Debates of Nov. 23rd, 1995

Department Of Human Resources Development Act

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

Madam Speaker, let me first start by saying that our worst nightmare has come true. What we feared when we embarked upon the last referendum campaign was that the central government would disregard one of the most solid consensus we have ever seen in the province of Quebec.

This most solid and deep-rooted consensus is that we will never be able to do anything about the employment situation if we do not give the levers required to deal with labour market-related problems to the most capable level of government to do so.

Right now, the best government to give Quebec a labour market policy to efficiently fight unemployment is not the central government, but rather the National Assembly of Quebec.

Why are we saying that it is not the central government? Because the central government has to make decisions about a labour market that covers five regions, and we know that the labour market situation in New-Brunswick is nothing like the situation in Quebec.

This is why several, if not all, of the major stakeholders on the Quebec labour market are opposed to Bill C-96.

Let me remind the House of some of the organizations that are against Bill C-96. There is the Société québécoise de développement de la main-d'oeuvre, the Institut canadien de l'éducation des adultes, the FTQ, the CLC, and despite this coalition of organizations representing tens of thousands of citizens, the central government has the nerve, the gall to introduce in this House a bill that would allow the federal to interfere in an area without any mandate to do so.

I hope that the government whip and his team will finally come to their senses and realize that they are doing something irreparable by submitting Bill C-96.

Yet, when you think about it it is obvious that everything which concerns the labour market comes under provincial jurisdiction. Surely, no member of this House is unaware that the labour code, the CSST, orders respecting collective agreements and mass layoffs are areas of provincial jurisdiction and that it is perfectly natural that labour market-related policies are the specific and exclusive business of the provinces.

Let me remind the House of a fact: unemployment is not innate. One is not born unemployed. Unemployment has nothing to do with genetics. Nor has it anything to do with the language one speaks. A person's language does not bear on his or her working skills. How is it, then, that within the federation the unemployment rate has always been higher in Quebec than in Ontario? Workers in both provinces have about the same qualifications and live in about the same social and economic environment. How is it that for the last 20 or 25 years Quebec has had a higher rate of unemployment than Ontario? And I am sure we could give very concrete examples of countries where unemployment was successfully eliminated. They have what is called a frictional unemployment rate of about 3 or 4 per cent, reflecting the number of people who quit their job for a very particular reason and are looking for another one.

How is it that we are unable in our system to create conditions allowing all those who want to work to find a job? Naturally, there are those who cannot work because they are handicapped and those who are momentarily out of work and those who do not want to work. But how is it that in 1995 qualified and competent people who truly want to work find themselves in a system where the government is unable to create conditions leading to their employment? You do not have to be a rocket scientist or have three doctorates to understand that if unemployment is not a matter of heredity or of language, there must be political reasons to explain why the unemployment rate is at 11, 12 or 13 per cent.

These political reasons are very clear: we have two governments which impede each other's initiatives regarding labour market. The best example of this inefficiency, my colleague the member for Trois-Rivières referred to it, is of course the existence of two manpower centre networks which cancel each other's initiatives.

Let me just remind you that Ottawa administers just as many programs as Quebec does. Quebec has approximately 25 programs to put people back to work and so does Ottawa. What this means is that if the people that we, as members, meet in our constituency office, and I am sure that this happens to you too, are UI recipients, they are eligible for some programs, but if they receive income security benefits, they are eligible for some programs but not for others.

I believe we are mature and lucid enough as parlementarians to say that the situation we must aim at is having only one government that will control all powers and levers in order to help put people back to work, away from that unacceptable situation called unemployment.

This decision, this wish is incompatible with the existence of two governments and it certainly is incompatible with the fact that two governments can each have 25 programs without any coordination between them. Instead of proposing what all important stakeholders in Quebec are asking, that is that the federal government pull out of the labour sector, this government has the nerve, the irresponsibility and the irreverence to give us a bill, Bill C-96, which increases the powers of the minister in labour matters.

Can you imagine such a situation where all Quebec stakeholders are asking for one thing and the Government of Quebec, speaking as one, is incoherently saying the exact opposite? We must not forget that the social cost of unemployment was estimated and I am

convinced that all parliamentarians are concerned about this situation.

I would like to remind you that we have, in Quebec, a very respectable and respected organization called the Forum pour l'emploi. Of course, this employment forum expressed the wish to see all manpower policies transferred to Quebec, but it also analyzed the social cost of unemployment. It estimated that-I know this will give you quite a shock, so I will say it slowly-the economic cost of unemployment for 1993, that is 1993 A.D., not 200 years ago, was about $30 billion.

This means that, because the government is perhaps considering maintaining a duplication of structures, our society has to put up with a shortfall of $30 billion. That is the reality. That is what is unbearable with Bill C-96. Not only will the government not respect the consensus that exists in Quebec, it included in the bill dispositions that will allow it to disregard the authority of the Quebec government and give direct funding to organizations like CDECs or direct it through other channels for the delivery of manpower related services, all this without going through the principal stakeholder, the Quebec government.

But that will not last long. Something will happen soon. There will be a grass-roots movement. People will take to the streets when they realize that we cannot support inefficiencies, that there is no reason to tolerate unemployment rates of 11, 12 or 13 per cent when other western societies are able to give work to everybody.

Since you are telling me that my time is up, Madam Speaker, I will conclude by saying that this bill in unacceptable and that we hope that the government will see the light and respect Quebec's jurisdictions.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to make this speech immediately following the remarks of the hon. member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve. I listened very carefully to his remarks and now I would like to rectify a few things. I would like to show all our colleagues in this House, particularly members of the Bloc, that the adoption of Bill C-96 is part of a process that favours change and that supports the concept of partnerships with the provinces.

The leader of the Bloc said himself a while ago that he favoured change but wanted an agreement with the other provinces. I think this bill is very much in line with this idea. There is a partnership between the federal government and the provinces and, of course, there is change.

Any motion aimed at delaying the adoption of this bill seems negative to me and, unfortunately, opposition members sometimes take a negative and very partisan attitude. This is the opinion I have of the members opposite. They are not as objective as some of us are. The bill we are proposing is about greater openness towards the provinces and a better sharing of responsibilities.

As the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the member for Parkdale-High Park, said so eloquently in the House and I quote: "Bill C-96 is not changing any statutory powers". Listen to this, Mr. Speaker. It comes from an authority on the subject. "It is not taking any powers away from Quebec or from any other province. This bill seeks to enable us to work together in order to deliver programs and services more efficiently at less cost to the taxpayers".

And now the member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve is saying that the bill is useless unless it gives new legislative powers to the federal government. How can a member of the Bloc who favours decentralization oppose a bill because it does not centralize enough? He just told us that the bill is useless unless it provides for more centralization. The member may be a centralizing separatist, but not me.

We, in the Liberal Party, are in favour of a flexible federalism and, in this bill, we simply want to confirm the fact that there is now a minister who is responsible for several federal departments. This does not take any powers away from the provinces. Quite the contrary, this bill gives no power to the federal government that it did not already have, except that from now on these powers are in the hands of one minister instead of several.

Our government is deeply committed to reducing spending and this is why we wanted to reduce the number of ministers and consolidate some of the existing powers and federal departments. The powers transferred to the minister of Human Resources Development are not those of provincial ministers but they are part of powers that other federal departments already had et they are being consolidated.

I know that the hon. member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve wishes to hear what I have to say and that he will listen carefully to my speech, so that he can be well informed and can vote for Bill C-96. I know that after hearing what I have to say he will be able to change his mind. As I look at the hon. member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve at this very moment I have no doubt that he is in the process of changing his mind. He may even be off to reconsider his position on the bill.

So, to put the excellent words of the parliamentary secretary I referred to earlier in a perspective even closer to reality, he declared that the Bloc members began by saying that the referendum had sent a clear message to the federal government. A very clear message indeed. It showed that a majority of Quebecers do not want separation. The parliamentary secretary went on to say that this was the clear message we received and that we had to work with that in mind.

This is what we intend to do and therefore we will respect, as we always have, the will of the people of Canada and, in particular, of Quebec. This is why we continue to offer good government to Canadians-those who live in Quebec and those who live elsewhere, of course.

A few days ago, on November 20, 1995, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, said: "I draw the attention of the official opposition to recent post referendum polls, which state that 61 per cent of Quebecers want to remain in Canada and 78 per cent of Quebecers want to see major changes to the way the Canadian federation works". People want functional changes while remaining in Canada. That is what Quebecers want and we, of course, intend to respect that.

Today, we have before us a bill whose purpose is not to centralize but to consolidate into one department the work being done by different federal departments in order to improve government operations and to cut costs. "It is through bills such as this that hopefully through provincial federal co-operation we can get more people to work", said the hon. member for Parkdale-High Park.

On November 9, the Minister of Human Resources Development clearly addressed one of the essential impacts of this bill. He said and I quote: "- one of the direct results of the department will be to give far more space for provincial governments to begin to make decisions at their level of responsibility and jurisdiction. The time has come for us to take a much closer look at the respective roles and to build bridges to bring us together". That is what the minister said.

The opposition saw or pretended to see in Bill C-96 a move by the federal government to take over new powers. According to them, it is an intrusion in a provincial jurisdiction. In fact, the member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve spoke to it earlier, and I know he is listening carefully.

The reality is quite different. For instance, one must examine the exact wording of clause 6 of the bill, which is in fact a restrictive clause. It sets limits to the powers vested in the minister by the bill. It clearly says that the only issues concerned are those under the jurisdiction of Parliament. Again, the only issues concerned are those under the jurisdiction of this Parliament, period.

This clause applies to everything under the authority of the Department of Human Resources Development. Any existing statutory power will remain exactly the same after this bill is passed. I repeat for the member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, the same.

There is definitely no intrusion on areas of provincial jurisdiction: the bill forbids that. It is crystal clear. That being said, I am sure-maybe not sure, but I hope-that the Bloc members will change their mind and vote for the bill. I already see in the eyes of some of them that they are tempted to change their mind and suddenly vote for such a good bill.

[Pierre De Savoye, Bloc, Portneuf, QC]

Mr. Speaker, when I hear the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell telling us that it is crystal clear and explaining things at great length, with a certain sense of humour, I feel that, after all, the problem might lie in the very objective way he is looking at the situation, a liberal and objective way, I might add.

I will use the next few minutes to explain to my "objective" colleague a number of facts which might help him understand our huge reservations-I am quite sure that he is listening very carefully to my remarks and that he will take them into serious consideration.

Instead of being part of the solution, Bill C-96 makes the problem worse.

Indeed, far from heralding the withdrawal of the federal government from manpower training, Bill C-96 reinforces the federal presence in this area. Duplications and inefficiencies resulting from this bill will grant the minister new powers, whether the objective member opposite likes it or not, new powers to negotiate directly with local governments or agencies, bypassing the provinces, which will enable him to set directions, standards and outcomes unilaterally.

The honourable government whip told us that clause 6 did not provide for new powers and that it defined and restricted them. Well then, let us have a look at clause 6. It reads:

The powers, duties and functions of the minister extend to and include all matters over which Parliament has jurisdiction-

Tell me, Mr. Speaker, is there any matter over which Parliament does not have jurisdiction, and which would not come under the laws of the land? Whatever goes on from sea to sea is regulated by this country's legislation and, consequently, is a matter over which Parliament has jurisdiction one way or another.

Not only are they not restricted, but they are incredibly increased. In fact, the powers, duties and functions of the minister are quite broad. Moreover, contrary to the present legislation, they are not specified, and we know that the federal government has a habit of intruding on matters of provincial jurisdiction. Therefore, there is cause for concern when you see the numerous jurisdictions of Parliament.

Let me quote the description of Human Resources Development Canada which is found in the Budget Plan tabled on February 27, 1995. It says: "Human Resources Development Canada administers unemployment insurance, income security programs for children and the elderly, the current federal programs of support to

provinces for post-secondary education and welfare, labour market adjustment and social development programs, and student loans."

What we see today, with Bill C-96, is a strengthening of the federal government's hold on each of these areas and on all of them collectively. I was listening earlier to the member who expressed some deep feelings about this. I remember that the Minister of Human Resources Development has told us repeatedly that we simply did not understand that things would be better. It seems the only ones who are optimistic about Bill C-96 are the government party and the minister.

I would like to refer to a press release issued by the Institut canadien d'éducation des adultes on October 5, 1995. It says that the Board of directors of the ICEA, formed of academic, labour and community representatives, is unanimously opposed to Bill C-96. The organization invites all its partners to mobilize and denounce that bill which undermines the equity principle governing our social security system in Canada and denies the exclusive jurisdiction of provinces over manpower training and development.

It is not a sovereignist institute from Quebec which says that, it is the Institut canadien d'éducation des adultes. It seems that only the minister and the cabinet believe that Bill C-96 is a good thing. No, it is not a good thing. The same press release says: "Bill C-96 is, for the most part, one of the worst scenarios, something that our Institute denounced last fall, during the hearings of the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development." This indicates not only that the minister consulted, but that he was told that this was the worst thing to do. And yet, he went ahead and did it.

I would also like to mention the position of the Quebec government, because I believe that our viewers should know what Quebec thinks of this intrusion.

Mrs. Harel, the Quebec Minister, said: "When you read Bill C-96, you understand why the federal Minister of Human Resources Development did not respond, last spring, to my pressing demand for a federal-provincial conference on that reform. The bill is the opposite of the Quebec consensus on manpower. The opposite of the single window principle. This is proof that the federal government is committed to continuing and even increasing the costly duplication and overlap in the area of manpower in Quebec".

So, when the minister tells us, as he did during Question Period, "I consulted, I went to see my counterparts in the other provinces", we can only say that as far as the Quebec minister is concerned this was not the case. Once again, we have a minister who is intruding on provincial areas of jurisdiction and in particular Quebec jurisdiction, in a dangerous manner.

I would also like to mention the SQDM. Yesterday during Question Period, the Minister of Human Resources Development said that during the summer he met, through officials, with representatives from the SQDM and that agreements had been signed. He implied that everything was fine. Yet, nothing could be further from the truth. On October 4, 1995, the SQDM stated its position on Bill C-96 in a press release and I quote: "The board members of the Société québécoise de développement de la main-d'oeuvre ask the federal government not to set up a parallel structure of partnership and not to take initiatives overlapping Quebec jurisdiction in the area of manpower development".

Bill C-96 has catastrophic consequences. Starting withMr. Valcourt, a former minister in the previous federal government, and now with the present minister, we are headed toward disaster in the area of manpower management.

In fact, in his recent report, the auditor general mentioned that job creation through the manpower development programs of our Canada Employment Centres was more costly in Quebec than elsewhere. Why? Why is it that the federal government is less efficient in Quebec than elsewhere? Simply because it stubbornly refuses to give Quebec all of the powers in this area.

To conclude, I would like to give specific examples affecting ordinary people. We are not talking about a piece of paper called a bill, but about real people suffering through real unemployment.

A few weeks ago, a woman who wanted to start her own business dropped by my office. There is a program called Self-Employment Assistance which would have allowed her, because she was receiving unemployment benefits, to start a business, to create jobs. Believe it or not, there is just enough money in this program to satisfy a handful of individuals in my own riding, and she was told to look for a job rather than to create one since, if she created one, she would no longer be eligible for unemployment insurance benefits. That is the great way unemployment is being perpetuated in Quebec. We prefer to give money to people to do nothing rather than help them create jobs for themselves and for others.

I will conclude on this note: I look forward to the day where a minister will have the courage to tell his or her civil servants that the federal government will no longer interfere in the manpower area in Quebec and that it is going to give the province all of the powers in this field, which will result in huge savings. We will, at last, be able to create the jobs that everybody needs.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as the saying goes, the proof is in the pudding. Let me tell you that I believe this hold true for what the Chrétien government intends to do with regard to social program reform, especially unemployment insurance.

Contrary to the fine promises which were uttered with a hand on one's heart, contrary to the statements of love and respect made in a none too subtle way in Montreal, the federal government is preparing to circumvent the will of Quebecers in a vital sector, that is to say training and labour programs.

Once again this government which claims to be in favour of a decentralization of powers is preparing to grab greater powers by means of the administrative restructuring of the Department of Human Resources Development Canada, which is the purpose of Bill-96.

Unfortunately this is not a coincidence since the same thing happened with other departments. This is the case for example of the Department of Health and the Department of Canadian Heritage. I have already condemned the same underhanded tactics used by the government in those cases.

In the bill before us, that deals with the Department of Human Resources Development, the minister gives himself an enormous power that will extend to all areas relating to manpower.

As we are now able to really identify the government's huge appetite, members of the Bloc Quebecois want to alert public opinion in both Canada and Quebec. Bill C-96 contains a key section, that is, section 6, which reads as follows:

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

This section contains all the potential sources of major conflict between the provinces and especially between Quebec and the federal government. Indeed, it is important as this moment to go back in time and to point out clearly that the federal government, after some unfortunate procedures before the Privy Council and to the great displeasure of the provinces, obtained constitutional jurisdiction only over unemployment insurance. It is because of its strange and omnipotent spending power that it has invaded manpower training and that it now wants to get into the field of equality and social security.

I am not making this up; it is clearly set out in section 6 of the bill. This further intrusion is very badly orchestrated and has been denounced by many stakeholders, both sovereignist and federalist, such as the Société québécoise de développement de la main-d'oeuvre, the Canadian Labour Congress, the Canadian Institute of Adult Education and the Quebec Minister of Employment.

I would also remind the House that, historically and constantly, all Quebec spokepersons on this issue have denounced federal interference in manpower training. What will provincial organizations and governments think of this new federal intrusion in an exclusively provincial jurisdiction? I am sure that reactions are currently negative, will be negative and will soon be made known. They will follow Quebec's claims. Will they have the good fortune of influencing the direction that the current government has set for itself? I have my doubts about that. This is a very unfortunate situation because this new constitutional snag goes against the interests of the population.

In a document called "Un Québec pour l'emploi", which he published this year, Pierre Paquette analyzes the requirements for a full employment policy in modern Quebec. Mr. Paquette, who has been secretary general of the CNTU for five years, has also sat on the board of directors of the Economic Council of Canada and on committees to kick-start the economy and stimulate employment in the southwest and east end of Montreal. He identifies three major elements of a comprehensive employment strategy.

The first element is all the actions that have a bearing on economic growth factors, including both individual corporate policies and social economic policies affecting all of society as well as the international community. The second element is the link between sectoral and regional development policies as part of an industrial policy. The third and last element stresses the importance of implementing a whole series of active manpower initiatives including professional training, placement, specific measures for disadvantaged groups and regions, and reducing the number of hours of work in all its forms.

You may have noted that all these areas come under exclusive provincial jurisdiction. Mr. Paquette goes on to say, "Effective implementation of a comprehensive full employment strategy requires a strong social consensus. In this regard, it is hard to imagine how the various social stakeholders across Canada could agree on the implementation of a full employment policy".

This conclusion is clear and explicit. As we have said a thousand times in this House, there is a consensus in Quebec that this government persists in ignoring with impunity.

The people of Quebec reject Bill C-96. They reject this counterproductive approach, which, far from giving them concerted access to the work place, keeps them a little further away.

In closing, I would like to make a suggestion to the government, which, until the next referendum on Quebec's future, will at least allow the people to benefit from their contributions to both levels of government.

I would suggest that the federal government should withdraw completely from all employment, manpower, social assistance and training matters. At the same time, I would suggest that the federal government should transfer to the government closest to the people, the provincial government, the money needed to put in place a real full employment policy, as the Quebec government wishes. This will demonstrate concretely the government's commitment to the equality and social security it refers to in clause 6 of its bill. I thank you and I hope that this government has heard my message.

[René Laurin, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the federal government promised Quebecers that many things would change if they voted no in the October 30, 1995, referendum.

A mere three weeks after the referendum, Quebecers are already getting a taste of changes to come as the Minister of Human Resources Development presents Bill C-96 to merge four departments into a single one. But at the same time, as could be expected, he gives himself broader powers, continues to invade provincial jurisdictions and goes against the quasi unanimous consensus in Quebec on this issue.

Back in 1991, the Bourassa government was asking that Quebec be responsible for all expenditures relating to manpower development, including training. At the time, Mr. Bourbeau, the minister responsible, had written his federal counterpart a very clear letter on this subject.

Time and time again, the Quebec national assembly requested almost unanimously that Ottawa withdraw from this provincial area of jurisdiction. After this bill was introduced, several major stakeholders in Quebec made representations against the HRD minister's centralizing designs. For example, the Société québécoise de développement de la main-d'oeuvre takes issue with the government repeatedly trying to interfere in provincial areas of jurisdiction.

According to the SQDM, clauses 6 and 20 of Bill C-96 would empower the Minister of Human Resources Development to enter into agreements with a province, a group of provinces, agencies of provinces, financial institutions and such other persons or bodies as the minister considers appropriate, to improve the labour market and promote equality and social security.

In so doing, the minister blatantly violates provincial jurisdiction and goes directly against Prime Minister Chrétien's promises of decentralization during the referendum campaign. These promises were short-lived. When questioned on this by the Bloc Quebecois, the minister said, with rare degree of arrogance, that the opposition had obviously not even bothered to read the bill.

Not only must this bill be read line by line, it must also be read between the lines. One must do more than read the bill, and when that happens, one realizes that it is totally different from what it appears to be, because it allows the federal government to interfere in areas of provincial jurisdiction.

In response to another question from the Leader of the Opposition, the minister answered that he felt that the hon. member had strayed substantially from the line of logic and reason. That attitude shows clearly that the minister does not understand the issue and that he insults every Quebec stakeholder opposed to the new bill.

Even the Conseil du patronat, and this is quite something because that staunch supporter of federalism rarely agrees with the Bloc's philosophy, is asking the minister to amend, if not withdraw, Bill C-96.

With the rapid development of new technologies and the globalization of markets, Quebec industry must quickly adapt to meet the new challenges of the world economy. Manpower training plays a vital role in ensuring that our workers are familiar with state-of-the-art technology and can meet the needs of the Quebec labour market.

Currently, there are close to 70,000 jobs which are available in Quebec but remain unfilled because adequate occupational training was not provided. The Quebec government recently introduced legislation to encourage companies to offer more in-house training.

However, a lot remains to be done and, without total control in that sector, the provincial government cannot adequately meet the expectations of the Quebec labour market. The federal and provincial governments are always competing to show workers which of the two levels of government can best meet their expectations and aspirations.

When that happens, it costs millions of dollars in unnecessary duplication. Such duplication costs several hundreds of millions in the manpower training sector, and that is a real shame. For example, in the Eastern Townships, for every dollar spent on manpower training, 42 cents go to administrative costs. Over 40 per cent, more specifically 42 per cent, of the amount which should be used for manpower development is used instead to pay for course organization, promotional efforts and course delivery. This is an incredible waste of energy and money.

Unfortunately, Quebec workers are the ones who are affected by the stubbornness of the federal government and of its Minister of Human Resources Development. Moreover, since the 1990 UI reform, the federal government has been making extensive use of the UI fund for training purposes.

In 1994-95, $531 million were spent for that purpose. The federal department now offers 27 initiatives or programs, most of which create duplication with the 22 programs offered by the SQDM and others offered by various departments.

In 1994, the federal government announced the creation of Youth Service, at a cost of $175 million. This program is entirely comparable to the Volunteer Youth Action Program which is efficiently run by the SQDM. In spite of repeated demands by the Quebec government, the federal government keeps refusing to transfer funds into the provincial program, thus wasting money because of duplication.

Another equally pathetic example is the federal program that matches another similar Quebec program called Jeunes stagiaires. The 50 Canadian sectorial skills council, set up in 1992, are another case of duplication, considering the 15 Quebec manpower sector committees which have been in place for more that five years. The federal government will spend more that $250 million to set up its own councils. Finally, because of the rigid standards for POWA, the federal government has failed to compensate many garment sector workers.

In view of the difficulties some workers were experiencing, the Quebec government, through the SQDM, had to step in to make up for the federal government's shortcomings. There again, we have duplication. What a waste of money and time. The cost of all this duplication is estimated at $250 million a year. That is poor management and poor efficiency.

In conclusion, I would say that federal intrusion in the area of human resources development since 1942 is one more example of its abuse of the spending power and of its disregard for the exclusive jurisdictions of the Quebec government. Constitutionally, the provinces have exclusive jurisdiction over manpower training, but, to this day, the stubbornness of the federal government still undermines the development of the Quebec economy.

Vocational training is the cornerstone of competitiveness and availability of highly skilled workers, two assets that are essential if we are to develop a high technology economy, attract many investors and produce value added goods.

This minister and his government should stop all this nonsense and give back to Quebecers all the tools they need to deal with after manpower training. Bill C-96 should therefore be withdrawn, and the Prime Minister should start to deliver on his decentralization promises in areas where a strong consensus exists in Quebec.

[Maud Debien, Bloc, Laval East, QC]

Mr. Speaker, not long ago, I read the speech the Minister of Human Resources Development made during second reading of Bill C-96. This bill, entitled an Act to establish the Department of Human Resources Development and to amend and repeal certain related Acts, certainly stems from a noble intent.

When I read this speech, I got the feeling that we were taking part in a huge change operation, a bit like the edifying commitments the Liberals make to try to make us swallow the pill. The minister said, and I quote: "a new, innovative way of doing government, to get people to begin to think differently about how government can relate to individuals, to provide a much more effective way of enabling people to respond and make choices themselves and not have choices made for them, to share, to create partnerships, to get away from the top down command system and to turn that into a Canadian Tire philosophy based in the local communities with tools and instruments customized and tailored to the needs of those communities."

One could think that the minister is talking about real decentralization and is about to comply once and for all with the repeated and urgent requests of the province of Quebec for control over the policies and programs concerning manpower and training.

However, the minister warned us right from the start. "It is, he said, decentralization of a very different kind."

The minister then said: "There has been a lot of talk about decentralization. So far it has been a somewhat restricted debate as it talks only about decentralization in terms of transferring from the federal government to provincial governments." And this is very significant. The message here is clear. The kind of decentralization the minister is bragging about has nothing to do with Quebec's expectations and ignores the consensus that was reached in Quebec over manpower training.

Let us look at this a little bit closer. Even though the prime minister told us, in answer to our questions, that the official opposition had obviously not bothered to read Bill C-96, we have to conclude that several individuals, institutions and organizations in Quebec are really ignorant, according to the prime minister. Unfortunately for him, the people of Quebec also know how to read between the lines.

It is appalling but not really surprising to see that Bill C-96 goes totally against the large consensus reached in Quebec over manpower issues. For several years now, all those involved in Quebec's labour force have agreed to demand the repatriation to Quebec of all manpower training programs and of the related budgets.

Far from abiding by this unanimous consent, the federal government has announced its intent to continue with and even increase all of the costly duplication and overlap. Once again, the Liberal government ignores its own basic rule. Yet, the Canadian Constitution 1867 recognizes clearly and explicitly the areas of provincial jurisdiction. But for years now the federal government has been using its spending power and its authority to impose national standards and to infringe upon the jurisdictions of the provinces. All that Bill C-96 does is legalizing a de facto situation.

Whatever the Prime Minister says, we did read this bill, and it was easy for us to grab its real intent. For example, clauses 6, 20 and 21 are unequivocal.

Clause 6 aims at extending federal jurisdiction by expanding the powers, duties and functions of the Minister. Clause 20 provides that the Minister may negotiate and enter into agreements with, and I quote: "such other persons or bodies as the Minister considers appropriate."

In the same vein, clause 21 reiterates that the Minister may authorize any other person or body to exercise any power or perform any duty or function of the Minister.

All that to make sure we understand that the Minister has no obligation to consult or agree with the provinces in precise areas of provincial jurisdiction.

Indeed, from now on, according to Bill C-96, the department of Human Resources Development will be authorized to by-pass the provinces and impose manpower standards and policies. It will be able to develop a parallel federal structure to intervene on the Quebec labour market.

The federal government is empowering itself to by-pass the provinces and to intervene directly with bodies, municipal governments and individuals. While the Constitution gives provinces power over manpower development and vocational training, the federal gouvernment has chosen to ignore it.

So history repeats itself. It will be remembered that, in 1991, the previous Conservative government tried to encroach upon provincial jurisdiction and directly interfere in matters regarding vocational training and manpower. Once again, Quebec unanimously denounced these centralizing and unconstitutional moves by the federal government.

The Quebec Liberal Party and the Conseil du patronat du Québec added their voice to this denunciation. The same centralizing designs, which are spelled out in Bill C-96, are now giving rise to the same denunciations everywhere in Quebec. The initiative is, however, more subtle this time, because it comes a few days after the referendum.

While the Liberals spoke of nothing but change during the referendum campaign, there are now, with Bill C-96, attempting further intrusion in the area of training.

The Canadian provinces have different labour markets. A centralized and uniform approach would hardly help anyone. The result would be more red tape, as my colleague for Joliette clearly demonstrated earlier.

Let us not forget that Quebec already has established manpower networks. The Société québécoise de développement de la main-d'oeuvre is a special form of partnership involving all Quebec stakeholders in manpower matters, whether they are employers, unions, co-operatives, educators or community groups. Quebecers know better than anyone else what is good for them. Quebecers must decide what their manpower policies should be and set their own priorities.

This is not a symbolic demand or the confirmation of a historic right. It is only a matter of good old common sense for those who take to heart the promotion and the support of manpower development. If there really is a will to change and to decentralize in Canada, as we were told during the referendum campaign, this is the time for the winds to blow.

If Bill C-96 is a proof of the flexibility the Liberal government boasts about, if it is indicative of the rejection of, and I quote the minister of Human Resources Development, "the old top down centralized hierarchies of governmental organization, which have been really a product of the old industrial age", then, it is a total failure.

Bill C-96 sends a clear message to the Quebec Liberal Party, to the Conseil du patronat and to all other partners in the field of employment in Quebec, and it is that the federal government will never accept that Quebec assume sole responsibility for manpower training within its territory. Ottawa will never accept either that Quebec repatriate the funds that the federal government allocates to manpower training programs. Quebecers will clearly see that it is impossible to develop a Quebec manpower policy suited to its realities and administered by Quebec if they stay in Canada. That will only be possible in a sovereign Quebec.

Therefore, I urge all members of Parliament who really care for the improvement of relations between the two founding peoples of this country to support the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Mercier and to vote against Bill C-96.

[Patrick Gagnon, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, in fact, the bill has nothing to do with jurisdictions. It has everything to do with people. It is aimed at helping Canadians and, of course, Quebecers in remote areas to find jobs.

The bill is designed to allow young people, older workers, single mothers and low income individuals to acquire the skills they need in our ever-changing economy. It is also aimed at bringing communities, businesses and all levels of government together to look at the human aspect of regional economic development.

This means that other forms of agreements and partnerships between the federal government and the provinces are possible. Quebec talked a lot about partnership during the referendum campaign and we are willing to go in this direction. As a matter of fact, partnerships with local and regional economic development

authorities in the area of social and labour programs are highly desirable. That is certainly the way to go.

If we really want to pursue this discussion in a positive manner, it is important that we adopt this bill now and start working towards establishing new and improved partnerships with one another.

While some members are worrying about the federal government taking powers away from the provinces, the Department of Human Resources Development is doing its job with Quebecers and, of course, with the Quebec government. Using jurisdictional considerations as an excuse, members of the Bloc would want us to do nothing. Let us say this: in the name of the progress and of the changes that are obviously wanted in Quebec, let us find better ways of doing our job.

Canadians, as well as Quebecers, are well aware that the federal government has a legitimate role to play in development and manpower. So let us get things straight.

We had a case, the other day, that showed the urgent need for federal involvement, through its agencies, its community development organizations which play an active role in every regional county municipality and through the Federal Office of Regional Development, which is always there to give a welcome and desirable helping hand to stimulate small businesses in Quebec. There are other examples, such as the Federal Business Development Bank. When there is a need for a partner, to set up a small business in Quebec, especially in remote areas, this additional financial help from the federal government is always welcome.

I would like to talk about a particular case that occurred in my county a few weeks ago. Throughout the referendum campaign in the riding of Bonaventure, the minister of agriculture, who happens to be my provincial MNA in Quebec City, asked for the participation of the federal government in order to stimulate, or create if you will, a dairy industry in Gaspésie. Following pressure from that minister, it was agreed that the federal government would invest in the establishment of a cheese-making operation in that region. Now, the day after the referendum, that very same minister who had challenged us to invest reneged. He decided, on the basis of provincial programs and on the advice of his provincial bureaucrats, that the agreement was no longer valid. I find that most unfortunate, but fortunately the federal government remains present even if the Government of Quebec went back on its commitment to develop an important industry in Quebec, and especially in my region which is said to be a depressed area.

The federal government is also committed to helping people who are victims of particular circumstances that do not apply only to one province. This is the case of senior workers whose jobs are being jeopardized by the restructuring of the economy. It is also the case of some workers in fisheries. We have all heard about TAGS. In Quebec $100 million was spent to support those who were hard hit by that moratorium. There are still considerable investments being made to find new markets for underdeveloped species. As we know, however, fortunately it is the federal government that manages fisheries in the Gulf and elsewhere, but once the fish gets to the docks it is the responsibility of the province from then on. It is then up to Quebec to issue fish processing plant operating permits, but unfortunately Quebec is still refusing to invest the amounts necessary to give our local entrepreneurs a chance to diversify, particularly into underdeveloped species such as mackerel and herring.

There are lots of similar examples in Quebec, unfortunately demonstrating Quebec's intransigence and the fact that it is not necessarily attuned to the true needs of the population. When I heard the opposition saying "All we want is decentralization, all we want is for Quebec to make a final decision", were they referring only to the SQDM? Mention has never been made of the fact that there are people who are what the Bloc would probably call "Quebecers of the majority", old-stock Quebecers, working for the federal public service, who come from the Magdalen Islands, Bonaventure of course, or elsewhere in Quebec, and that these people are seeking, not only as federal employees, but as concerned individuals, to provide the public with proper services.

And in all the speeches I have heard this morning, there was not a single member of the Bloc, not a single member of the opposition, came forward with a good idea. The only thing that was said is that everything that happening in Quebec at this time is the federal government's fault. What I find regrettable, however, is that no one is listening to the voice of the people. There is already talk of a third referendum in Quebec. Mr. Speaker, let me state here to you, here before my constituents, before eastern Quebec, before all Quebecers, that the winning side this past October 30 was the no side.

I believe that what will be expected of the outgoing Leader of the Opposition, when he is premier of Quebec as he surely will be-and let me, in passing, wish him luck-is a commitment. He must make a commitment. In fact, he did, and people in the PQ government have announced they are prepared to work together with the Canadian government. I think Quebecers are fed up with constitutional discussions that fail to provide any answers. We want to put Quebecers back to work, and this will happen within the Canadian federation.

Throughout the referendum campaign, we made it clear that if Quebec left Canada, it would lose several billion dollars worth of federal investment. Losses would be considerable and would be felt by everyone, but especially by the most vulnerable people in the province of Quebec. I think we have reached a point in our history where we should look at what we have in common, instead of being

divided and dwelling on the past like the Leader of the Opposition did throughout the last referendum campaign.

I challenge the future Premier of Quebec and members of the opposition to lay down their arms and say: "We are willing to work with everyone. We are willing to work with the federal government, the municipalities and, of course, the other provinces". I think it is really too bad that the Quebec government, which claims to be anxious to promote regional economic development, tends to boycott agreements and federal-provincial meetings and conferences.

I think that is too bad, and it is unfortunate that in several sectors, including fisheries and agri-food and agriculture, we see this refusal to meet Minister Tobin and officials and ministers from the other Canadian provinces. I think the Quebec government and especially members opposite will have to consider that people want development, but not if it means Quebec has to separate, not if it means breaking up and destroying the country.

I think that people, especially in Quebec, want to build a fair and credible society, and this will happen within the Canadian federation. In concluding, I would urge opposition members to suggest alternatives, to work with us, but even more important, to work with and for their constituents. I am convinced and confident that their constituents feel it is up to them to work with us to strengthen the economy of Quebec and Canada.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, before he leaves, I would like to congratulate the member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine for having successfully enlivened the debate this morning to some extent on that side of the House, because, up to now, things were pretty quiet.

[Patrick Gagnon, Liberal, Bonaventure—Îles-De-La-Madeleine, QC]

True. True.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

He encouraged us to pay attention to and analyze the outcome of the referendum. I would like to return to his recommendation, and look at the outcome of the referendum in his riding. In his own riding-Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine-as he knows, it was not the no vote that won, but the yes. So, if he truly spoke for the people of his riding, he would be saying something different. It appears he did not listen carefully. Too bad for him.

I, however, remember. I have listened carefully to most of the speeches by the member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine. I remember him from when I was a brand new member. There was a debate on the famous ferry that would run between the Magdalen Islands and Prince Edward Island. The solutions proposed by the Government of Quebec were not particularly to his liking. He said: "I will listen to what my people have to say, and, you watch, we will come up with a solution".

The solution the federal government came up with was to buy a secondhand boat from somewhere else, rather than have a new boat built. Since then, the president of the Société de transport des Îles-de-la-Madeleine has been running around after secondhand boats, with $30 million of federal money. Recently, someone said on his behalf, a representative of the Société said: "Unfortunately, the federal government took so long in the matter, I missed an opportunity. The boat was sold elsewhere. There are no more secondhand boats for sale".

Meanwhile, I know, because we are talking about real problems, we are not talking Constitution, we are talking jobs, I am the member for Lévis, where the Chantier maritime de Lévis is located, and where workers at MIL Davie remember what the member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine said: "A second hand boat rather than a new one". Hundreds of unemployed workers remember that.

I listen to them and I say to the member, because sometimes we have to raise our voices so the member opposite understands: Not only did you not listen to the people of Lévis, you did not even listen to the people of the Magdalen Islands.

Before you warn me about the relevance of my remarks, Mr. Speaker, I will return to Bill C-96.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

I simply want to put you at ease. It has nothing to do with relevance. You should, however, always address your comments to the chair, and not directly to each other.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. You understand that we cannot always resist temptation. I have every intention of following your rules, which I graciously accept because of my great respect for your position.

The hon. member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine, for example, wonders what the official opposition is worried about, arguing that this bill will not broaden the human resources development minister's jurisdiction.

Not only is the hon. member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine not listening, but he has apparently not read the bill. What does the bill do? It expands the Department of Human Resources Development. It must be realized that, if we take away the money allocated to debt servicing, it almost exceeds 50 per cent of the federal budget. That is quite something.

It includes the old employment department, the labour department. It is responsible for old age pensions. On this subject, I simply wish to remind the hon. member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine about the debate surrounding the replacement of many employment centres with computer terminals.

As one who listens to citizens and to seniors in particular-and I know that all members on this side of the House have heard them-, I can tell you that they are concerned. They are not used to typing on computer terminals to get information. They are very concerned about this. The government is saying that they are moving their services closer to the people, but installing a computer terminal in a municipal location is not the way to go.

My main concern-and that is clear from the debate today-is that Bill C-96 will enable the federal government to deal directly with agencies and individuals in matters coming under the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces like postsecondary education, security and manpower training. It is certainly not a case of jurisdictions being unclear.

The hon. member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine suggested that we look ahead not back. I would actually encourage him to go back to the Canadian Constitution and read it over. The Constitution states that these areas are indeed areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction.

The hon. member closed by saying: "Let the members of the Bloc Quebecois and the Parti Quebecois, the people of Quebec and the Société québécoise de développement de la main-d'oeuvre come and help us, the federal government, to do what we have set out to do, so that it can be better done, in partnership".

He got it all wrong. It should be just the opposite. The federal government should be the one trying to help provincial governments in exercising their exclusive jurisdictions. That is what decentralization should be about. It should not be about the federal government decentralizing its action by going over the heads of the provinces to deal with agencies, businesses and individuals. This is not decentralizing. It is by-passing, going over the heads of the provinces. That is not the same thing, and it certainly does not qualify as decentralization.

On the contrary, that is centralizing. You keep the money, spend it according to certain rules or national standards and go over the heads of the provinces to deal directly with businesses and individuals in areas of provincial jurisdiction.

The past often gives us an indication of what the future holds. I will not go very far back in time. I will focus on the past couple of years. As the opposition's critic for training and youth, I would like to remind the House of a bill I mentioned a number of times already to give you an idea of what the minister has in mind when he talks about decentralizing. I am referring to the infamous Bill C-28 that the House passed on June 23, 1994. What is so special about this bill that the Minister of Human Resources Development is responsible for? Subsection 3(1) states that, from now on, the HRD minister will designate himself appropriate educational authorities for the provinces, which flies in the face of the Constitution. I say it again because people have to understand. Over time, people may forget the connection between certain legislative measures passed by the government. Bill C-28 is an example of a case where the federal government ignored the provinces.

Subsection 14(7) states that Quebec can opt out, with financial compensation, like before, provided that its program meets every requirement and that each of its components is similar to that of the federal program.

The Quebec government is free to do what it wants and, yes, will even get money. However, that money, which, incidentally, comes from Quebecers who pay 24 per cent of their taxes to Ottawa, will only be paid provided certain conditions are met. In other words, Quebec is free to do what it wants, but if it does not do this or that, the federal government will cut funding. What a nice way to view decentralization, this in a field of provincial jurisdiction. Such is the spirit that guides this government.

I followed every initiative of the minister regarding his employment development strategy for young people. One must admit that, in the two-year period, it has not met with much success. The figures for the last two months show that the unemployment rate for the under-25 group is exactly the same as it was two years ago, when the minister took office. This is quite the strategy.

My limited studies in political science have taught me that a political or administrative strategy was good to the extent that it produced results. Otherwise, the strategy was not good and had to be changed. I invite the Minister of Human Resources Development to change his strategy for helping young people find jobs. At the moment, he is in the process of trying to duplicate Quebec provincial programs at the federal level. For example his Youth Service Canada is identical in every respect to the Quebec program Jeunes Volontaires. He has tried something involving work placements as well, but these are things that have already been done by the Government of Quebec and the Société québécoise de la main-d'oeuvre.

During the referendum campaign, Quebecers heard and saw all this, with training and employability enhancement programs that change daily, but the last time I looked there were 102 federal and provincial programs. The total has even gone as high as 108, but a few were combined after that. It is still a huge number, and people cannot find their way around all these programs.

A number of stakeholders in the Société québécoise de la main-d'oeuvre, including Mr. Béland, the president of the Confédération des caisses populaires et d'économie Desjardins du Québec, the FTQ, labour federations, and the Conseil du Patronat as well, have been unanimous in demanding that the federal government pull out of this area. Despite their repeated demands, however-and this is where there is a danger when it comes to public opinion-there is a certain fatigue setting in and the strategy of the government across the way, apart from answering questions

asked during question period, is to pretend that everything is rosy. No reaction. Total silence. No problem. With time, people are saying, "Maybe the Bloc MPs will get fed up. Anyway, it is a temporary party only". They are aware that we are in existence for a limited time, but that time is a bit longer than planned, and we continue to keep our shoulders to the wheel, to be vigilant, tenacious, persevering, keeping on our toes, and it is our intention to remain that way. We will continue until the Quebec consensus concerning manpower is satisfied with the federal government's actions.

[André Caron, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to join my fellow Bloc members in speaking to Bill C-96, an act to establish the Department of Human Resources Development and to amend and repeal certain related acts.

As my colleagues explained earlier, this is an important bill. Last week when we were debating the amendment of the hon. member for Mercier, government members said that the bill simply grouped certain components without introducing any new elements. They told us not to worry. They said that the federal government would keep up the good work in the provinces and municipalities for the benefit of Canadians, and that basically, there was very little to get upset about. They assumed that the referendum was partly to blame that it was nothing very serious.

I would like to point out that the opposition of the Bloc Quebecois to this bill is fundamental. This bill goes to the very heart of a certain definition, a particular vision of Canadian federalism. First of all, the Department of Human Resources Development. As the hon. member for Lévis said earlier, this is a very important department. It is responsible for unemployment insurance, old age security, education and transfers to the provinces for social assistance, and it has a budget that is probably second only to the budget for servicing Canada's debt.

This department is a giant that is able to intervene in areas which it assumes are under its jurisdiction. It can intervene effectively because it has the resources. Over the years, the department has developed a mandate for intervention. Consider unemployment insurance, which required an amendment to the Canadian Constitution. Consider old age security, family allowances and federal assistance to the provinces for post-secondary education. Gradually, over the past 15, 20, 30 or 50 years, this department, or should I say its predecessor departments which it has now absorbed, have spearheaded a Canadian vision of social policy.

If we recall what happened when Canada was founded in 1867, simply put, there was a division of powers, as is normal under a federal system. The federal government had its powers and the provinces had theirs, and anyone who bothers to read the Constitution will see that areas with a more immediate impact on people, such as health, education, and social assistance, were a provincial responsibility, while foreign affairs, the economy, the armed forces and other areas of a more financial or economic nature were the responsibility of the federal government.

As I just said, over the years we have seen the federal government increasingly invade the jurisdictions of the provinces. So much so that today, we are considering a bill that will provide a rationale for the federal government's presence in provincial jurisdictions. I realize some people will say this may be normal, that federalism has evolved and change is necessary, that certain problems must be dealt with and that this should be done by the level of government best equipped to do so.

This is a bit what the bill says. The Minister of Human Resources Development may, at his pleasure, intervene, according to clause 6, in: "-all matters over which Parliament has jurisdiction relating to the development of the human resources of Canada". Admittedly, this is very broad. The department may enter into agreements involving employment, encourage equality and promote social security. In the present context, members will agree that this is very broad indeed.

We in the Bloc feel that the department is using this bill to acquire legislative jurisdiction to define policy in areas of provincial jurisdiction. What is the effect of the federal government's approach? It could be dramatic, given that Quebec, Ontario and the other provinces also operate in these areas.

The Government of Quebec is involved in health, education, social and employment matters in these jurisdictions. It has defined its programs. It has set up departments. It has activities planned in these areas. We note, in the bill before us, that the federal government is giving itself the right to intervene in these areas.

Perhaps it wants to intervene with the best of intentions, but, in practical terms, two levels of government are operating in the same areas with programs that often compete with or overlap each other. My colleague mentioned there are currently more than 100 programs, either federal or provincial, aimed at meeting objectives in the social, educational or employment fields.

So we end up with two levels of government that, in a way, knock each other out of commission, not out of ill will, but because of the very nature of the political structure defining the programs and objectives. What we see in Quebec, what I have noticed in my riding, is that there were provincial policies, co-ordinated primarily by the SQDM, the Société québécoise de dévéloppement de la main-d'oeuvre, and there were federal policies from the employment centres and the Department of Human Resources Development.

When we think about the section 25 program from unemployment insurance, the job readiness programs and the special programs of certain agencies to help specific clientele, we realize that everyone's intentions are good. However, we also realize there is often inefficiency, which the Minister of Human Resources Development himself admits. Yesterday, during question period, he in fact said that he wanted to make changes in Canada and in his policies, because he could see over the past two years that the policies were ineffective.

So we end up with two levels of government that, in a way, pursue ineffective policies, precisely because these policies overlap and cancel each other out. The Bloc Quebecois's argument against this bill is that there should be a single level of government dealing with these issues.

If we look at the Canadian Constitution, we see that these programs should come under provincial jurisdiction. So we in Quebec asked the federal government to withdraw from these programs and transfer responsibility to the Quebec government. The other provinces do not, of course, want these powers, but we in Quebec want to be in charge of these programs because of our history, because the Quebec government is the government of a people, a nation distinct from Canadian society.

This has been a Quebec demand for 30 years, going back to Mr. Lesage, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Bourassa, Mr. Lévesque. This is a constant demand. We have always come up against a brick wall. If the federal government had acted in good faith, Canada might have achieved some form of asymmetrical federalism allowing Quebec to put forward its policies and to feel respected, while the other provinces could have enjoyed greater centralization and carried out programs benefiting their labour force, something that we do not have in Canada at the present time.

This is the brick wall we have come up against in recent years, whether at the Quebec government or the federal government level. This situation has come about because the federal government has refused for 30 years to accommodate the specific demands made by all Quebec governments for 50 years, going back to Maurice Duplessis.

I call on all members to reject this bill at second reading so that the jurisdiction of each level of government in the Canadian federation can be respected.

[Osvaldo Nunez, Bloc, Bourassa, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

What a pleasure.

[Osvaldo Nunez, Bloc, Bourassa, QC]

If the hon. member opposite will give me a chance, I would like to take part in this debate today on Bill C-96 to legally establish the Department of Human Resources Development.

As I said in my remarks on November 20, this bill accentuates the federal presence by giving the minister new powers, including the power to bypass provincial authorities and negotiate directly with local authorities and agencies. I denounce, once again, the federal government's centralizing designs. As you know, there is a strong consensus in Quebec on the need to have control over manpower training programs. This is an area where there is a great deal of duplication and overlap, which is proving to be extremely costly and inefficient.

Just to show how inefficient the federal government is, and this department in particular, the report tabled by the Auditor General of Canada two days ago, on November 21, is very critical of the manpower training programs, describing these programs as ill-suited to industry's needs. An estimated 300,000 positions remained vacant every year between 1988 and 1990 because suitable incumbents could not be found, but the training programs offered by the department related to only 5 per cent of these vacant positions. To be facing that kind of a problem when unemployment is on the rise is incredible. The federal government's inefficiency and squandering in this regard has to be denounced. The Department of Human Resources Development spends $2 billion a year on manpower training.

The auditor finds that there is no systematic or global measure to deal with the situation.

I also want to point out that clause 6 of Bill C-96 authorizes the minister to bypass provinces and establish direct links with financial institutions, local organizations and such other persons or bodies as he considers appropriate, "with the objective of enhancing employment, encouraging equality and promoting social security". Moreover, the minister may authorize "any other person or body" to exercise his powers. That provision opens the door to the contracting-out and privatization of employment services, something which is already illustrated by the streamlining of the federal network of employment centres.

The bill also provides that the Canada Employment and Insurance Commission may "authorize any person or body-to exercise powers or perform duties and functions of the Commission". Under subsection 31(3) of the former act, the commission could only delegate its powers to members of its staff or, subject to the minister's approval, to members of the department. Thus, the commission will enjoy a power to delegate similar to that of the minister. This is the same minister who is about to announce

additional cuts of $1.25 billion in the UI program. That is a lot of money.

In spite of the fact that the public service, the crown corporations and the private sector are all experiencing cuts, closures and massive layoffs, Bill C-96 is silent on job creation.

Let me give a few examples of such cuts. First, by 1997, Bell Canada will have closed nine regional offices in Quebec alone. It also intends to close three auditing offices.

That company, which employs 46,000 people, hopes to layoff 10,000 of them over the next three years. A large number of these people are members of the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada. This is a 22 per cent reduction of the company's staff. Bell has 28,606 employees in Ontario and 17,300 in Quebec. It intends to reduce its staff through voluntary termination of employment, early retirement and outright layoffs. It should be noted that Bell cannot justify such major cuts, given the huge profits generated last year. Moreover, during the first six months of 1995, the company paid $35 million in dividends, which is as much as it did for the same period last year.

Recently, a group of Bloc Quebecois members, including myself, met with officials from the company and the union, here in Ottawa. We heard both sides. Following these meetings, I personally feel that these massive layoffs are totally unjustified, particularly since Bell is among the telephone companies employing the smallest number of people per line in North America. Bell has always made substantial profits. I salute the courage and the determination of the employees of that company and also of their union, which seeks to protect the rights and benefits of its members against a management strategy designed to produce massive layoffs.

I would also like to salute the 2,000 delegates who are attending the Ontario Federation of Labour convention which has been going on in Toronto since Monday night. Yesterday, they marched down Bay Street, where Canadian banks and large corporations have their headquarters, to protest against Mike Harris' right wing policies, especially against the first piece of legislation his government enacted, which repealed the anti-scab act and makes the creation and certification of trade unions more difficult.

I would like to quote a statement made by an American, the Reverend Jesse Jackson, who told the convention delegates: "Do not allow the right to destroy all the accomplishments of many past generations". I could not agree more.

The Harris government has decided to dismantle the Ontario Labour Code. Moreover, it wants to reduce the size of the labour ministry by 46 per cent, which will mean fewer occupational health and safety inspectors, fewer air quality technicians, fewer officials to enforce minimum work standards, etc.

I an concerned about all these cuts and these attacks against workers in Ontario, the richest province in Canada.

The federal government, and the provincial governments of Ontario and Alberta, which are going after the poorest members of society in an attempt to put their financial house in order, are on the wrong track. They will only increase poverty. I believe that the way to go, instead, is job creation initiatives, tax fairness, a better redistribution of wealth, and increased social security.

Both at the provincial and federal levels, anti-scab legislation is not only essential, but urgently needed. I was very disappointed by the vote taken the day before yesterday by the members of this House who rejected by 144 against and 104 for the bill presented by my Bloc colleague, the member for Manicouagan. However, I salute the courage of a great number of Liberal members who supported the bill and who were in agreement with it, under the previous Conservative government. On the other hand, I denounce all the ministers, especially the labour minister, who voted against it.

Following the example of Quebec and British Columbia, such an act at the federal level would avoid the worsening of labour conflicts, as was the case at the Ogilvie flour mill, in Montreal, where the strike lasted for 15 months.

Finally, I will say that I support the FTQ's request for the strengthening of the present succession rights of workers, should a Crown corporation be privatized or a private company under federal jurisdiction be disposed of. This problem has arisen mostly with the sale of Canadian airports.

To conclude, I stress that I will vote against Bill C-96.

[Gaston Leroux, Bloc, Richmond—Wolfe, QC]

Mr. Speaker, like my colleagues, I welcome the opportunity to speak about the Act to establish the Department of Human Resources Development.

Bill C-96 establishing the Department of Human Resources Development flows from the June 1993 reform and is another demonstration of this government's desire to centralize. The Liberal Party of Canada, faithful to the objectives established by its guru of the last decades, Pierre-Elliott Trudeau, took office at the House of commons in October 1993 with the clear intention of giving government in Canada a more centralized structure. Right

from the beginning, there was a major offensive action against the autonomy Quebec was aiming at. During the two years of the present administration, we have seen countless examples of this thrust towards centralization.

Bill C-96 is but another step in the invasion, by the central government, of Quebec's jurisdictions in the area of social and economic development. Clauses 6 and 20 of that bill reveal the federal government will to limit the freedom of action of the Quebec National Assembly.

Clause 6 defines the powers, duties and functions of the minister which now extend, and I quote: "to include all matters over which Parliament has jurisdiction relating to the development of human resources of Canada-with the objective of enhancing employment." The clause is unequivocal; it allows for the creation of a vast federal Human Resources Development department where the minister will have considerable powers and will be free to act without the approval of the provinces. In fact, this bill contains no provision on provincial jurisdiction, let alone on honouring this jurisdiction; on the contrary, it denies Quebec's exclusive jurisdiction over manpower training and development.

Clause 20 lists the organizations with which the minister may enter into agreements. It reads as follows: "For the purpose of facilitating the formulation, co-ordination and implementation of any program or policy [-]the minister may enter into agreements with a province or group of provinces, agencies of provinces, financial institutions and such other persons or bodies as the minister considers appropriate". So the minister may put anyone he wants in charge of managing his department's policies and programs without having to justify himself in the House or worrying about the Quebec government's directives.

In other words, he would have full discretion to contract out. The minister would have the power to enter into agreements with regional and local organizations, including municipalities, thus bypassing the provinces. This bill will allow the federal government to disregard Quebec's exclusive jurisdiction over the design of manpower training and development programs.

Quebec has always denounced the federal government's intention to put in place its own parallel manpower programs in Quebec. Quebec's Minister of Employment, Mrs. Harel, says that this bill is the antithesis of the Quebec consensus on the manpower policy, the antithesis of the single window.

Bill C-76, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 27, 1995, is another example of the Liberal federal government's relentless denial of Quebec. Under this bill, the Minister of Human Resources Development can use the money saved through UI reform to set up a human resources investment fund.

This fund will be spent on manpower training programs, among other things, thus allowing for massive federal intervention-on a discretionary basis and with a centralizing effect-in education, an area over which Quebec has exclusive jurisdiction, with total disregard for Quebec's policies in this sector.

Interprovincial trade is another area in which the federal government likes to impose its centralizing vision.

In Bill C-88 regulating interprovincial activities, the federal government assumes powers that were never discussed when this agreement was negotiated and signed in June 1994. Clause 9 of the bill stipulates that if a party is found to be in violation of Article 1710 of the agreement, the federal government, whether or not it is a party to the dispute, takes it upon itself to impose retaliatory measures against any province without distinction.

This bill shows, once more, the federal government's determination to act as judge and jury in interprovincial trade and to give itself, through this bill, a power of enforcement under orders issued by itself to extend the application of any federal law to the provinces, as stated in clause 9(1)( c ).

This unitary state attitude of a centralizing federal system is in contradiction with provincial identities and, as such, impedes the development of the people of Quebec. This attitude is also reflected in Bill C-46 establishing the Department of Industry, whose clause 8 states specifically that the Minister of Industry is responsible for "economic development in areas of Ontario and Quebec".

This legislation only goes to show that there is overlap with respect to regional economic development by confirming the federal industry minister's right to interfere in an area of jurisdiction over which Quebec has been demanding control for a long time.

Bill C-91 to continue the Federal Business Development Bank under the name Business Development Bank of Canada is the last example of the centralizing federal legislation that I will give you here.

Clauses 20 and 21 of this act are totally unacceptable to Quebec. Clause 20 suggests that the Business Development Bank of Canada may enter into agreements with, and I quote: "and act as agent for, any department or agency of the government of Canada or a province, or any other body or person, for the provision of services or programs to" them or on their behalf.

This act also flies in the face of the economic development policies being implemented within Quebec. Under this clause, the Liberal federal government pursues its strategy of centralization, a political strategy to substantially restrict the Quebec government's ability to act in the area of economic development, ultimately preventing it from achieving political autonomy.

By usurping the power to act as an agent for any department or agency of Quebec, through the bank, the federal government completely ignores the authority of the Quebec National Assembly and its legislation on the executive council, which states that no department or agency of the Government of Quebec may deal with the federal government without prior consent. The new Federal Business Development Bank, the Business Development Bank of Canada, has become the instrument of federal interference in regional economic development in Quebec.

The totally demagogic approach developed by Pierre Elliott Trudeau, who claimed that Canada is the most decentralized country in the world, is an insult to intelligence and reflects the bad faith now being displayed by the current Prime Minister. Such an attitude is a major impediment to finding a solution regarding Quebec's place in North America. In spite of the incessant pleas of the Quebec government to develop its own economic and social policies, the Liberal Party of Canada always said no and used every available legislative means to restrict the decision making power of Quebec's national assembly.

In the late sixties, Trudeau became Prime Minister and imposed a national vision which resulted in a series of federal interventions in fields of exclusive provincial jurisdiction. Since then, the primary objective of the federal government has been to streamline government activity and strengthen federal authority over the political economy. For example, in the area of manpower development and training, the federal government has over the last fifty years assumed increasing responsibility regarding the definition of the framework and conditions relating to government intervention in that area of Quebec economic activity. As a "policy definer", the federal government has given itself the role of direction setter and harmonizer, as opposed to that of a service provider for the provinces.

The patriation and review of the Constitution were opportunities for the federation to affirm the authority of the central government over the economic and social management of all the provinces. Regardless of what Pierre Elliot Trudeau and the current Prime Minister may say, the 1982 Constitution Act confirms Ottawa's dominating role as the place where power is exercised. This is why 2,308,266 Quebecers voted for sovereignty on October 30.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

All those opposed will please say nay.