House of Commons Hansard #61 of the 35th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was english.

Topics

Financial Administration ActPrivate Members' Business

6:10 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)

The division on the motions stands deferred until Tuesday, June 18, 1996, at 5.30 p.m.

Is there unanimous consent to proceed to the adjournment debate?

Financial Administration ActPrivate Members' Business

6:10 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Financial Administration ActAdjournment Proceedings

6:10 p.m.

Bloc

Jean H. Leroux Bloc Shefford, QC

Madam Speaker, during question period, Friday May 31, I asked a question of the Minister of Human Resources Development concerning the difference between the decisions to restructure the services of the Granby Employment Centre and the Cowansville centre.

Unfortunately, when I reread the transcript of the debates to check on his answer, I was struck by something: he never gave a clear and precise answer to my question. Instead, the Minister of Human Resources Development settled for making vague allusions to the difficulty of restructuring his department, while at the same time indicating that he and his employees were always prepared to provide me with the information requested.

As far as the Granby centre is concerned, no one, not the minister nor his staff, have deigned to provide me with the justification of the decision on the Granby Employment Centre as compared to the Cowansville one. No valid explanation, no specific criterion, has ever been provided to me to justify such a decision between these two neighbouring centres, apart from political affiliation.

In my opinion, the Granby employment centre has undergone an unjustified cutback in services and in staff, compared to the cuts made at the Cowansville employment centre, because from now on the Granby centre will have the same number of employees as Cowansville, although it serves twice the population.

I will repeat my question, then, because the minister has stated on several occasions that the purpose of restructuring is to improve services, and to do so on an equitable basis.

Can the minister indicate to us clearly the logic on which his decision is based to allocate the same number of employees to the two centres, whereas the Granby centre serves twice as large a population as Cowansville does?

I would like the minister to answer my question, because despite all the correspondence between him, his department and myself, including a dozen official letters, two meetings with senior officials, a petition bearing over 6,300 names, many press releases, newspaper articles, resolutions by municipalities in my riding and telephone calls, I see no reason for an unfair decision to be made in the case of the people of Shefford and the Granby employment centre.

I will repeat my question a third time so the minister may grasp its meaning. What is the reason for the decision to assign the same number of employees to the employment centres in Granby and in Cowansville, when the former serves twice as many people as the latter?

I am not the only one wanting a response from the minister, because the case of the employment centre in Granby is a matter of consensus.

This centre is vital to the development of the Granby region. The Granby chamber of commerce, the Société de développement économique régional de Granby-Bromont, the Haute-Yamaska RCM, the City of Granby, the unions and more than 80 organizations all agree that this decision is unjustified and unfair.

Decisions can be changed. This would not be the first time. The people of Shefford want an answer.

Financial Administration ActAdjournment Proceedings

6:10 p.m.

Kenora—Rainy River Ontario

Liberal

Bob Nault LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Human Resources Development

Madam Speaker, the member has been told a number of times what is going on. It is

obvious to all of us that Human Resources Canada is consolidating and centralizing the administration and processing functions.

When that is done, it stands to reason that service in certain areas will be reduced and employees will be moved from one place to another. That is how the administrative savings being sought will be achieved.

It is no different in this member's riding than it is in mine. In my riding of Kenora-Rainy River we went through the same thing, but we seem to understand it a lot better.

The key is that when the numbers of employees are reduced, we must make sure that their function in the administrative process continues to have front line service. We continue to say that the intent of improving the system is to maintain the front line service for communities so that service will adequately respond to the needs of individuals.

This is a two year process. Once it is in place, the hon. member will see that the front line employees will still be available to look after the needs of individuals. With the kiosks and mail service centres restructured, he will see that it will work as well in his riding as it does in mine. It is fortunate for us that our ridings are similar. Once he gets a chance to see the service in action, he willknow that the minister's answer to him in the House of Commons was correct. This is an administrative improvement, not a chance to reduce service.

Financial Administration ActAdjournment Proceedings

6:10 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)

The motion to adjourn the House is deemed to have been adopted. The House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow.

(The House adjourned at 6.18 p.m.)