Christian Simard

[Department of Social Development Act, December 7th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise and speak to this bill, not because I or my party support the principle or the decision to establish this department. Indeed, I wish to indicate what, in my view, is missing in this process of creation and division of existing departments in the field of regional development, of creating things that nobody is asking for.

I must confess my disappointment with a number of laws. I am a newcomer in this House and I am a little disappointed with the parliamentary agenda that looks more like red tape, or, if I may say so, like liberal tape, than substantive debates on bills that are supposed to help Canadians and Quebeckers.

Thus, instead of having laws that allow the government to use its incredibly large surpluses that are hidden in foundations and budget estimates, or in the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, departments are being created, then divided and civil servants are moved around. That is always done,and above all, in jurisdictions that do not belong to the federal government, but to the government of Quebec or other provinces. Such is the case with the famous Department of Social Development.

Before getting into politics, I wondered how I would look at the issues and what my perspective would be. I told myself that I would read each piece of legislation presented to us and try to determine if it is good for children and if it can improve their living conditions.

As we know, there are more than one million Canadians, and a similar proportion in Quebec--unfortunately the situation is no different in that respect—of children living in poverty. In fact, this number is growing constantly. At one point, we had some degree of control over child poverty, but it seems this kind of poverty has been increasing in recent years.

Will this bill really help? Will this division, the creation of a new structure within another structure, help in the fight against child poverty? I very much doubt it.

Various programs will come under the responsibility of this new department if it is created. We hope it will not be, because we do not see how it will improve conditions for people.

In another life, I worked a great deal with community organizations. Under the bill before us, the department will be responsible for the volunteer and community sector. I remember the frenzy, when community groups were constantly forced to apply for grants, often for reasons of visibility. This required a lot of energy on the part of volunteers or of those who were somewhat pompously called permanent members of community organizations and volunteers—I was one of them—and whose main feature was in fact that they were not “permanent” and that they were in a precarious situation.

How much energy is spent by these groups in trying to be included in a system of programs to get a few dollars? What these groups need is a clear policy of recognition. The Quebec government is trying to give them such a policy, but it often does not have the means to do that. These groups need a policy that gives them recognition and a permanent status to be able to serve people and provide services to the community.

Instead, they must bend over backwards to comply with the objectives of federal department programs that have more to do with ensuring visibility for the minister than with giving real resources to people.

This is one example among many others that do not directly relate to this department's responsibility. Hon. members will understand that, as the Bloc Québécois critic on housing, I take this issue very seriously.

Therefore, since 1993, the federal government has been talking about giving back full responsibility to the provinces, including Quebec, for housing, so they can set housing policies.

This is 2004, almost 2005—Christmas is approaching—and that transfer has still not been made. This transfer will have very strong consequences, but because it has not happened, Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation, in this case, is no longer investing in the cooperative or non-profit housing sector, since this responsibility will soon be transferred. All this duplication, all these approaches by the federal government have direct consequences on people's lives and we have to admit that the consequences are not good.

We see measures that, on the face of it, may seem interesting. We looked at the child tax benefit. Once again, we have seen that there is a measure, but it is a measure that ensures that a certain group of very poor people will have to pay more. There are many different mechanisms in the income tax legislation.

In the case of people with the lowest incomes, because of Quebec's $5 day care system, now at $7, the government has $70 million in taxes that it can draw on. Normally, those taxes should have been used for the benefit of those families who are losing $70 million because of a measure that supposedly was taken to help them. They are the neediest.

So, we see that this duplication has a direct cost to the poorest members of society. This desire to create departments, to label all assistance, to say that this centralizing government in Ottawa is good and nice to the people, causes major problems for the people it is supposed to serve.

Consequently, the creation of a Department of Economic Development for the Regions of Quebec, a Department of Human Resources and Skills Development and a Department of Social Development does not seem to me to create tangible values for people. All this does not bring one cent more, it only creates confusion, a desire for visibility and a quest for centralizing power.

Do we move ahead in terms of equity, of resource sharing, of relieving the debt of the provinces through adequate transfers? No, we are not going in that direction, we are moving in the opposite direction. This is too bad and it saddens me, so soon before Christmas, to know that there are people who count on a government that would adopt measures on their behalf. They realize that the government helps itself first, serves its visibility, its structures, its public service, its mandarins, but does not serve the people who pay the income tax, people who hope for something better. It makes me sad.

There is a host of examples, and to think that this department will be in charge of national standards in the area of day care centres under the Canadian day care centres program.This program will impose standards on all provinces, and eventually on Quebec, while Quebec has been the leader in this field. It is a leadership that turns out to be very costly for Quebec.

The federal government has saved a billion dollars since the introduction of $5 day care centres, now at a cost of $7. This is a billion dollars that the government does not have to pay out in tax credits to families.

With this amount, if there had been full compensation, would we have been able to better serve patients in hospitals? The answer is yes. Would we have been able to use that money to put books in libraries? Yes, we could have. When Quebec helps its children, it also enables the federal government to save a billion dollars and this government, well aware of that, does nothing to compensate this injustice, does nothing to transfer this money.

During the election, the government promised that an agreement had been signed, but that agreement was not worth the paper on which it was written. This is a scandal. That agreement still has not been put on the table. This is why people sometimes become cynical about politics.

As a new politician, this situation really saddens me.

I am very sad to see so much energy being spent to create new structures, to look for visibility, to make intrusions and to create new departments in areas that are clearly under Quebec's jurisdiction. We put so much energy into playing partisan politics and waving the flag to get more visibility. This energy could be used to provide better government, to better distribute wealth, to work better and more efficiently in our own areas of jurisdiction.

Instead of that, we create communities departments and regional development departments for Quebec and we expand the Health department. In short, we are doing a lot but doing it badly, in areas of provincial jurisdiction. Meanwhile, we are doing very little, and doing it poorly, in our own areas of jurisdiction.

If I may digress for just a moment, today again, I was looking at the evidence given by the sailors of the Chicoutimi who, while looking at the rusted submarines in which they were to sail, said “They will not force us to sail in that.” Until we have our own country, this is an area of federal jurisdiction, and this so-called competence is rather a shameful incompetence on the part of the federal government.

However, the government is eager to create structures, minor visibility programs, interfere in jurisdictions outside its own. It does so right in the throne speech and in legislation before the House.

I would like to support this legislation. I would like to be enthusiastic about various legislative measures supporting it. I would like to consider in the House legislation to protect the environment and ensure sustainable development. It would be interesting, as long as that legislation respects the responsibilities of the provinces and Quebec.

However, I am forced to admit that the most interesting things I have experienced in the political arena to date are the opposition motions. I am talking about the work of the Bloc Québécois and also the NDP, in some instances, particularly the motion limiting trans fats. That is something that directly concerns public health. It would not have come from the government. There have been many bills; I worked on Bill C-15, to protect migratory birds, but I wonder if it is a joke and if we will have the means to implement it.

Once again, an amendment by the opposition was necessary to implement, beyond the appearance of establishing significant fines, minimum fines for those shamelessly dumping petroleum products. For the first time in Canada, we have implemented significant minimum fines in environmental legislation. This did not come for this government. It is not really concerned with reality, but more with appearances.

In closing, I want to say that I will oppose, as will my colleagues, the creation of this Department of Social Development. We believe that the federal government must recognize once and for all that Quebec, although its leeway has been considerably reduced by the fiscal imbalance, has still managed to implement internationally renowned quality programs.

The Bloc Québécois will never agree to the creation of a department that not only has the mandate to duplicate and copy Quebec's avant-garde policies, but that also prevents Quebec from fully developing these policies. It is not about visibility, but about respect for the integrity, security and health of individuals.

We must always ask if this legislation serves the public or the structure. Unfortunately, this government is telling us that it is the latter.

[Canada Education Savings Act, November 30th, 2004]

Madam Speaker, the last part of the response does not apply to phase 2 of affordable housing. There is absolutely no more money left in Quebec and all the units are reserved. This announcement comes too late.

If I am not mistaken, there is something about this that escapes the government representative. Before 1994, Quebec applied the modesty criteria. It is the only place in Canada where such criteria were applied. Only 60% of housing could be subsidized, while in Ontario or in British Columbia, much more solid housing cooperatives and not-for-profit housing were being built, often with swimming pools. These homes were built to last.

It is not an issue of housing costs. To try to do more, to apply modesty criteria, we underinvested in Quebec. The theory that Quebec did not want to benefit from certain subsidies is highly contested.

In fact, not enough money was invested in Quebec. Quebec used modesty criteria that resulted in terrible situations today. There is a great need for renovation.

The government should acknowledge and correct this historic injustice. If it does not, these negotiations will either end in a stalemate or in concessions on the back of Quebec.

[Canada Education Savings Act, November 30th, 2004]

Madam Speaker, on October 20, I asked a question in this House of the Minister of Labour and Housing, concerning the transfer of responsibility for housing from the federal government to the Government of Quebec. Negotiations have now resumed between the two governments about transferring the responsibility for social housing.

I was not satisfied by the answer provided and asked if we could discuss the matter further, because the situation is very serious. These negotiations just resumed after becoming deadlocked earlier, because the federal government would not recognize the underfunding Quebec experienced before 1993 in terms of housing, and social housing in particular.

As everyone knows or should know now, when the Prime Minister was the Minister of Finance, he cut all funding, which means that, from 1994 to 2001, no investment whatsoever was made in housing or social housing. The aim was a zero deficit, which was achieved, as everyone knows, on the backs of those who needed housing and of the unemployed.

We know that there was this massive cut from 1994 to 2001. What is less well know however is that, before 1994, the federal government was making investments, but not equitably. As a matter of fact, Quebec received a mere 18.7% of the funding for social housing, to develop housing co-ops, and build facilities owned by non-profit organizations and what is commonly known as low-cost housing units.

Quebec received 18.7% of the funding, while it accounted for more than 24% of the Canadian population. At that time, the housing needs in Quebec represented 27% of the total needs, which means that, sociologically, among the segments of population with social housing needs, Quebec represented 27% of the needs. Yet it received only 18% of the funding.

I will just mention a text that we have prepared. We at the Bloc Québécois will be going on a tour to discuss this issue.

It is important to know that the positions of the two parties involved in the negotiations are currently very far apart. I would like the government representative here this evening to give us the status of these negotiations. There was a disparity of more than $100 million a year between what Quebec was asking for to correct this historic difference and what the government was offering.

We hear all sorts of rumours that the transfer will cover only part of the housing units, while it is important to cover the cost of all of them, including low-income housing, housing cooperatives and not-for-profit agencies.

We want to know whether the transfer covers all the responsibilities and if it will allow for investment in social housing, The underinvestment before 1993 had devastating effects on families living in housing cooperatives, or these not-for-profit agencies. These cooperatives need reinvestment because they have had very little money to renovate, buy or build housing.

I am calling on the government to be clear and precise. I am asking the government representative to give us an update on the negotiations and to tell us whether they cover all the units.

[Housing, November 30th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the meeting of ministers responsible for housing ends today. Ottawa is delaying new investment in this sector on the pretext that the funds available have not been entirely spent by certain provinces. This approach penalizes Quebec which, to date, has satisfied all requirements.

Does the minister responsible for housing intend to use the end of this meeting on housing as an opportunity to restart construction of social and affordable housing by injecting the $2.4 billion CMHC surplus equitably into the system?

[Housing, November 29th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, the federal-provincial conference of housing ministers opens today in Gatineau. As we know, CMHC has a surplus of $2.4 billion. With that surplus, the government could respond positively to requests from various groups to invest $2 billion per year in the construction of social and affordable housing.

Does the minister responsible for housing intend to use this meeting to take a firm position on the use of the CMHC surplus to restart social housing construction?

[Department of Human Resources and Skills Development Act, November 22nd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I will not stoop to the government's specialty, which is to always look for ways to create new org charts. In private member's Bill C-280, we suggested straightforward structures to make government management more efficient. The Bloc Québécois is contributing through its own bills and motions.

Should we keep the old department the way it was or divide it in two as suggested here? The division is not a solution in itself. Having more departments or fewer, or dividing departments will not settle any problem.

I have some experience. I will soon turn 50. In my younger years, I used to be very much interested in politics. I was proud to know by heart the make-up of cabinets in Quebec City and Ottawa. I thought that once I knew them, I would know them forever, and that it would never change.

Later on, when I was 15 or 16, I realized that it was not worth trying to remember the names of ministers and their departments, because they keep changing all the time when circumstances change and when mandarins feel like changing them.

I also know that this bill has been introduced because of problems in the management of this department. Would government management of the firearms registry have been better if there had been two registries instead of one? I doubt it. Splitting a department in two is neither good nor bad. What counts is the way it is done.

In Bill C-280, we suggest measures that are clearer, more simple, and more transparent for the public.

[Department of Human Resources and Skills Development Act, November 22nd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, in fact, what the Bloc's bill is proposing are simple things: equal and efficient structures.

I think that my colleague alluded to the contribution of unions and employers to the EI commission and fund. What we are proposing in this respect is something simple, efficient and transparent, as opposed to what we have now.

Take homelessness for example. With the Government of Canada, all we hear about are three-year temporary measures and the promise of arrangements with the provinces. Does the government have an integrated approach to fighting poverty? Does it take action to help the unemployed not give in to depression and stress because they are unable to put a roof over their heads or food on the table? That is pretty basic; it is called Maslow's hierarchy of needs. It is a basic need to have a roof over one's head and food on the table in order to live in dignity and be able to find a new job.

In the case of the homeless, the most disadvantaged in our society, three-year measures are promised but in fact, compared to what was proposed in the Speech from the Throne or what could be expected, assistance will be reduced. In Quebec, it is estimated—and I believe I am accurate in saying this—that this will represent a budget cut of $15 million, when some $100 million would be necessary to respond to the needs. This is in fact a reduction, compared to what was promised.

What we are proposing are clear and transparent political and administrative structures designed truly ...or those in need, long-term structures, and not acute structuritisor enormous structures that interfere with working in the best interests of people.

[Department of Human Resources and Skills Development Act, November 22nd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, we are wondering how the bill before us will really improve the fate of our fellow citizens and how it will translate into improvements in the field. In this case, some duties are divided. In other areas such as regional development, a new department is created when we already had the Economic Development Agency.

In preparation for my speech, I looked at some notes. I can tell you that the organization charts for the new Department of Human Resources and Skills Development we were given show some rather peculiar lines of authority between the Minister of Labour and Housing and the Minister of State (Human Resources Development). We think all that will not translate into operational efficiency.

We are wondering how this type of legislation will improve the fate of the unemployed, the homeless and workers.

This is why we, in the Bloc Québécois, do not support this bill which might create further encroachments and may not bring any new investment. As we know, the government has a $9.1 billion surplus. It might end up being even larger. Members do realize that one of the functions of the Minister of Labour and Housing, as defined by the bill, is housing.

As a matter of fact, as you know, today the popular front for urban redevelopment, FRAPRU, organized a demonstration asking for immediate investments. The Minister of Labour and Housing is also responsible for Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, which does not appear in the new department organization chart. It does not augur well, I think.

I will agree that organizing a state such as this very centralizing federal state, is not that easy. But we know that any system can be improved and that it creates its own encroachments and management problems. But we do not see how this improves clarity.

Boileau said, “An idea well conceived presents itself clearly, and words to express it come readily”.

That cannot be said of the background information on the new department. I will quote some of it and you will agree with me that Boileau would probably roll over in his grave if he read or was made aware of the new department mission.

HRSDC's vision is to build a country where everyone has the opportunity to learn and to contribute to Canada's success by participating fully in a well-functioning and efficient labour market. HRSDC's mission is to improve the standard of living and quality of life of all Canadians by promoting a highly skilled and mobile labour force and an efficient and inclusive labour market. This means the department has a central role in helping build a 21st century economy for Canada and in strengthening Canada's social foundations.

The department contributes to meeting its vision and mission by supporting human capital development, enhancing access to post-secondary education, supporting workplace skills development, and encouraging lifelong learning for Canadians.

This is terribly wordy, without necessarily having any connection with the needs of Canadians: a job, and also a social safety net if they lose that job, one that guarantees enough to live on. I do not see where this new creation improves the situation.

Taking the homeless as an example, we know that there was a measure to help them, SCPI, but it is getting to the end of its days. The throne speech included a promise of new housing, which does not meet the needs of the homeless. This national homelessness initiative, and its related programs, including SCPI, the supporting communities partnership initiative, are programs that require investments.

So, before structures, or superstructures, of agencies and departments are built, it is necessary to have sufficient resources for them. During the election campaign, the Liberals announced $1 billion to $1.5 billion—though it was unclear—over five or six years. This promise is mixed up with the measures relating to housing, including new housing creation and measures to help the homeless.

When we look at $1.5 billion, or one billion over six years, when the creation of new housing for families—affordable housing or social housing—and the SCPI is mixed in with resources for individuals and the creation of temporary shelters that the SCPI also supports, then we see that this will be a huge department, even after it has been split or reorganized, and that its actual resources will be limited. These resources are in great demand.

The government appears to be saying, “Why should we make it simple when we can make it complicated?” We say, “Why make it complicated when it could be simple?”

Thus, the need to have an independent employment insurance fund that is not just part of an enormous department where surpluses can get lost or misplaced has become painfully obvious in recent years. Now, accountability may be diminished and difficult to achieve.

In addition, we have been through this experiment with human resources in the past and I do not think it has fixed anything at all. It is like putting a poultice on a wooden leg.

In my humble opinion, I think that problems of efficiency and effectiveness cannot be corrected by this organization, whose ministerial accountability does not seem clear from its organization chart.

What the homeless need are human resources. What the housing sector needs, what the poorly housed families of Canada need, is resources. These resources should be transferred to the provinces and Quebec, which are better at delivering programs and providing solutions than are across the board federal departments or programs.

Therefore, this bill is a source of confusion and not a source of practical solutions for people. It may also be an intrusion into Quebec's jurisdiction. I do not believe it is the source of a better quality of life for Quebeckers or for Canadians in the rest of Canada.

[Housing, November 22nd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, intention is not enough, the government must take action.

Last week, the CMHC announced a $2.4 billion operating surplus. In order to give new hope to those who are directly affected by the massive cuts made in social housing since 1994, should the government not force the CMHC to now invest its surpluses in the construction of social housing?

[Housing, November 22nd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, since 1994, the Liberal government has not invested in the construction of social housing. Since 2001, it has merely invested in affordable housing. However, it does not meet the same needs and does not help the same people. Today, FRAPRU, the popular front for urban redevelopment, held a major rally and asked the federal government to take a new direction and invest in social housing.

Will the government change direction and invest massively in social housing to make up for the ill-advised decisions that it has made repeatedly, year after year, since 1994?