop to the duplication and endless meddling in this sensitive area, not only in economic terms, but in the day-to-day existence of our fellow citizens. We are talking about real people, who work or who need retraining or additional training because of the closure of their place of work.

As my colleagues have pointed out here and elsewhere, how many times do we have to reiterate the need for a clean-up in manpower training? In Quebec, management, unions and government have all said the same thing. When I speak of government, I do not mean the separatist government of Mr. Bouchard currently in power, but the federalist government before it, the governments of Mr. Johnson and Mr. Bourassa, and no one can accuseMr. Bourassa of even the slightest hint of a separatist tendency.

(1640)

If there was ever someone ready to compromise, I would say to make every concession, in order to keep Quebec within the Canadian Federation, it was the former premier of Quebec,Mr. Bourassa. Yet, even he and his government joined in the consensus, in QUebec, that manpower training should be under exclusive provincial jurisdiction, as already provided for in the Constitution, and that the federal government should be asked to withdraw from this area.

However, when reading clauses 6, 7(b) and 20 of the bill before us, we see that the federal government does not intend to abide by this consensus, but intends on the contrary to continue to do what it has been doing for years, that is to interfere in any way, at any time and with anyone it wants to.

Question period after question period, the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, the former Minister of Human Resources Development and the present minister of this portfolio, have all stood in this House one after the other to state their intention, their firm resolve to decentralize, to withdraw from this area of provincial jurisdiction in order to abide by the Constitution.

That is what they are saying day after day, question period after question period, election campaign after election campaign but, in reality, when the time comes to make a decision, the first thing they do is to write, in black and white, that they intend to do just the opposite.

After that, one hardly wonders at the cynicism-not to call it something worse-of the population with respect to politics and politicians. This is called double talk. One cannot say one thing, then say the opposite, and claim there is no inconsistency.

The federal government says over and over that it is ready to withdraw from manpower training. Why did not they write in their bill that they are leaving this responsibility to the provinces and that they recognize once and for all the consensus arrived at in Quebec? It would have been simple and easy. I am convinced that, for once, the House would have been unanimous on a bill, since that is what all stakeholders in Quebec are demanding.

I think the minister can still act before the bill is passed. Consequently, it is necessary for the Minister of Human Resources Development and his Prime Minister to have a serious discussion as soon as possible and for them agree that this bill is flawed-that is the least we can say. In fact, the bill does not follow through on the federal government's intentions to withdraw from manpower training. The Minister could see to it that the necessary changes are made.

Nothing would do more to prove the government's good will than if it announced during this debate that it is once and for all withdrawing from manpower training. If it did so, it would gain the full support of stakeholders in Quebec and of the official opposition. I think there would be no better way to conclude this debate.

(1645)

Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his excellent statement, which illustrates once again the importance of the manpower issue.

Before I ask a question, I want to say that this bill has a greater scope than what we might think since human resources development can mean much more than training and labour adjustment. It can pertain directly to training but it can also concern family policies. In fact, it can relate to anything that affects human development.

He is right in stressing how outrageous it is, for instance, that the manpower training issue has not yet been resolved in view of the fact that the consensus in Quebec is so strong and has been so for so long. This morning, I quoted a 1991 letter in which Mr. Bourbeau, then labour minister, was making the same requests to Mr. Valcourt, the federal minister, and stating Quebec's opposition to any federal action that would bypass the province in that area.

The minister referred to some correspondence between himself and Mr. Valcourt, but reminded him also that he had discussed the issue with Mrs. McDougall and that she had agreed not to bypass the province. He made the following interesting comment on the relation between that issue and the constitutional debate:``Mrs. McDougall told me that the federal government sees a connection between whatever Quebec requests and the constitutional review process. I disapproved of that idea, because even if there was perfect constitutional harmony in the country-which is not the case as we know, especially since October 30-Quebec would still make the same requests, since it is urgent for the economic development of Quebec to make all manpower programs efficient and in line with Quebec's own priorities''. This is Mr. Bourbeau, a Liberal minister, a federalist talking.

Needless to say, five years later, when we see that the minister is claiming as his own Bill C-96, which is now C-11, and that he believes he can bypass the province in all areas of manpower development, make agreements with anybody without granting the province the power to opt out of an agreement and to manage the related funds, we can only react with outrage. Why? Because this is not a quarrel between two levels of government. It is of the highest urgency that the little money we have be put to work on behalf of the people; the Quebec government is responsible for the economic and social development of Quebec. The Quebec government is the one closest to citizens. It has the duty and responsibility to provide its citizens with the tools they need.

It is not for nothing that we have the Société québécoise de développement de la main-d'oeuvre cooperating with labour, management and everybody. It is because things are terribly urgent.

I would like to ask my colleague how the need to put all the resources available at the service of citizens can be felt in his riding, in a concrete way?

Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead, BQ): Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Mercier who, as everyone knows, is an expert in this field and who always brings us down to earth.

(1650)

I do not want to talk about agriculture, even though this would make the hon. member for Beauséjour happy. Some of the bills passed by this House may be a little ``far out'', if I may use this term, or have little impact on people's everyday lives. However, on reading Bill C-11, an act to establish the Department of Human Resources Development and to amend and repeal certain related acts, for the first time, members may wonder what impact this bill could have on their fellow citizens' daily lives.

The hon. member for Mercier has just reminded us that the perverse effects of this bill, and to an even larger extent those of the decisions made by the Minister of Human Resources Development, can be seen every day. In fact, in my riding, as in all ridings in Quebec, how many times have we heard unemployed people and owners of small, medium size and large businesses complain about the time-in business time is money-needed to deal with bureaucrats, to meet the requirements of officials from all departments? They also have to deal with other bureaucrats asking the same questions in the same area. There is one official from the Quebec government and one from the federal government.

That is why, as my hon. colleague indicated, the Department of Human Resources Development interferes in a multitude of aspects relating to manpower development, and the same could be said about other areas over which the department has authority. Over time, this has created such confusion that we do not know if we are coming or going. It is a well-known fact that has been stated and demonstrated time and time again. That is the explanation, and it has nothing to do with their generosity of spirit or with the various organizations losing sight of their mandate or clientele. I am thinking of the Conseil du patronat negotiating with the CSN or the FTQ. They do not do so for the fun of it, to take advantage of the CSN, but rather because they believe it is in everyone's best interest to reach a consensus.

The same goes for the unions. I do not think Gérald Larose is crazy about sitting at the same table as Ghislain Dufour, from the Conseil du patronat. But dealing with manpower training and making sure Quebecers receive appropriate training to become not only competitive on the work market but also more efficient in their jobs, which in turn ensures that we produce higher quality products, is good for everybody. That is what the consensus in Quebec is all about.

It is quite simple. We must achieve tangible results. Labour, management, governments, we all have to work together to ensure that our workers are well trained and our plants operating to the satisfaction of the consumers, so that everybody is happy. We must revisit various programs to avoid duplication, implement programs in line with reality, so that where cooks are needed, we train cooks, not engineers.

As my colleague from Mercier mentioned, this affects people in their daily lives. Finally, it is important that the Liberal members who are listening to the debate talk to their colleague and try to convince him, if possible. I wish them good luck, because we are having a hard time trying to convince the Minister of Human Resources Development that he should improve his bill and announce he will not interfere in areas of provincial jurisdiction.

(1655)

[English]

Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I would like to take exception to the member's speech. In his opening remarks he said that he was quite surprised and expressed disappointment that the government and the third party were very silent on this bill. I take exception to that.

We have not been silent on this bill. I would like him to acknowledge the fact that we have not been silent on this bill. Our two critics stood in this House today and expressed this party's point of view. They expressed it quite clearly and very eloquently. I would like the hon. member to acknowledge that fact.

Just because his party wishes to prolong the debate and wishes to have more people speak on this issue, he should not then put down members of the third party who have spoken to this bill. Would he please acknowledge that?

[Translation]

Mr. Maurice Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead, BQ): Madam Speaker, my answer will be very brief.

In making these comments, it was indeed my intention to help Reform Party members realize the importance of this debate and take part in it. However, their interest is limited to say the least, since we have heard very few of them.

As for us, our intention is not to unduly prolong this debate, but to make people aware of the importance of this bill and particularly of its dreadful consequences.

Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil, BQ): Madam Speaker, indeed I come from the riding of Longueuil, the nicest one in Quebec. Located along the St. Lawrence River, it reflects the history of French Canadians, the history of Quebec. There are some very old houses. I myself own a house built in 1854. It was bought by the Oblate Fathers when they first came to Canada. They settled on Saint-Charles street, in Longueuil. As you know, the Oblate Fathers were missionaries and discoverers. They promoted Quebec's development and we are very proud of that.

As regards Bill C-11, the Liberal government is once again helping itself. It creates a new department, it changes the name of the department so as to give itself more power, much more power as was explained by the Bloc Quebecois members who spoke before me. It seeks to provide the minister with the authority to get involved with the private sector, with the provinces, or some of them, for the purpose of creating a system that will be detrimental to the Quebec employment department.

In Quebec, a manpower development agency was set up a few years ago. This structure reflects the unanimous will of all Quebecers, whether they are from business or labour, and whether they belong to either one the two main parties, namely the Parti Quebecois and the Quebec Liberal Party. There is a definite consensus. All Quebecers agree that the province must have its own way of dealing with the unemployed or with welfare recipients, who had the misfortune of losing their job. There are some who had the misfortune of losing their employment because of the federal government's way of managing.

(1700)

We know that the federal government, through its policies of concentrating all the powers here in Ottawa, wants to show Quebecers that it is the big leader of this country. It wants to show that, without the federal government, it would be impossible to survive in Quebec. All the measures it has taken have had the effect of bringing about inflation in some cases; after having caused inflation, it increased interest rates, which generated recessions between 1970 and 1980.

Between 1984 and 1986, we experienced the same problem when inflation and recession were brought about. So, the real cause of the social problems we have in Quebec is particularly related to the inappropriate actions taken by the federal government. Today, the minister wants to give himself powers to manage the unemployment insurance program better. But the government is the cause of unemployment.

I want to point out that we cannot have much confidence in this Liberal government. Only three weeks ago, I asked questions of the secretary of state for finance, who was saying that he wanted to set up an unemployment insurance fund, adding that he wanted to use the moneys collected from both employees and employers, some $5 billion a year, to collect even more and then give it back under the new way of managing the unemployment insurance program.

He was saying that this fund could be used to reduce Canada's debt, and that he also wanted to set up a fund to accumulate money for lean years to come. Let me remind him that these are lean years.

If the government wants to build up a reserve during the lean years, how much more money will it collect when prosperity returns? Apparently, it will collect $5 billion during a lean year like this one. How much will it collect when times are good? Will it be $10 billion, or $15 billion? Where will all that money go? In the consolidated revenue fund, to reduce the Canadian debt.

The poor are being squeezed, and the small businesses too. We know that the maximum insured income has been reduced. The higher the salary, the lower the relative contribution will be. Quebec has many have small businesses, and our salaries are lower. That means that small businesses will pay more. In a way, workers and employers will have to pay a new tax to reduce the federal deficit.

It is a strange way to put government finance back in order. They squeeze money out of workers and small businesses in Quebec to reduce the federal deficit. As you can see, we do not trust this way of doing things. This bill gives more powers to the minister, so you will understand why we are apprehensive, and why we worry so much about the future.

My colleagues have already mentioned that Quebec wants to have complete jurisdiction over manpower training. That has been said so many times in the past. There reasons why Quebec wants this. Quebec is a distinct society, whether you like it or not. It is a fact of life.

(1705)

It is a reality. English Canada has to understand once and for all that Quebec is a distinct society.

We are a distinct society, not necessarily because of our French language. The fact that we speak French is patently obvious, of course. Quebecers speak French and quite a high percentage of French speaking Quebecers do not speak English. For instance, the minister could ask a Quebec worker who just lost his job to take a job in Toronto or in Vancouver. That is what is called manpower mobility.

Any worker who loses his or her job could be asked to move to Vancouver for example or Toronto to get a job. However, a French speaking Quebecer who does not speak English could refuse to take a job in Toronto or in Vancouver, but then he would stand to lose his UI benefits, because a French speaking Quebecer can be forced to

move to an area where he, in principle, cannot work, and where he is not at all interested to go. It is too big a change to ask of him.

Because Quebec is a distinct society, we cannot make the same rules for Quebecers as for the rest of Canadians. This is one of the reasons we believe Quebec should be responsible for unemployment insurance and for manpower training. Everybody agrees with that in Quebec.

Quebec is not a distinct society just because of its language. Quebec is not a distinct society just because of its folklore. Our folk dances are not the only difference. We dance the typical square dances of the Scotch and the Irish. If ours is a distinct society, it is not only because of folklore. We have a distinct culture.

In particular, we are distinct because of our financial institutions. Quebec's financial institutions are distinct, as is again obvious when we deal with amendments concerning financial institutions. This is of the utmost importance.

The Mouvement Desjardins alone, for example, has assets of more than $80 billion. This is quite significant. Why did Quebecers have to put in place their own financial institutions? Because English Canada would not give loans to good French speaking Quebecers who needed money. No loans were given. In Quebec, loans were only for English speaking individuals and for their businesses.

So we had to set up our own financial institutions with Quebec charters and rules. But there is not only the Mouvement Desjardins.

Quebec chartered mutual insurance companies were created specifically to answer Quebec's needs. There is also the Quebec Deposit and Investment Fund which manages more than $50 billion. The money is used to develop our economy, give loans to Quebec businesses and to create partnerships with certain companies. This is what distinct society is all about. It means that we created our own financial institutions, our own corporations and all that.

Now, you will understand that we do not intend to lose what we duly earned by the sweat of our brow. How could we accept that the federal government should decide how we are to be trained, and what rules are to be established even without our consent?

Just look at what the government did our fusion project in Varennes. It decided unilaterally that the federal government's priority was not nuclear fusion.

(1710)

It acted unilaterally. It did not talk to Quebec, to other investors, and Hydro-Quebec is one of them. It decided unilaterally to pull out of this research.

The great federal master decided on his own to suddenly withdraw or change the rules without taking into account the efforts that we made in Quebec to develop ourselves. We have created many things. In spite of all our efforts, if we succeed in having an unemployment rate no higher than 10 or 12 per cent, we are considered to be top players, extraordinary people. The federal government has never helped us much in terms of economic development, we have had to do it all by ourselves with a lot of hard work.

Do you think we can have confidence in the federal government for our development? When we think that in R&D in 1989, and I have had the opportunity to do a study of this, federal contracts to Quebec using our tax money for R&D-which is somewhat linked to training, because businesses need to develop, as people need to be trained, it is all connected-research and development contracts or assistance from the government, to businesses or educational institutions were $1.2 billion less than to Ontario.

I do not recall all the figures exactly, since it is quite some time since I did the research, but I do remember clearly that the shortfall for Quebec in R&D contracts from the federal government was $1.2 billion. So, if you wonder why there is more unemployment in Quebec than in Ontario, there is the reason.

In the industry committee this morning I asked the people from Statistics Canada who were there testifying what the distribution of Statistics Canada staff was. They said the distribution was good, and relatively representative of the population, but when I asked for details, they told me that there were 4,600 employees at Statistics Canada, and some 3,500 of those were in Ottawa. Now, as far as I know, Ottawa is in Ontario, so when you look at the $346 million spent by Statistics Canada, and think of the relationship between the total of 4,600 employees and the 3,600 Ontario employees, you will see that the repercussions for Ontario are markedly greater, and that is where the difference lies.

The purpose of all that is to say that we cannot count on the federal government to help us develop. We really have no confidence in them. As the saying goes, once burned twice shy, and let me tell you that we have absolutely no confidence in the federal government to look after manpower training, to look after our jobless.

They say unemployment is running at only 10 per cent, 11 per cent in Quebec. Unemployment is still much too high in Quebec compared with the United States, where it is at about 5 per cent. The worst of it is that there are somewhat fewer unemployed than there should be because those who have run out of unemployment insurance are now on welfare.

Welfare in Quebec is very high. Why? Because people are getting less unemployment insurance, because they are working less. Why is there more unemployment in Quebec? For the reasons I mentioned earlier. Because the federal government has never taken Quebec seriously, and we have always had to work a lot harder to achieve economic growth.

(1715)

That is what the distinct society is all about. Quebec will never agree to let the federal government manage its affairs, unless major changes are made.

On that point I conclude and I thank you very much, Madam Speaker.

Mr. Stéphan Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ): Madam Speaker, I would like to start my maiden speech in the House by thanking my riding for trusting me since, as you can see, I am the youngest member in the House of Commons. It was not certain, when I first stood as a candidate, that my youth would be an asset. As a mater of fact, I would also like to congratulate the Bloc Quebecois for being an open and forward looking party which is ready to forge ahead with young people and the whole gamut of society. I am very proud of our party.

I am very happy and greatly honoured to represent the riding of Lac-Saint-Jean. A Tremblay representing Lac-Saint-Jean, a riding which does not shy away from innovation, a riding which could be called the heartland of Quebec. My colleagues here are very close to me, but the riding of Lac-Saint-Jean was the first one to say yes to sovereignty along with the area of Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean-I am talking about the 1980 referendum, of course-and which showed the way to the rest of Quebec, as we saw during the last referendum. It is practically the birth place of the Bloc Quebecois thanks to my predecessor, Mr. Lucien Bouchard, who is now the Premier of Quebec.

When I say that it is Quebec heartland, I do not mean only in political terms. Michel Gauthier comes from Roberval, the riding next to mine, which is also part of the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean area; this is truly the heartland of Quebec. People in my riding are warm, welcoming, fun-loving people who are easy to get along with.

Unfortunately, it is a riding faced with some problems, and this is one of the reasons why I decided to enter politics. Like many other remote areas in Quebec, in the rest of Canada, and even throughout the world, it is plagued by a serious problem: young and not so young people are leaving in search of a job.

Another reason is the fact that my riding is the victim of the transition from the industrial era to the era of the small and medium size businesses. We will probably need, and I hope so, the help of the federal government to support businesses.

This is also a riding that, I think, is full of potential, full of natural resources and full of people with great potential. Last September, this riding, this region of Quebec showed it can innovate by developing a regional strategic planning. When they noticed things were going badly, they got all the stakeholders together to establish a guideline. The main element that came out was decentralization.

Which brings me to the bill before us, a bill that goes against what our region and Quebec as a whole, what all Quebecers want, namely decentralization. Ultimately, we want to take matters in our own hands. We want to manage our own business. And the more things will be close to the people, the better it will be.

(1720)

At the last referendum we lost-we lost it, these are very big words-

Mr. Leroux (Shefford): We almost won it.

Mr. Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean): Yes, we almost won it. I had a glimmer of hope. I was thinking: Jean Chrétien's government had promised us it would decentralize, it had promised us a new country. But with this bill, it is obvious we were had. Again it is obvious we cannot trust this government, we cannot trust the federalist system.

This bill increases the federal government's presence in many sectors. We must keep in mind the unemployment insurance sector. It is a well-known fact that a region such as mine needs unemployment insurance. The new bill will have negative effects on my region.

There are also income security programs for children and seniors. This bill also affects support to the provinces for post-secondary education, welfare, labour market adjustment, social development as well as student loans. This is a bill that centralizes far too much.

When we travel throughout Canada, people ask us: ``What does Quebec want?'' I will tell you: we want decentralization, we want to be masters in our own home. There is a wide consensus around managing our own affairs and decentralizing. A simple example is manpower development. Practically everyone is part of this wide consensus: the current Quebec government and the previous one. Mr. Bourassa, the Conseil du patronat, the labour bodies, the education system, the employment fora, they all agreed. We simply wish to manage our own affairs.

I will conclude my maiden speech by saying that I hope the Minister will have the nerve to amend his bill and to listen to his people, who really want that decentralization. Finally, I wish to thank once again the constituents of Lac-Saint-Jean who showed confidence in one of their young people. I can say that I will always be there to represent my riding, which I consider as one of the most beautiful in Quebec.

An hon. member: Hurray for Lac-Saint-Jean!

Some hon. members: Hear, hear!

Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis, BQ): Madam Speaker, I wanted to make a comment because, when the new member for Lac-Saint-Jean arrived in this House, my duties as training and youth critic were transferred to him. I agreed that this duty should be given to him since he is the youngest member in the Bloc Quebecois and indeed in the House of Commons. I was once a young man myself,

of course, youth comes with age, and I think the member showed us in his maiden speech, which was very eloquent, that he has a lot of heart.

He expressed his concerns, and I think I have heard him talk about his concerns for youth before.

He talked a lot about his riding and he talked about youth. I would like to ask him this question-

Mr. Silye: Question, question.

Mr. Discepola: Give him a chance to answer the question at least.

Mr Dubé: It is interesting, Madam Speaker. After total silence this afternoon during this debate on the creation of an important department, the arrival of a new member, a young member who has shown some enthusiasm, has finally waken up this House, and I am very happy about that.

(1725)

I would like to ask him what he thinks about young people moving away to find work. Does he thinks it is important that this responsibility be given to the Government of Quebec to ensure consistency and is it possible to finally put an end to the duplication of programs? Does he agree that Quebec should regain control over all its tools? He has already talked about that but, in the few minutes he has left, I would like to hear him say a few more words about his concerns for youth.

Mr. Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean): Madam Speaker, before I answer, I would like to make a comment. It is true I am young, but I was elected by my constituents. In politics, people often talk about youth to make political hay. They like to surround themselves with young people. We all know parties which court young people to show they are open to all age groups and are looking to the future, whereas the Bloc Quebecois and Lac-Saint-Jean riding do not believe in tokenism.

They really give tangible examples by electing a young member to Parliament, even if it might be risky; but if you never take risks in life, you never make any progress and those who do not progress regress. That was only a short comment I wanted to add.

I will reply to my colleague that, in a way, youth is in a way a symbol of decentralization. The closer the decision-making body is to the public, the more the people feel they are involved. I do believe in decentralization and the more we decentralize, the more people will feel involved, including young people. Too often, they feel lost in the political debate because they feel it does not concern them. So we just have to get closer to the population for the people to feel more concerned.

[English]

Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate the member for Lac-Saint-Jean on his maiden speech, his first presentation in the House of Commons.

I would like to make two comments. The first is that I hope this new member does not feel too guilty about taking away the crown of the youngest member of the House of Commons from his colleague from Témiscamingue who held the crown until he showed up. I worked with the former youngest member of the House in the Standing Committee on Finance. I know he tried to hold this government accountable, as he should, and he did a good job. I hope the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean does the same in holding the government accountable.

Having said that, hopefully the member will have time to answer my second comment. In delivering his speech, I noticed some traces and hints of the former leader of the Bloc Quebecois. The member's style is very similar. However I hope there is a little more substance to what the member says and does.

The former leader is all things to all people. He is able to deliver everything to everybody in Quebec. He is able to walk on water. He is able to save social programs yet cut at the same time. He is able to promote youth employment. He is able to do all those things but the money is not there.

How does the member propose to add some substance to what he has talked about?

[Translation]

Mr. Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean): Madam Speaker, I believe my first achievement was to run in that election. I am not bragging, but I can tell you that it took a lot of courage. One of the things I wanted to do was not simply talk, but to show that there are still young people out there who want to take part in the political process of this country.

When I decided to go for it, I asked myself: ``Are people ready to vote for someone who is only 22?'' It was not obvious.

The first concrete sign I got was when students and other young people told me that I was showing them the way and giving them a reason to go for it. Therefore, concretely, I had already done more than just talk. With due respect, I am saying time will tell what I will be able to do in the future, but at the very least I tried, I jumped the fence, as for what will come of it, tomorrow will tell. I had two alternatives: give up or roll up my sleaves and go for it. I decided to try my best and I am ready and willing to start building the Quebec of tomorrow.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): It being 5.30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

_____________________________________________

PRIVATE MEMBER'S BUSINESS

CANADIAN CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of amending section 3 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, according to the amending formula provided for in section 38 of the Constitution Act, 1982, which amendment would read as follows: ``Every citizen of Canada, except one who is (a) confined in a penitentiary, a prison, or a psychiatric institution, or (b) at large from a place referred to in paragraph (a), with or without a lawful excuse, has the right to vote in an election of Members of the House of Commons or of a legislative assembly and to be qualified for membership therein.''

How times have changed. For the law-abiding adult citizens of a nation to have a real voice in how affairs are conducted now is regarded as a hallmark of democracy. In our lifetime thousands of young Canadians have fought and died on foreign soil to defend that basic principle.

Most recently much of the world was shocked when mainland China conducted war games using live ammunition to discourage the citizens of Taiwan from casting their ballots for Taiwan's new president, the first time voting for president had been allowed in the 5,000 year history of the most populated nation on the planet. With great courage over 76 per cent of eligible Taiwanese voters cast ballots, a great testament to how much those free Chinese valued their new found democracy.

Within our commonwealth of nations the Republic of South Africa based the right to vote on racial qualifications which allowed a small white minority to control the much larger black majority, including through a seemingly endless list of human rights violations until the practice of apartheid recently was ended.

I mention these examples to point out what a precious privilege it is to be able to vote and to be able to run for public office rather than have our lives controlled by totalitarian dictators, or by communist or fascist parties, or by members of a particular race.

Citizens of Canada value that right very highly. Therefore many Canadian citizens were shocked when they realized that our charter of rights and freedoms now has given the right to vote to criminals. Section 51 of the Canada Elections Act disqualified many citizens from voting:

The following persons are not qualified to vote at an election and shall not vote at an election:

(e) Every person undergoing punishment as an inmate in any penal institution for the commission of any offence;

(f) Every person who is restrained of his liberty of movement or deprived of the management of his property by reason of mental disease.

These election act provisions were what Canadians expected.

It is also interesting to note that in the United States, a great democracy and our nearest neighbour, the 14th amendment to the United States Constitution excludes prisoners from voting. Its Constitution has been in the possession of the American people since the 1700s, whereas the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms dates from only the 1980s. It is not surprising that Americans have passed many Constitutional amendments.

At the present time section 748 of the Criminal Code of Canada provides that persons convicted of an indictable offence for which they are in prison for a term exceeding five years cannot hold public office or any employment under the crown. They cannot be elected or sit or vote as a member of Parliament or of a legislative assembly and cannot exercise any right of suffrage.

However, convicted killers have challenged section 51(e) of the Canadian elections act based on the charter of rights and freedoms which now states this in section 3:

Every citizen of Canada has the right to vote in an election of members of the House of Commons or of a legislative assembly and to be qualified for membership therein.

Decisions of the court have been divided and appeals have gone to the highest levels regarding both provincial and federal elections. The courts have decided that the Canada Elections Act does not stand up against the charter of rights and freedoms.

I know from talking with Canadian people that the fact the courts have removed those limitations on who gets to vote is offensive to

the majority of Canadians who are too busy earning a living to appear before royal commissions.

It is a typical example of bleeding hearts who are more concerned with advancing the rights of prisoners than with demonstrating that serious punishments are attached to the commission of crimes.

One of the biggest complaints I hear from many voters in my riding is that offenders get a slap on the wrist for virtually any crime they commit. Working police officers also tell me they feel it is not even worth the paperwork they must complete to get an offender convicted and sent to jail.

It is not as though we throw people into jail at the drop of a hat, even though Canada has one of the highest per capita prisoner rates in the world, second only to the United States. It is not because the Canadian law is so tough that we have so many people in jail. The truth is that crimes of violence have increased by 782 per cent from 1971 to 1994 in Canada. Property crime has increased by 1,031 per cent, although our population has increased by only 27 per cent.

In 1994 almost three million crimes were committed compared with just over a quarter of a million back in 1971. This is an astonishing fact. It is time the government woke up to that. The bleeding hearts, including the justice minister, like only to refer to the past couple of years when certain categories of crime have decreased a little.

Law-abiding Canadians do not feel safe and they want to see offenders punished. One of those punishments should remain that going to jail means losing voting rights. Once offenders have paid their debt to society they should get their voting rights back, but not until that debt is paid.

This position was clearly stated by some witnesses who appeared before the royal commission on electoral reform and party financing which submitted its report in November, 1991. One witness told the commission in Edmonton: ``It is a punishment. The reason why they should not receive a vote is that they are not in society in a sense. Until they return to society and act within the confines of our laws, they are barred from certain privileges, one of them being, in my feeling, the right to vote in an election''.

(1740)

In Thompson, Manitoba the commission was told: ``We believe that the right to vote is a very special privilege in our country. We believe that once you break the law of the land, part of the deterrent would be the loss of the right to vote as long as you are in prison. I do not believe the charter, at any point, says you have the right to break the law''.

The commissioners pointed out that most witnesses supported giving prisoners the right to vote, but none advocated allowing prisoners to stand as candidates.

It also mentioned a brief from the John Howard Society which pointed out that prisoners have the right to vote in Italy, Sweden, Norway and Denmark but not in the United Kingdom, France, Switzerland or the United States.

The number of prisoners and costs raise two more points against allowing inmates to vote. According to testimony of Mr. Jean-Claude Léger, director of operations, office of the Chief Electoral Officer, to the procedure and House affairs committee on April 21, 1994, 6,800 inmates used special voting rules.

According to testimony of the Chief Elector Officer, Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley, to the same committee, there were 7,502 incarcerated electors. The cost per elector was $23.81 compared with the cost of $9.38 for the average registered elector outside the penal system.

That number of votes cast in prison could very well mean that prisoners wanting weaker laws to punish crime could determine the outcome in many elections. Votes of prisoners are being sent to their home ridings to be counted, and many elections are won and lost by small margins.

In the riding of Edmonton Northwest the Minister of Natural Resources won over the Reform Party opponent by a mere 12 votes. I wonder how many were cast from the penal system.

Another close call saw the Liberal member for Edmonton East defeat the Reform candidate by 115 votes. With those numbers, it is clear that in prison voters could readily tip the scales of an election.

How fair is that to law-abiding citizens who must support these prisoners at considerable expense? I do not think it is fair at all. Some on the other side of the House probably do.

The other section of the Canada Elections Act to which I draw attention in my motion is that inmates of mental institutions should not be allowed to vote. That may not be the best way to word my concern, but this is a motion intended to push the government in this direction, not for a finished piece of legislation.

The justice department has hundreds of lawyers. Private members have access to only three. Regarding mental hospital inmates voting, in October 1988 the Canadian Disability Rights Council challenged the present wording of section 51(f) of the Canada Elections Act. In its decision, the court basically said that any mental patient 18 and over who can recite his or her name, age and address can be on the voter's list.

Many Canadians are offended by such a low standard to determine who is eligible to vote; lest we forget that anybody who is allowed to vote is allowed to run for office. I am sure Canadians do

not want inmates of mental institutions running for either federal or provincial governments.

Since I have been here I have been told it seems as though for years perhaps the inmates are running the asylum here. Sometimes we wonder.

Witnesses appearing before the Royal Commission on Electoral Reform and Party Financing were divided about voting rights for the mentally ill or the mentally handicapped.

A member of a hospital volunteer committee stated: ``We are fiercely opposed to voting by proxy for persons who are mentally ill. We believe the right to vote is essentially personal and can be exercised only by the holder of the right, not by the third party. The psychiatric population is very vulnerable in that risks of abuse are higher than for so-called normal people''.

(1745 )

Many people pointed out how difficult it would be to develop a competency test unless the same test were applied to the general voting population. A common sense solution is simply to require that voters be able to get to their home polling station and once there to be able to complete a ballot properly.

The Conservative government issued a white paper in 1986 on election law reform which recommended that mentally disabled Canadians have the right to be enumerated and vote. The white paper also recommended that no polling stations be established in mental hospitals and that residents of such institutions should not have the right to vote by proxy. However, the legislation died on the Order Paper.

There is one category of residents in mental institutions which I know Canadians do not want to see voting, namely, those confined because they are not criminally responsible, the NCR, or not criminally responsible because of a mental disorder, NCRMD, the two terms used by the provinces for mental institution patients forcibly confined for criminal reasons.

Although the rules and details vary from province to province, basically these patients are detained under federal legislation which is administered by the provinces. Having that label means they were deemed to be ill at the time of the criminal offence and therefore were never convicted of an offence. It is a label which has been applied to some of the nastiest criminals in our history.

Currently in British Columbia there are 130 NCR patients detained in the mental institution which has a total of 174 detainee beds.

In Alberta, 36 NCR patients are lodged in two mental institutions. Overall Alberta has 1,000 psychiatric beds and about 10 per cent of those are for forensic.

The figures are small for Saskatchewan and Manitoba with 16 NCR patients under board review in Saskatchewan. Twelve are in Saskatchewan Hospital. Manitoba reports 35 NCR patients in mental institutions representing about half of the psychiatric patients of that province.

Newfoundland reports six to eight in the provincial mental hospital's forensic unit. There were seven or eight in New Brunswick and four or five in Prince Edward Island. Nova Scotia seems to have the greatest difficulty providing this information for me as they are in the process of restructuring.

Neither of the territories has its own forensic mental facilities. Instead NCRs are sent to B.C. from the Yukon and are sent to Alberta from the Northwest Territories.

With the largest populations in Canada, Ontario and Quebec also have the highest numbers of mental patients who are not criminally responsible. In Ontario approximately 550 NCRs account for about 20 per cent of the overall mental patient count of 2,400 to 2,600 beds.

Quebec has 750 NCR patients but it also has review board hearings on others. In 1994-95 there were 988 Quebec hearings, plus six judged unfit for hearing, for a total of 994 patients who were in some form of mental treatment for criminal reasons.

I hope all hon. members are aware that there are many Canadians with mental illnesses of one sort or another. For example, a friend checked herself into the mental illness unit of our local hospital when a drinking problem led to a suicide attempt. She was voluntarily confined but only briefly. She had absolutely no interest in politics at that period in her life.

Section 51(f) of the Canada Elections Act excluded from voting persons confined involuntarily or not able to manage their own affairs due to mental illness.

Canada's standards are changing about including people with various mental disabilities in group homes, sheltered workshops and so on where they often make a real contribution to their immediate families and to the community in which they reside.

The fact that the mentally disabled are loved and valued does not mean they must be allowed to vote. All too often the mentally disabled merely become the pawns of their caregivers. These mentally disabled Canadians are not independent. Even their sources of information can be readily controlled. Therefore, for their own protection as well as to protect the voting process, I believe it is simply common sense not to turn over the running of Canada to people who are mentally incapable either of managing their own affairs or of standing trial for crimes they may have committed.

(1750)

I must repeat that the people who are allowed to vote are also allowed to run for office. That role is not appropriate for the mentally handicapped.

A final point I wish to raise is a recommendation for an amendment to section 3 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Sections 2 and 7 to 15 can be overridden by an action of Parliament alone, as provided by the override clause in section 33. According to section 33 of the charter, Parliament or a provincial legislature can insert a clause stating that it is passing a given piece of legislation notwithstanding specific provisions of the charter.

Additionally, any federal or provincial law containing such a notwithstanding or overriding clause has to be reviewed and the declaration re-enacted at least every five years or it will not remain in force.

In conclusion, I would like to quote Mr. Chuck Cadman, president of an organization called CRY, for crime, responsibility and youth. He stated:

I certainly support Darrel on this motion. Anybody who's been convicted of a crime against Canadian society has lost their right to vote. When they come out of an institution, fine, but while they are serving their time they should not be a factor in any decision making on who is in power or what the law should be.

The members of Citizens Courtwatch Society entirely support your private member's motion No. 143 to amend the charter of rights and freedoms to prevent convicted criminals from voting.

Our government, supreme court and citizens must come to realize that the charter acknowledges that all rights are not absolute and must be in balance with the rights of the law-abiding citizen. A vast majority of our democratic citizens, I can assure you, agree fully with this motion.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Is there unanimous consent?

Some hon. members: No.

[Translation]

Mr. Nick Discepola (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I would like to participate in order to give the government's response to the Reform member for Okanagan-Shuswap on this private member's bill.

[English]

This motion raises the issue of whether individuals confined to penal and psychiatric institutions should be restricted in the exercise of their democratic rights. We are urged to consider equally the advisability of an amendment to section 3 of the charter which enshrines the right of all Canadian citizens, without exception, to vote in an election of members of the House of Commons or of a legislative assembly and to be qualified for membership therein.

I would begin by stating that we on this side of the House do not consider that a constitutional amendment restricting the application of this guarantee is advisable. I say this for several important reasons, related both to the nature of rights protected under the charter and to the legislative history of these issues.

The charter itself recognizes the need for a balance between individual rights and societal interests and provides a mechanism for achieving this balance quite equitably.

Section 1 of the charter provides that the rights and freedoms it guarantees are subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law, and can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. The existence of this special balancing provision provides legislators with a significant measure of flexibility. Although legislation may contravene individual sections of the charter, such as section 3, the government had the opportunity to demonstrate that this legislation is justified, once again, in a free and democratic society.

The charter has therefore established an important dialogue between the courts and the government, as legislation is scrutinized by the judiciary for consistency with constitutional requirements. The Supreme Court of Canada has indicated that government restrictions on rights will be justifiable under section 1 of the charter when they are designed to accomplish a pressing and substantial government objective and when the means used to accomplish the objective are proportional. Legislation that does not conform to these criteria will be struck down, but this does not preclude Parliament from introducing new, and often better, legislation on the same subject, with qualifications added to ensure the full protection of charter rights.

(1755 )

This dialogue between Parliament and the courts is clearly illustrated by the legislative history relating to inmate voting. The 1985 enactment of the Canada Elections Act defranchised all inmates and in 1993 the prohibition was struck down as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of Canada in the Richard Sauvé case.

It is clear from the supreme court's decision that restrictions on the right of inmates to vote will violate section 3 of the charter. But as I have stated, that does not mean the government is precluded from acting, for it always has recourse to section 1.

In the Sauvé case the court found that the government had not met the burden of demonstrating that a complete ban on inmate voting was demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society, as the prohibition was drawn too broadly. This step opened the possibility that certain more narrow restrictions on inmate voting might be justifiable.

The challenge for Parliament is to find a reasonable restriction that can be justified as an appropriate limit on individual rights in light of the compelling public objects.

In seeking to find an acceptable compromise after the Sauvé decision Parliament reviewed two major reports on electoral reform, both of which have been critical of the disenfranchisement of all inmates and both of which proposed concrete alternatives.

In 1991 the Royal Commission on Electoral Reform and Party Financing, more commonly referred to as the Lortie commission, had recommended that only persons convicted of an offence punishable by a maximum of life imprisonment and sentenced for 10 years or more be disqualified from voting.

In 1992, the special committee on the electoral reform of the House of Commons had recommended in its all party report that inmates convicted of an offence punishable by a maximum term of life imprisonment be disenfranchised.

While noting these options, Parliament chose a different approach. Under Bill C-114 the impuged paragraph of the Canada Elections Act was re-enacted in 1993 to provide that all prisoners serving a sentence of two years or more be disqualified from voting. It was felt that individuals sentenced to a term of two years or more should be viewed as serious offenders and that forfeiting their right to vote would send a powerful message that serious crimes are inconsistent with the concept of civic responsibility and respect and rule for the law. The voting prohibition was also viewed as a means of further sanctioning the offender. In other words, the measure supported the punitive objective of the law.

Perhaps not surprisingly, Parliament's new proposals soon ended up back in court. Inmate Sauvé and others filed court actions in the Federal Court, trial division, challenging the constitutionality of the newly enacted provision of the Elections Act under section 3 of the charter and also under section 15, the equality to rights provision.

The cases were heard jointly by Mr. Justice Wetston and in his decision released in January of this year, Justice Wetston concluded that the restriction on inmate voting did not violate section 15. However it violated the inmates right to vote in section 3.

Although Justice Wetston found that the objective of the voting prohibition were pressing and substantial, he felt that the wording of the legislation provision was overly broad and, therefore, failed the test of section 1. He pointed out equally that Parliament could provide sentencing judges with the authority to disenfranchise convicts on a case by case basis rather than enact a blanket disqualification for persons serving two years or more.

The federal government has filed an appeal of Mr. Justice Wetston's decision to the Federal Court of Appeal. Until this litigation runs its course it would be premature to consider any further legislative action, be it constitutional or otherwise and to address the issue of inmate voting.

It would be prudent for Parliament to wait to receive guidance from the Federal Court of Appeal and perhaps even the Supreme Court of Canada on whether the existing prohibition on inmate voting is sustainable under the charter. If not, what other sorts of options for restricting the right to vote would be permissible?

Any reconsideration of this issue by Parliament prior to obtaining this input would not only be premature but might well colour the government's defence on existing legislation.

Governments should not consider amending the charter each time an adverse court ruling is handed down. The constitutional amendment procedure, as we know, is lengthy and complex and is not the proper way to address these issues. The charter was never intended to be amended on a piecemeal basis in response to discrete court decisions. Our challenge therefore in the case of restrictions on inmate voting is not to amend the charter but to sustain reasonable legislative provisions that strike an appropriate balance between individual and collective interests.

(1800)

Although both the Lortie commission and the special committee recommended the continued disenfranchisement of certain individuals on the ground of mental incapacity, the government of the day chose not to accept these recommendations. Instead, the law prohibiting voting by mentally ill persons was repealed as part of Bill C-114.

Finally I should say that the question of who has the right to be qualified for membership in the House of Commons under section 3 of the charter is a separate and distinct question from who should have the right to vote. The Supreme Court of Canada has not yet had the opportunity to pronounce on the extent to which it is possible for the government to restrict the conditions of membership in the House and still remain within the bounds of section 3 of the charter without recourse to section 1. It is not clear that it would be inconsistent with section 3 of the charter as currently worded.

These and other reasons mean that restrictions imposed on the rights of inmates and those of psychiatric institutions to become qualified for membership in the House of Commons may be sustainable within the bounds of section 3. In short, incarcerated persons may not be-

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): Order. The member's time has expired.

Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West, Ref.): Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to this issue which my colleague from Okanagan-Shuswap has brought to this House. This is an issue

which is very critical in this day an age: should federal inmates have the right to vote.

We just heard from the Liberal member that the government has filed an appeal to Judge Wetston's decision that inmates should have the right to vote. I find that very interesting because it was not too long ago that a judge in this country made the decision that the use or abuse of cocaine and alcohol were an excuse for murder. These very same Liberals came back into the House in a hurry to reverse that decision. Now the member stands up and says that gee whiz, they are going to have to file an appeal and they will see if it works and so on. The fact is that they just do not have the intestinal fortitude to turn that decision around.

Should federal inmates have the right to vote is the big question. There are some questions which have to be answered here and I am going to make an attempt at that. Why are we at this stage today? Why are we even discussing this here when it could have been a votable issue? And why is this not votable? Why are we discussing Motion No. 143 on a non-votable basis? I will cover that in a moment. Another question relative to federal inmates having a vote in this country today is: When will this government start putting the affairs and issues that are relative to victims in this country on the front plate instead of those affairs relative to criminals?

Why is this motion not votable? The solicitor general said on the day this issue broke that the government believes that withholding the right to vote is reasonable. If the solicitor general believes that withholding the right to vote from federal inmates is reasonable, then why is it that this motion could not have been voted on tonight in the affirmative? Why is that so unreasonable? What is most obvious is that there is no will to do so in the federal government.

Why are we at this stage today? Why is it that judges appear to be making decisions that are not in the best interests of the country and not in the best interests of victims?

One of the Liberal members is suggesting that we whip the judges. We can understand the methodology and the logic coming from over there.

(1805 )

Let me give these folks across the way a little lesson in some of the decisions judges are making today. I ask whether judges are making rational decisions today and whether decisions like that of Judge Wetston to allow criminals, federal inmates, the right to vote is a good one.

Let us hear what B.C. Supreme Court Justice Sherman Hood said before acquitting a man of sexually assaulting a North Vancouver waitress: ``No sometimes means maybe or wait a while''. That is a judicial decision in this country which will be used as jurisprudence in other decisions. Does that make any sense? That is supposed to be a rational decision coming from this country's judiciary.

Northwest circuit Judge Michael Bourassa on sexual assaults in the Northwest Territories said: ``Sexual assaults occur when the woman is drunk and passed out; the man comes along, sees a pair of hips and helps himself''. That is another judicial decision that is a total avoidance of the protection of victims. The government, just like on the issue of the right of federal inmates to vote, does absolutely nothing about it. Government members sit here and pass rhetoric off as though we were supposed to buy it.

I will give another example. Members are asking over there how is this relevant. It is relevant because judges are making bad decisions and Justice Wetston made a terrible decision. Members over there just do not like to hear this.

In my province in February 1996: ``Port Hardy, British Columbia provincial court Judge Brian Saunderson gave 57-year old Vernon Logan `an absolute discharge' even though Logan pleaded guilty to possessing child pornography. The judge said the law banning child pornography violates the charter of rights'', it sounds familiar, ``because it is an infringement of one's freedom of thought, belief or opinion as unfettered access to reading material is necessary to exercise those freedoms''.

With this kind of charter of rights decision by a judge to let off someone who possesses or is dealing in pornography, the very criminal act he was charged with, because it is a violation of his rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, how far is this government going to allow this to go? That is the question.

David Snow was charged in Vancouver with kidnapping two women and trying to strangle a third. The judge declared: ``I cannot conclude that the placing of the wire around the neck of the victim and the placing of the plastic over her head are sufficient enough to establish intent to kill''.

I ask that group, which is somewhat more quiet now, are these kinds of decisions made by judges, including the decision to allow federal inmates the right to vote, in the best interests of law-abiding Canadian citizens? The answer is no.

If the solicitor general is to be believed, if he says he believes that withholding the right to vote is reasonable, then why does this government not come in here and do it? What is wrong? The fact is this government, those people who are speaking on the other side of the House, believe it is fair.

(1810 )

Let us deal with what criminals are getting today. Are we going too far to the left where the Liberals are? What do criminals have?

We know they get their conjugal visits. We know they get GST rebates. We all know they are getting the Canada pension plan-

Mr. Milliken: They do not.

Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): The member says that they do not but they do. He is not well informed about these issues. We know they get old age security and the guaranteed income supplement. We know they have access to legal aid at the cost of the taxpayer. I believe that Clifford Olson is up to his 32nd litigation at the cost of the taxpayer. We know they have the right to sue. We know they have the right to refuse work. We know they get overtime and on and on it goes.

The final insult to law-abiding Canadian citizens is in front of them: Offenders now have the right to vote. This government refuses to do anything about it. However the government will not have to because when it is replaced in the next election, something will be done.

Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I want to correct a few of the inaccurate suggestions made in the speeches by my colleagues opposite.

The Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada made an excellent speech, although he did not remember certain facts which occurred during the course of the last Parliament in relation to the bill he was referring to, Bill C-114. It was passed toward the end of the last Parliament in a successful effort to amend the Canada Elections Act.

Had he been a member of the electoral reform committee which was an all-party committee established in this House that basically drafted Bill C-114, he would have been aware-

An hon. member: Oh, oh.

Mr. Milliken: The hon. member opposite does not want to listen to this. I recognize that facts are always troublesome to members of the Reform Party.

It was a government bill but the basic outline of the bill had been designed by a committee. No matter what the hon. member for Fraser Valley East has said, there had been a previous court decision on this very issue. The law as it existed before Bill C-114 was passed provided that no person incarcerated in a prison had the right to vote. There had already been a decision, I believe by the Supreme Court of Canada, although my recollection is hazy. It has been some years since I have looked at this problem and I did not plan on speaking today, but hearing so many inaccuracies I thought I should try to correct the record.

There had been a court decision concerning the previous law. It was for that reason that when Bill C-114 came along, the committee considered the issue of the right of inmates to vote and came to a decision.

There was a referendum in Canada prior to the passage of Bill C-114. In that referendum because of the court decision throwing out the provision in the electoral law that prohibited all persons in prisons from voting, all federal inmates in Canada had the right to vote in that referendum. Some did exercise their franchise and voted in the referendum. If we listened to members of the Reform Party we would think the sky had fallen in but it did not. The referendum took place and those persons exercised certain voting rights.

Then the committee studied the whole issue and decided to recommend there be a limited right to vote for persons incarcerated in prisons. My recollection of the committee report is hazy. I will tell the member that I am accurate within two years. I am surprised he has not looked at this because it might have been relevant to his speech, but as I say, facts are troublesome to members of the Reform Party. The fact is the committee recommended that all inmates who were serving a sentence of seven years or more be permitted to vote. In my recollection that was a unanimous recommendation from the committee.

(1815 )

The Conservative government, notwithstanding the fact that it had a majority on the committee which agreed to that recommendation, decided that was too generous and so it opted for a two-year term. That is, every person serving a sentence of two years or more would be disqualified from voting. It meant that all federal inmates were automatically disqualified because by definition persons serving prison sentences in a federal institution must have been sentenced to two years or more.

I recall very well the day the bill was debated because I was the electoral reform critic for the Liberal Party. I moved amendments to this section because I said at the time, and it is on the record, that this section would be thrown out by the courts as being too restrictive.

Seven years was chosen based on the legal advice that the committee received at the time. We had to have something reasonable in terms of length in order to justify it under the charter of rights and freedoms. It was the committee's unanimous view that seven years was a reasonable time and could be defended before a court. It also constituted a reasonable restriction on the right to vote given in the charter which granted to every Canadian citizen the right to vote.

The members of the Reform Party want to take that right away from citizens that they consider unworthy of the right. Once you start inching away at who is unworthy you can start to whittle away other rights.

I know there will be some members in the House who might want to take away rights of members of the Bloc Quebecois to vote. I know there are some who would like to take away the right of members of the Reform Party to vote. I am not one of them. I am a firm believer in the principle that citizens should have the right to

vote. That principle is stated in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which I fully support.

I moved amendments that would have taken away any restriction. I moved a seven-year amendment. I believe I moved a five-year amendment in an effort to get a compromise that I thought could be supported before the courts and that would win the support of members of the House. The Conservative House leader at the time, the Hon. Harvie Andre, would hear none of it. He was insisting on the two-year rule and it was that or nothing. Because the bill had a lot of other amendments in it besides this one item, we agreed to pass the bill.

I remember the day we did it because some fancy agreements were made between the parties to get the bill through. I think it was a Friday afternoon before Easter or something like that. It was certainly a time before the House was to break for a period of at least a week.

I remember the day. This particular clause caused great difficulty because in my view it was unconstitutional and would be found to be so by a court. And it was. The surprising thing is that the government is bothering to appeal this. In my view it is a waste of money. This clause is contrary to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Mr. Stinson: We already know your view.

Mr. Milliken: Obviously the hon. member shares my view in this regard, otherwise he would not have brought forward this motion. He wants to change the charter. He obviously shares my view that this is unconstitutional. He wants to fix it so that it will be constitutional. He wants to take away the right of all persons in prison to vote as I read it.

It says a penitentiary and everyone knows what a penitentiary is. He says everyone in a psychiatric institution should not have a right to vote. A person who checked in because he or she needs treatment for depression would not be allowed to vote. That is the effect of the hon. member's motion. That is why the committee when it considered this matter was so reluctant to move in this area. It was because of the difficulty in choosing who should be voting and who should not. It was an extremely difficult question.

The committee did not think it was something that it ought to make a decision on and ought to fix in the law. It was better to give the franchise on a broad spectrum, allow everybody to vote, than try to determine who is reasonable and who is not. If we went on reasonability I am sure we would have psychiatrists in here checking out some of the members of the House to see if they were suitable for voting.

Mr. Stinson: Yes, and you would be the first.

Mr. Milliken: The hon. member says I would be the first one. I think I would find more of the opinion that he would be higher on list than where he put me on the list. I am happy to humour him by volunteering to undergo psychiatric observation for the purpose of determining whether I should vote or not if his rule ever became law.

Fortunately the hon. member was unable to persuade the procedure and House affairs subcommittee to make this motion votable. I assume he went there and made his pitch and the subcommittee members decided that this motion ought not be votable. There were other motions that were more important and I can understand why. The hon. member is really nit-picking.

(1820 )

There is a wide variety of opinions on whether or not inmates ought to have the right to vote. I am inclined to the view that they ought to have that right. I say that directly.

Taking away the right to vote makes practically no difference. There are something like 12,000 inmates in federal penitentiaries in this country. In the referendum, very few of them exercised their right to vote. I do not have the precise figures, but I would guess it was something around a third of that group at the most who exercised their right to vote in the referendum.

The same figure would apply in an election campaign. Most of these people would not be interested in voting and would not cast a vote. If they had the right, under the rules that were in place in the referendum which, no doubt, would apply during an election, their voting rights would be exercised in the area from which they came and not in the area where they are incarcerated.

I have a very large prison population in my riding and, frankly, I would not mind if they were each voting in Kingston. That will not happen. They will be voting across the country. If the hon. member does not think he can persuade some of these people to vote for him, I can understand why he might oppose allowing them the right to vote.

Most hon. members would find that in terms of the voting patterns of inmates, they reflect that of the general population. They are not a group that is going to vote as a block on any issue. In my view, the casting of 12,000 votes out of the millions that are cast in an election campaign would have practically no substantial effect on the outcome.

I know it bothers hon. members opposite to think that people who have been sentenced to prison are somehow exercising this kind of democratic right. I am at a loss to understand how it hurts the rest of us.

Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Vegreville, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to the motion presented by the hon. member, my colleague from Okanagan-Shuswap. I will read the motion again so that we know what we are debating today.

This is a motion that is meant to be a guideline for future legislation. We are not debating legislation now. The motion reads:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should consider the advisability of amending section 3 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, according to the amending formula provided for in section 38 of the Constitution Act, 1982, which amendment would read as follows: ``Every citizen of Canada, except one who is (a) confined in a penitentiary, a prison, or a psychiatric institution, or (b) at large from a place referred to in paragraph (a), with or without a lawful excuse, has the right to vote in an election of Members of the House of Commons or of a legislative assembly and to be qualified for membership therein''.

Second, I want to talk a little about what my constituents said when a court decided that prisoners should have the right to vote.

Third, I would like to discuss briefly the issue of people who have committed so-called less serious crimes and whether they should be allowed to vote.

What was the direct cause for the debate today was the decision in Sauvé v. the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada. There are many other things behind that and I will talk a little about a few of them.

Prior to this decision, persons imprisoned in a correctional institute who were sentenced for two years or more could not vote in federal elections. In Sauvé, the court declared this law to be invalid because it violated the prisoners' right to vote under the charter and because there was no compelling justification for violating this right.

I would like to touch briefly on the purpose for removing the right to vote in the first place. Some of the reasons given was the enhancement of civic responsibility, the respect for the rule of law and the imposition of an additional sanction on persons committing serious anti-social acts.

(1825 )

The hon. member for Okanagan-Shuswap covered very well why prisoners should not be given the right to vote so I will not get into any more discussion on that. The question I have to ask is: Are these not far more important to society than the rights of individual prisoners? In other words, are these reasons given that disallow prisoners from voting not more important than the rights of the individual prisoner? I will talk a little bit more about that later.

The Sauvé decision concludes that disenfranchising prisoners would make prisoners feel isolated from the community, would impede the subsequent reintegration of prisoners into the community and would prevent prisoners from experiencing any of the rehabilitative effects which flow from political participation. These are the main reasons given by Sauvé in his decision.

Again, by removing the franchise from prisoners, Judge Sauvé reasoned that this could make prisoners feel isolated from the community. Well, prisoners are isolated from the community. The intent is for prisoners to be isolated from the community. That is part of the punishment and part of the deterrent for criminals to discourage them from committing crimes. The other reasons given by Judge Sauvé really do not make any more sense than that.

When my constituents heard that the supreme court had ruled that all prisoners, including people like Clifford Olson, would have the right to vote, they could not believe it. Few issues had sparked this kind of reaction from my constituents as this issue had. People just could not believe it had happened. They asked me how we had come to this. They wanted to know how this kind of thing would happen and how we had arrived at this. They also wanted to know how the court in Canada was making the law. They asked me whether it was not my job as a member of Parliament and the job of the House of Commons to make the law.

Those were some of the feelings, some of the questions and some of the reactions of my constituents to this decision. I wonder whether the constituents of the members across the floor, who are heckling and speaking out against the motion presented by my hon. colleague, reacted any differently. I doubt very much that they did. In fact, they have acknowledged that their constituents reacted in exactly the same way which does not surprise me.

How have we arrived at this point? If we could pick a pivotal time in history, we would have to go back to 1972. It was a Liberal government. I have seen the quote in Hansard where Solicitor General Goyer said that the Government of Canada should change the main focus and the priorities of the justice system so that no longer was the protection of the citizenry the most important focus and the top priority. He said that we should change that focus so that the rights and rehabilitation of the criminal were top priority and only secondary were the rights of citizens to be safe and to feel safe in their homes. It is unbelievable. That is not a direct quote; it is a paraphrase but it is accurate.

It was a Liberal solicitor general and the present Liberals have no different view from that. They still believe that the rights and rehabilitation of the criminal should be top priority. They are wrong and Canadians say they are wrong. The top priority should be the protection of our citizens in all cases.

Some people would argue that criminals who have committed so-called petty crimes should be given the right to vote while those who have committed more serious crimes should not have the right to vote.

I want to refer to something that happened in New York City a few years back. William J. Bratton was a former police officer who became head of security for the New York subway system. Bratton enforced this kind of environment in the subway system. He said all criminals, including those who commit the crime of writing graffiti on walls or panhandling, should be treated as serious offenders. He cracked down on this so-called petty crime.

By cracking down on petty crime Mr. Bratton lowered the serious crime as well in a dramatic way. When he later became the police commissioner of New York City he engaged the same policy to take petty crime seriously. When he did that the crime rate in New York City dropped dramatically.

When considering this motion it is important that people who commit petty crimes know that even a petty crime is serious and is a good enough reason to lose the right to vote.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais): There being no further speakers rising and as the motion has not been deemed votable, the time allotted for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired and the order is dropped from the Order Paper.

It being 6.30 p.m., the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6.31 p.m.)