André Caron

[Aboriginal Land Claims Commission, November 28th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak in support of the motion standing in the name of the hon. member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake.

The motion reads as follows: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of establishing a new, independent aboriginal land claims commission, as recommended in the 1994-95 annual report of the Indian Claims Commission.

Anyone who has followed the issue of aboriginal land claims in Canada for a number of years will realize it is a matter of astonishing complexity. The First Nations were here in Canada before European immigrants came to settle the land, as we used to say. The aboriginal peoples occupied certain lands. In the past 10, 15, 20 or 30 years they have started to realize certain rights to those lands still existed, and various First Nations started filing land claims.

It stands to reason that people living in often difficult social and economic circumstances should want to establish a land base where they can develop their potential, improve their situation and maintain their identity as a nation, as a people.

It is therefore entirely normal that the various First Nations should file these claims. Now it so happens that certain things have been accomplished, and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs told us a few moments ago that certain claims had been settled with First Nations. Claims are now being negotiated, and it is expected that a number of claims will be settled within the next few years.

However, it is a fact that the existing mechanism is not perfect. The process is very slow. Some very relevant questions are being asked about the impartiality of the system, because under the present system, various aboriginal peoples and communities file a claim, which is then examined by the appropriate federal authorities.

The federal government is almost in the situation of being a judge while, at the same time, having fiduciary responsibilities toward various native peoples. I think the government is, in a way, in a conflict of interest situation, where often, because of political imperatives, it cannot easily ensure quick claim resolution of claims, in my opinion.

Clearly, at this point, the process becomes blocked, despite the best intentions of the government, and I do not doubt them. But I imagine that if, as proposed by the member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, we could set up an independent native territorial claims commission, we could clarify the whole process. We could clarify it for all Canadians, and we could clarify it for the various first nations.

I think it is important to clarify the process not only for the native populations, but for the people of Canada. Since becoming more closely involved with native issues, because I sit on the House Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, I have been talking with my constituents in my riding and in my region. I realize that most people are sympathetic to the claims of native peoples, but are often critical because they consider the claims at times exaggerated and not in keeping with what they consider reality.

We often see maps in the paper, of either Quebec or Canada, depicting native territorial claims. If we superimpose a map of the land claims made by the various First Nations in Quebec on a map of the province, we can see that their claims cover almost all of Quebec.

I think that this is likely to cause many people to fear and be concerned about legitimate native demands, and even to reject them. People feel that their claims are out of all proportion to the populations involved.

The various native communities in Quebec may number 50,000, 60,000 or 65,000 people, depending on how you count them. People are asking how 60,000, 65,000 or even 80,000 natives can claim the Quebec territory and, in a way, challenge the rights of six or seven million Quebecers now living on this territory.

This is the kind of situation that could easily lead to prejudice developing. Just look at what is reported in the press and listen to open line programs. Aboriginal land claims are often opposed on the grounds that they are viewed as undue and unfounded.

I think that this situation ought to be resolved as quickly as possible. At the rate settlements are reached these days, according to the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development himself, I think that this issue is not about to disappear; it will remain hot and red for quite some time. If we take too long to resolve the situation, there is risk of a

rejection reaction on the part of non-natives in Canada. In addition, decisions might be made at the political level that do not fairly reflect the legitimate demands of aboriginal people.

It is important that the federal cabinet and the Liberal government fulfil the promises made in the red book in 1993, when they stated clearly that "the current process of resolving comprehensive and specific claims is simply not working. A Liberal government will implement major changes to the current approach. A Liberal government will be prepared to create, in co-operation with aboriginal peoples, an independent claims commission to speed up and facilitate the resolution of all claims". This is precisely what the hon. member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake and the Indians Claims Commission are asking for.

The federal government should act as quickly as possible for the good of all Canadians and for the good of the aboriginal nations that live on Canadian territory and have valid claims to parts of that territory.

Everyone agrees. Earlier, the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development said: "We will probably do it in the future. We do not know yet what will be the nature of the commission. However, I think we have been talking for two years under the present government, and previous governments have also dealt with these questions.

Therefore, in the interest of Quebecers, Canadians and all the different aboriginal nations, I think it is important that the government examines as quickly as possible the possibility and the urgency of creating a commission like that one so that at long last Canada and Quebec can solve the problem of aboriginal claims because it is vital for the native people. It is vital for them to keep their identity, which is to important. It is crucial to preserve the identity of a people. To preserve that identity, the territorial claims must be settled to that these people can have the necessary basis for their economic, cultural and social development.

[Bank Act, November 24th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies for his question.

It is obvious that politics has an impact on the economy. Indeed, I mentioned at the beginning of my speech that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance had partly justified the introduction of this bill by the government by putting it in the context of some sort of globalization.

He spoke of global issues to justify that the bill is written in such a way as to regulate or influence securities throughout Canada and to insure that Canada has a single voice among other nations with

regard to securities regulation, in order to avoid negative impacts from outside the country.

If we, in Quebec, are not careful, the arguments of globalization, of competitiveness, of the need for the economy to adapt to the global context will be presented every time that the government wants to make Canada stronger, more visible, more efficient and more aggressive at the international level, bacause to be strong, efficient and aggressive, we must speak with one voice.

Faced with this reality, Canada wants to speak with one single voice. However, Canada forgets that there is a major voice in Canada, albeit a minority voice, as my colleague has remarked; there is Quebec's voice, which has represented a nation, a people, since the beginning of the Canadian Confederation. This voice has always made itself heard. Today, considering the globalization of economies and the fact that Quebec feels somewhat threatened by this globalization from the economic viewpoint, and not only from the viewpoint of its culture and its language, the economic argument becomes an important one for nationalists in Quebec.

In the past, we wanted to achieve sovereignty in order to maintain our language and our culture. That is fine, and that is still the most important reason, at least as far as I am concerned. However, in the last ten years or so, we have come to realize that the economic argument is gaining increasing importance. Quebecers realize that they too must speak with one single voice if they want their people, their nation, to continue developing in a global context.

I agree with the representatives of Canadian federalism that, in the global context, we must speak out loud and clear, with a single voice, and that timing is a major consideration. It is also one of the reasons why sovereignists in Quebec have been saying for many years that sovereignty should not be achieved only to preserve our language and our culture, but also to give Quebec the economic health and vitality it needs to maintain its place in the international community.

I thank my colleague for his question. It allows me to demonstrate, although I recognize the merit of our federalist colleagues' arguments from a Canadian viewpoint, that the sovereignists' arguments are also of an economic nature. I hope that some day, in a newly defined partnership with Canada, we will be able to accommodate both sides so that both Canada and Quebec can get what they want economically as well as play a leading role in the world economy.

[Bank Act, November 24th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in this House as a member of the Bloc Quebecois to address Bill C-100, an act to amend, enact and repeal certain laws relating to financial institutions.

I listened closely to the previous speakers' speeches, especially that of the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance, who explained a number of guidelines followed by the government in the drafting of this bill.

First of all, he told us that the purpose of the government was to regulate in the best possible way certain aspects of the financial system in Canada, certain financial institutions, so that Canadians who put their trust in these financial institutions and deposit money in them will not have their trust betrayed because of a shortcoming in the regulations or abuses from the financial institutions themselves.

Seen from this angle, any Canadian or Quebecer would think that the federal government is fully justified in introducing the bill now before us.

The parliamentary secretary also mentioned global issues, changes in the global financial system, new technologies, the diversification of financial needs, competitiveness, everything that makes up globalization. He told us Canada must act to make sure that our financial system will react adequately if financial institutions have problems that could put at risk the money deposited by Canadians and Quebecers.

Seen from this angle, one would think that all is well, that the government must indeed take action. Later on, I listened to the official opposition financial critic, my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, who stressed other aspects of the issue. He said that, yes, the government was justified in taking some measures but that, while doing so, it must respect the provinces' jurisdictions. I would say that the hon. member clearly underlined different aspects of the bill which infringe upon the jurisdiction of provinces such as Quebec.

During his speech, I was looking at government members and thinking that they were elected to the House of Commons to represent their constituents. In a sense, they are forced to listen to arguments which tend to become repetitive, because, no matter what bill is being debated in the House, the official opposition will criticize it in terms of federal and provincial jurisdictions. Of course, it can be tiring for hon. members, who are elected to represent their constituents honestly, to see all their bills come under attack from a particular angle by Bloc members.

I understand that, but they must also recognize the position of a member from Quebec. I was reading a letter sent by Mr. Johnson, the former Quebec premier, to a federal minister concerning the bill, in which he was generally using the arguments presented by the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot. In other words, he was arguing that Quebec's jurisdiction should be respected. So it is not just a sovereignist member's point of view that has been put forward, but the point of view of a member from Quebec who wants to represent his constituents well, as is proper under the constitutional traditions of Quebec.

Once again, at the risk of displeasing some colleagues, I will tell you why a piece of legislation like this one, which at first glance appears fully appropriate and normal under the circumstances, is questionable.

It is questionable, first of all, from the standpoint of the Constitution. It is all very clear in the Canadian Constitution that private property and the Civil Code are under the Quebec government's jurisdiction. It is clear and it is there for all to read. This means that any laws or moves the federal government makes to regulate to some extent private property or items covered by the Civil Code are, in and of themselves, unconstitutional. It is with some hesitation that I use the word "unconstitutional" because it is a fairly strong word, but the fact remains that those laws or moves are intrusions by the federal government into another level of government's jurisdiction.

The Quebec government is not alone in saying this, as we saw last summer, when the chairman of the Ontario Securities Commission made the same argument, saying that the draft legislation put forward at the time-it was being considered by the committee-flew in the face of provincial jurisdiction over securities regulation.

Of course, when the representative of the Ontario Securities Commission showed up before the committee which was examining this bill last summer, he had changed his mind and said: "Look, maybe it is important that the federal government legislates in this area". At that time, we were about to embark upon a referendum campaign and the people of Canada who sincerely believed that Canada should not be divided and should remain united after a referendum were sticking together. That is why he changed his tune a little bit.

But you have to understand that, at the outset, he had examined his powers and the provincial jurisdiction and had noticed that this bill would infringe upon this area of provincial jurisdiction.

This all goes to explain why this is the first concern of hon. members from Quebec-and I am not only talking about sovereignist members of Parliament-when they examine a bill. Of course it may not cross the mind of the members from the Yukon, from British-Columbia or from Ontario when they examine a federal bill. But it is a reflex that we, the politicians of Quebec, have developed over many decades. We have done so since Confederation, under the governments of Duplessis, Lesage, Lévesque, and the Johnsons, both father and sons. The elected representatives of the people of Quebec have always been especial-

ly careful to remind the federal government that it must respect the various areas of jurisdiction.

Again today, the elected representatives of the people of Quebec, as the official opposition, want to remind everyone of this basic rule of the Canadian federal system, which is the existence of various levels of government, with different areas of jurisdiction under the Constitution that ought to be respected.

On the very face of it, this bill does not respect the Quebec government's power to exercize jurisdiction over securities, because securities are private property. If private property and the Civil Code come under provincial jurisdiction, then securities also fall under provincial jurisdiction.

What is the purpose of Bill C-100? It grants the Bank of Canada jurisdiction over securities clearing houses, which, as I amply demonstrated-I believe-at the beginning of my speech, are already regulated by the provinces. The bill gives the federal government powers which go beyond its jurisdiction under the Canadian Constitution.

It even goes as far as giving a power to issue directives to clearing houses and their participants. Therefore, for a Quebec representative, this is not right, this is unacceptable. That is why we are condemning it.

The second aspect mentioned by my colleague had to do with the whole issue of so-called systemic effects. This referes to a situation where a financial institution that is in difficulty because it is unable to meet certain obligations would endanger another institution, creating a kind of domino effect where a weaker financial institution can doom other financial institutions perhaps better administered or more prosperous. A schedule was added to this bill for the purpose of controlling this phenomenon.

It is clear that, in the context of globalization, governments must closely monitor such phenomena. We read from time to time in the newspapers that the problems of a bank in Hong Kong can affect another bank in England, which happens to have interests in Canada. This situation can in turn create problems for that bank's branches and institutions in Canada and in Quebec. I understand that those things have to be regulated.

But under the pretext of having to regulate such situations, Bill C-100 encroaches once more on provincial jurisdictions, in areas which are presently regulated by the Commission des valeurs mobilières du Québec. This agency has opposed passing of the bill in its present form precisely because it saw that the federal government, mainly through the Bank of Canada, was encroaching upon the mandate it received from the Government of Quebec.

Indeed, the schedule of the bill dealing with clearing and winding up empowers the Bank of Canada to issue directives to clearing houses and participant institutions, without regard for the charter of the institution. As we know, some institutions have federal charters. We can understand that the federal government must regulate such institutions, but there are also institutions with provincial charters. Quebec has many. There are ten trust companies, 25 personal insurance companies, 60 damage insurance companies and 1 300 credit unions with a provincial charter in Quebec. That is a lot.

It is a lot and credit unions are a special concern to Quebecers. You are all familiar with the success of the caisses populaires Desjardins in Quebec. They gave Quebecers from humble backgrounds the opportunity to found institutions based on co-op principles, so that there are now 1,300 caisses populaires throughout Quebec. These institutions were built in parishes and villages and really represent a major achievement for Quebecers.

We can see that, through this bill, the federal government is giving itself some powers over these provincially chartered institutions. We are against this.

We are not against the fact that we must protect ourselves against systemic risk that an institution could endanger another at some point. We disagree, however, with the federal government's approach. Instead, the government should have fine-tuned the large value transfer system, as a group of international experts, the Group of Thirty, proposed in 1989. The Governor of the Bank of Canada admitted as much last summer when questioned on the issue of systemic risk in the financial sector.

Of course, by the time he appeared before the finance committee last summer, the Governor of the Bank of Canada had changed his tune, as did the Chairman of the Ontario Securities Commission.

We think that he changed his tune for political reasons. That is not surprising. I can appreciate that, given the situation last summer before the Quebec referendum, those who believe in federalism and want to maintain this system in Canada may have agreed to certain things and qualified their previous proposals or statements so as to avoid embarrassing the federal government.

But the fact remains that, had the proposal to improve the large value transfer system by streamlining it been approved by the federal government, the government would not have felt compelled to give itself powers that I would describe as outrageous over Quebec financial institutions that are well managed.

Not one single financial institution in Quebec has declared bankruptcy in the last ten years. Some insurance companies have merged in the interest of their shareholders and policyholders, but there has not been any bank failure among Quebec credit unions, trust companies or major insurance companies in over ten years.

Of course, there have been problems in Canada. There have been problems in Western Canada and the government had to intervene. It think its probably did what was best for the people of Canada and Quebec at the time, but, just the same, the federal government cannot justify invading one of Quebec's areas of jurisdiction by saying that, over the past ten or twenty years, Quebec has not been taking its responsibilities with respect to regulating the securities industry or financial institutions.

Again, this is seen by members from Quebec as typical of the kind of insensitivity Canada has displayed toward what could be called Quebec's unique view of federalism.

When I spoke in this House yesterday on Bill C-96, establishing the Department of Human Resources Development, I put forward the same arguments. It is all fine and well for the Minister of Human Resources Development to ensure that the moneys spent for communities and individuals in Canada are spent as efficiently as possible. But this is one more intrusion-let us say it as it is, a federal intrusion-in areas of provincial jurisdiction: occupational training, manpower, and so on.

Today, the Bloc Quebecois would like to once more condemn the federal government's approach in regulating financial institutions. Rest assured that, in committee, our members will do their utmost to ensure that these clauses, which obviously are not in keeping with a harmonious federal system, are deleted from the bill.

[Bronfman Foundation, November 24th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the minister is not answering my question. We are not talking about product quality, but, rather, the fact that it cost $5 million when it was supposed to cost $1 million.

As my supplemental, I would like to know whether the minister's sudden generosity was intended as an unobtrusive injection of several million dollars worth of propaganda on the eve of the recent referendum campaign?

[Committee Chaired By Minister Of Intergovernmental Affairs, November 24th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, can the minister at least confirm to us that one of the hypotheses selected by the phoney committee regarding administrative decentralization is based on the principle set out by Pierre Elliott Trudeau two weeks ago, namely that no decentralization toward the provinces is possible without an equivalent transfer to the federal level, which would mean increased centralization of economic powers at Ottawa?

[Committee Chaired By Minister Of Intergovernmental Affairs, November 24th, 1995]

So, Mr. Speaker, we can say we are protecting the interests of our constituents when we ask questions of the government in order to discover its intentions toward Quebec.

What they want to know, precisely, is the federal government's intentions with respect to commitments it made less than a month ago, in the last days of the referendum campaign. It is obvious that the deliberations and recommendations of the phoney committee are a well kept secret.

Can the minister at least tell us whether, in the interim report transmitted to the Prime Minister, the option of a simple House of Commons resolution on the distinct society is the one favoured by that phoney committee?

[Department Of Human Resources Development Act, November 23rd, 1995]

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.

[Department Of Human Resources Development Act, November 10th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate on Bill C-96, to restructure the Department of Human Resources Development. I have been following the debate with interest ever since the minister made his presentation yesterday. I listened to the minister and his parliamentary secretary. I also listened to some speeches made by government members and the various questions that were asked, including the one put by our colleague from Parkdale-High Park.

I draw from all of this a vision of Canada. I am not one to impugn motives right off the bat. I noticed that speeches were high quality, and a number of general principles have emerged. Of course, other remarks, and those made by the previous speaker are perhaps an example of this, remind us that mediocrity is to be found everywhere, even in the House of Commons.

I would like to look back over the debate, because, as I listened, I could perceive two visions: the standard Liberal vision and the Bloc Quebecois vision. I will not deal with what my hon. colleagues from the Reform Party said, but I think that basic issues were raised by the Liberals that need to be pointed out and set in the context of this debate.

Basically, we are looking at the same mountain, except from different points of view. I think that the Minister of Human Resources Development was sincere in his presentation. What did this presentation contain? First, he described a vision of Canada, along with the federal government's responsibilities according to that vision.

I understood the minister to say that the federal government feels it has responsibilities regarding the development of human resources everywhere in Canada. That sector includes issues related to manpower, employment, education, daycare and, in fact, any-

thing that directly concerns individuals, such as their families, their training, their education and their children.

The minister told us that this bill merely seeks to provide a legislative framework for what is already being done in Canada, partly through the federal government's spending power, but also under the laws passed by this Parliament. I have seen, in my riding, some initiatives taken by the Department of Human Resources Development. I must say that, before coming here, I was not very familiar with the Canadian realities related to that department. I knew that there was an employment centre. I also knew that the federal government was involved in various ways, and I saw it take action.

I have no criticism of the way department officials take action. They implement the programs. They do so with the best of intentions and they also try to do it efficiently. Just think of programs such as Article 25, the employability development program, and also programs such as the youth service, or the access to work program for women, which is designed to help women who do not get UI or welfare benefits find work.

These programs reflect good intentions, as well as a clear desire to do the utmost. Through its initiatives, the department seeks to reach out to people in their everyday lives. It reaches out to individuals and community groups, and it signs agreements with municipalities. All this is currently taking place. It is being done and the bill before us seeks to provide a legislative framework for all these initiatives.

Clause 6 clearly states that the minister's powers apply anywhere in Canada. It says:

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-

That provision is extremely wide in scope. As for clause 20, it provides that:

-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.

In other words, given the provisions of this bill, the minister may enter into agreements with anyone, so as to get involved in the education, manpower and employment sectors.

If we lived in a unitarian state, that might be a solution. Although Canada is a very big country, it has a rather large population and it could be said that, because of regional characteristics, it may be good to have some degree of decentralization so that local needs are taken into account by the minister.

But we are not in a unitarian country although a number of constitutional experts, considering the evolution of Canada, are not willing to say that we are in a federation, let alone in a confederation. But, in a federation, there are various levels of government and, ordinarily, these levels of government are sovereign in their jurisdiction. Canada is made up of provinces which, if we take a look at the Constitution, are supposed to have jurisdiction over education, training, over all the areas that have to do with Canadians as individuals, the federal government having kept, in 1867, jurisdiction over external trade, defence and the economy in general.

If we examine the bill and the objectives of the bill, we realize that this legislation which is now before Parliament will give a federal minister the right to interfere in areas under provincial jurisdiction. It is shocking. People of my race have found this shocking for years-and I use the word race in the sense of nation, as Mr. Duplessis did, since, moments ago, the member for Carleton-Gloucester reminded us of Maurice Duplessis. My people have always been shocked by these ways of doing things.

For us, it is not only a question of what we could call a constitutional orthodoxy, according to which the federal government should have no say in provincial jurisdictions, but there is also an element of efficiency because in Quebec-other provinces may do what they want in this regard-there has been a large consensus for years now. My colleagues talked about it, especially the hon. member for Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, who raises the issue every time he has the floor. That consensus is that, for reason of efficiency, all the issues of professional training, manpower and employment must be Quebec's exclusive jurisdiction.

I think that is self evident. I do not want to repeat what has already been said by other Bloc speakers, but nonetheless, I want to relate a personal experience. A few years ago, I was a career counsellor in the professional training centre in Jonquière, which is the biggest training centre in the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean region. At the time, we provided training in many areas: mechanics, plumbing, electricity, and so on. Every year we trained a group of students in industrial mechanics.

At one point, a study had concluded that industrial mechanics was a trade with a future.

What happened? Our school board kept offering a course in industrial mechanics to a group of about 20 students. The Government of Quebec, willing to provide training to social assistance recipients, commissioned the school board to train people in industrial mechanics-which made two groups-and the federal government also commissioned the school board to train two other groups in industrial mechanics.

Whereas every year we used to have one group of students in industrial mechanics, that year we had four groups. The school board, the Government of Quebec and the federal government did not consult with each other, everybody being busy with their own little policies.

What happened? At the end of the year, instead of 20 people applying for a job, they were about 80. As a result, most of them did not find a job, which killed the industrial mechanics option in the area for several years.

It is sad to see that people genuinely wanting to go back to the labour market were offered training for what was basically a dead end trade, not because studies promising jobs in that field were badly done, but because there had not been any consultation between the federal and provincial governments and the school board. That is what we want to avoid in Quebec.

In Quebec, we want to have a full employment policy, the same type of policy they have in Austria, in some Scandinavian countries or even in Germany. Those full employment policies usually produce unemployment rates of about 6 or 7 per cent, instead of the 12 or 13 per cent rates we have in Quebec and instead of the 15 or 16 per cent rates we have in my area, Jonquière, or in the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean area.

That is what we want to do, but to do so, we need tools. We need co-ordination, but with the present practices in Canada, there is no co-ordination.

This is why everyone in Quebec, whether the Quebec Liberal Party, the Conseil du patronat du Québec, or central labour bodies-with the exception of the provincial wing of the Liberal Party of Canada-is calling for the return of powers regarding manpower training and employment policies to Quebec so that the province can set policies to ensure that people will get useful training, taking the present job market into consideration, and will not be the victims of jurisdictional disputes or arguments between public servants.

For four or five years now, the Government of Quebec, whether Liberal or Parti Quebecois, all governments of Quebec have been calling for training to be made the responsibility of the government of Quebec.

And what do we see this morning in the House? Bill C-96, which says exactly the opposite, which says that the co-ordination will not be done by the Government of Quebec. This bill tells us that the minister will be entitled, for each community, municipality or province, as he wishes, to present programs, to suggest actions to community groups in order for them to create jobs or to propose the hiring of trainees to employers.

This maintains the present policy, which is not effective. Despite all the good will, despite the relative success of some federal or provincial programs, we realize that we do not have the expected results when we take into account all the money invested and all the skills called up in both the federal and provincial public services.

Why is that? It is not due to ill will or lack of skill; it is simply a matter of organization. Things are poorly organized, and in order to properly organize manpower training, to properly organize employment policies, there must be only one decision maker.

In Quebec, past and present governments, Liberal and PQ alike, unions and business owners' associations, everybody says unanimously that, considering the circumstances, considering the history, considering the needs, considering what is in place right now, it is the Government of Quebec that should have the responsibility for co-ordinating all these policies so that we can one day train our people properly and have a full employment policy that makes sense.

The bill before us means exactly the opposite. This bill says no. The consensus in Quebec is totally useless because a minister in Ottawa, the Minister of Human Resources Development, will have the power to develop programs and enter into agreements with provinces, municipalities, community groups, and individuals, implementing these programs in order to help Canadians get better training and better jobs.

By saying "to develop programs", we are referring to money, because, in the end, it is always a matter of money. In fact, there is always a relation between any given program and the funds allocated to it by the Minister of Finance. So, a proposal is being made to Canadians, even in my riding, where people voted-one mentioned that the sovereignists were defeated in the referendum, but it fact they received almost 50 per cent, or 49.4 per cent. In my riding, however, it was 71 per cent for Quebec's sovereignty. You cannot ignore 71 per cent of the population. My riding came third in Quebec, after the riding of my colleague for Charlevoix and the riding of my leader, the Leader of the Opposition. This is no mean feat.

In a sovereignist region like ours, people are still getting involved in the process, so they keep asking Quebec to fund certain programs and they request funding under some federal government programs. People know perfectly well that something must be done, in Quebec and Canada, as far as training and employment are concerned.

People are not as partisan as some others, and in any case-I am not sure this is parliamentary-people are not against the federal government's involvement, even though they may have very deep-rooted sovereignist convictions. People are concerned and ask themselves: Will there be someone, one day, to make a decision and give us employment policies which are worthwhile?

We do not see any hopeful sign coming from the government side. We do not see any in the area of manpower and, as we have

seen this week during Question Period, we do not see any hopeful sign either in the area of constitutional reform.

I have the distinct impression that eventually, when the question is asked next time, people are going to give the answer that the Quebec sovereignist movement has been waiting for for so long. Why? In order to have effective policies and a state which is efficiently managed, so that its citizens get their money's worth. Taxpayers want effective programs. It is not by stepping on each others toes, as we are doing now, that we will get valid manpower and employment policies.

I hope that the House will support the motion from my colleague from Mercier and that this bill will be sent into oblivion as quickly as possible.

[Department Of Human Resources Development Act, November 9th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the member for Outremont and I am torn between disbelief and admiration. I say disbelief because, in spite of what the situation in Canada's manpower and employment sector, the member for Outremont keeps referring to a slew of federal and Liberal policies which, in the last two years, have obviously not given any results.

He told us about the role of the federal government regarding employment development in Quebec and in Canada. He said that this is important, that great things are happening. However, when we look at the statistics on unemployment, we see a situation quite different from the picture painted by the hon. member.

I say disbelief because I cannot understand how a member, who claims to be well aware of the situation of workers and of the plight of the unemployed and the welfare recipients in Quebec and in Canada, can seriously discuss federal policies and try to convince us that everything is fine, that there are no problems, that we simply must let the Minister of Human Resources Development go on with his good work. This is why I used the word disbelief.

My disbelief is also mixed with admiration. The hon. member talked about great principles. He told us about how we must work together, grow together, co-operate, be partners, and do our share to promote Canada's development.

In a way, I admire the hon. member, who may well become a minister some day. Indeed, his speech was an almost flawless performance in that it reflected the Liberal philosophy heard for at least 20 or 25 years, a philosophy which expresses something that no one recognizes in Canada. We are presented with a picture of

Canada that no one recognizes. And no one recognizes it because it obviously has nothing to do with reality.

Regarding the bill's provision on manpower training, we note that, for the last four or five years, since 1991 or so, everyone in Quebec has been asking that manpower adjustment and manpower training become the responsibility of the province. I say everyone, but I should be a little more specific and provide some names, since the hon. member may not have followed the developments in the newspapers and may not have heard the views expressed.

First, there was Mr. Bourbeau, then Quebec's Liberal minister of Labour; he was followed by Mr. Johnson and Mr. Ryan. Now, it is the PQ government. All of them asked that Quebec be given full responsibility for manpower. Mr. Dufour, president of Quebec's Conseil du patronat, made the same request. And so did, just this week, Mr. Gérald Ponton, president of Quebec's Association des manufacturiers.

I ask the hon. member: How does he explain the fact that everyone in Quebec, except for the provincial caucus of the Liberal Party of Canada, is asking that manpower training be made Quebec's responsibility? Why is it that he and the minister do not see that this is what Quebecers are asking for? Why is it that his government will not comply with that request in the bill before us today?

[Auditor General For The Family Act, November 8th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak to the bill standing in the name of the hon. member for Fraser Valley East and entitled, an act respecting the office of the Auditor General for the Family. The hon. member made an excellent presentation and explained very clearly his reasons for proposing this legislation.

The purpose of this bill, after a preamble that stresses the importance of the nuclear family and states that Canada should encourage, support and protect it, is basically to appoint an Auditor General for the Family who would examine federal policies and make recommendations to ensure that the federal government encourages the development of the nuclear family.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources Development made it very clear that this bill is well intentioned. No one in this House wants to diminish the role of the family in our society, and everyone wants children to have a family in which they can develop their potential. The bill would, however, create a number of problems.

First, there is the definition of family. The bill refers to the nuclear family, the traditional family that is still very important. This is the family where there is a father, mother and children. However, for the past 20 or 30 years at least, we have seen changes in the family structure in Canada and Quebec.

We see families with only a father, or only a mother. We see families made up of individuals who previously belonged to other families. If we adopt the bill as presented by the hon. member for Fraser Valley East, this would mean ignoring a number of families that play just as important a role in bringing up their children as the nuclear family. These families would, to a certain extent, be discriminated against or overlooked.

My colleague, the member for Fraser Valley East, said this would not preclude steps being taken to foster the development of other kinds of families, but the fact remains that if we take the trouble to appoint an Auditor General for the Family who will be dedicated to the well-being of nuclear families, as it says in the bill, we are excluding a certain number of families. As many as 20 per cent of the families in this country do not correspond to the description of a nuclear family.

Yet it is in these families that children are often likely to need special programs. Not because their families are less competent than other families, but because the responsibilities of a single father or a single mother are tremendous. I think there is a case here

for government support. We see no indication in the bill of how these families would be helped by adopting this legislation.

The real problem, and the hon. member made this very clear, is the children. We want children to develop in a satisfactory family environment. I think that a satisfactory family environment, at least for many people like me, in the Bloc Quebecois, is first of all an environment in which there are sufficient resources to provide for the children's development, to clothe them, feed them and educate them. That is the kind of family environment in which a child has a chance to develop its potential.

I think that any steps we would want the Canadian government to take should be based on fighting poverty and maintaining social programs, if we want to support children who live in a family environment. It is vital to be clear on the problem: child poverty and family poverty cause young people to have health, social development and education problems. Therefore, I do not think the bill before us, despite the hon. member's good intentions, will contribute to improving the quality of children's lives in Canadian families.

Another problem I notice in reading the bill-and I apologize, Madam Speaker, perhaps many members in this House have heard this argument, these remarks, too often for their liking-but are again looking at a jurisdictional conflict between the provincial and federal governments.

In my opinion and in the opinion of many of the Bloc members, matters to do with family, marriage and families' private lives are more matters of provincial jurisdiction. So, once again, there would be a degree of conflict between an organization, an office of the auditor general, at the federal level and provincial institutions. Some provinces have family secretariats.

So again, we have not progressed from the stage where the federal and provincial governments often take contradictory or parallel measures, to the detriment of families and children needing care and support.

Even my colleague from the government said in his speech that daycare services should be set up. This would perhaps be more important at that point for the well-being of children living in a family setting. Daycare services, however, come under provincial jurisdiction. So we face the same dilemma, we are in stuck in this situation. I think there comes a time to put a stop to it.

Finally, and my colleague for Fraser Valley East mentioned it as well, there is the matter of taxation, a problem that can be detrimental to family life. Every year, in Quebec, as in Canada, there are reports and studies which tend to demonstrate that people with families are disadvantaged from the taxation point of view.

This leads us to again bring up the question of tax reform in Canada. Every year we hear the Minister of Finance, people from the health department and human resources development, government members saying that, yes, we will have to address the taxation issue in order to help families and to ensure greater equity, greater fiscal justice, in Canada. Good intentions still and again, but we have seen nothing concrete in the two years that we in the Bloc have been here.

We will vote against a measure such as this. The first reason, as I said at the start, is that it is aimed at the nuclear family and we believe, in light of recent changes-in the past ten, fifteen, twenty years in Canada we have seen major changes-we must not give preference to the nuclear family, despite all of its merits over the centuries, which it continues to have.

Second, this is an area where overlap with provincial jurisdictions is such that, in the long run, it would only fuel further argumentation and might cancel out certain pro-family clauses in provincial legislation.

Let me state once again that I am very much aware of the good intentions of the hon. member for Fraser Valley East. However, for the reasons I have just set out in my address, I personally, and the members of the Bloc Quebecois, will oppose such a measure.