Debates of Oct. 6th, 1994

Social Program Reform

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[Diane Ablonczy, Reform, Calgary North, AB]

Until he is in opposition attacking the government I wonder if the minister would acknowledge that province after province has already spoken out against these proposals. The reason the minister cannot get co-operation from the provinces is because he is inflexible and unwilling to decentralize. Is this the minister's idea of co-operative federalism?

[Lloyd Axworthy, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development and Minister of Western Economic Diversification]

Mr. Speaker, the only reason I am so kind to the Reform Party is that I do not want to see it disappear, at least not this year.

What the hon. member said is not true. There have been several statements by provincial ministers and leaders saying that they are interested in a serious process of social reform, that they want to talk about real consultation, that they want to raise their issues.

I am not asking them to agree with everything that is in the paper, but it is very important that they all participate. I am encouraged to see that they are willing to participate, just as they were willing to co-operate this past summer. We have been able to negotiate and sign over seven specific new agreements with the provincial government to initiate innovative ideas on how to deliver social programs more effectively.

The best sign of co-operation is when there actually is an agreement to make something happen. That is what we are doing with the provinces.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the discussion paper published by the federal government shows a very clear intent to centralize. Ottawa wants to centralize increasingly the powers related to education, manpower training and income security, which, you will agree, are all areas under provincial jurisdiction. This intent will bring about, as we know, unproductive and harsh confrontation between Ottawa and the provincial governments.

My question is for the Prime Minister. How can he justify that while reducing its contribution to social program financing in Canada, Ottawa insists on imposing increasingly its views on the provinces by dictating national standards?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should have listened to what the minister said. He referred to a series of statements in this paper. It is clearly stated, on page 27, that we are committed to respect the Constitution. We are proposing, on page 40, a transfer of money and responsibility for manpower to provinces. We are proposing, on page 62, the possibility for provinces to opt out in relation to education and so on.

However, the members opposite are stuck in the rut of their doctrine. Besides, last week, the head of the government of Quebec, Mr. Parizeau, in answer to a journalist's question-and that is why the Opposition is taking this approach-stated, and I am sorry to quote him in English:

But I mean after all we are not there to have the system operate as smoothly as possible. We are there to get out of this system.

The people across the way accuse us of unwillingness to co-operate, but it is the separatist leader of Quebec who stated that they do not want to have anything to do with the federal government.

As for us, what we want to do with this reform is give to all Canadians and to the workers, including those of Quebec, the dignity that comes with a job. People are tired of hearing about separation and Constitution. What they want is jobs, dignity, training and education. And we will help them.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, need I remind the Prime Minister that not so long ago he called the unemployed in Quebec and Canada beer drinkers? We remember!

[Some hon. members]

Yes, we remember.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

We remember when he talked less compassionately about those who suffer because jobs are scarce and because his government does not care. We know and remember.

Does the Prime Minister not realize that his government's centralizing efforts will in fact lead to extremely costly duplication and overlap between the two levels of government and does he not realize that, for Quebecers, the only logical solution is that, to live in a satisfactory way, they must have their own policies, their own government, their own state and their own country?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for confirming what Mr. Parizeau said. They want the status quo, they do not want changes. They do not want the well-being of Canadians, they do not want them to regain their dignity by working. They have only one obsession, which is their petty constitutional fight for the separation of Quebec, but they do not even have the courage to say to Quebecers that they are separatists.

They invent words like "souverainiste", which is not even in the French dictionary. They sometimes use the word "indépendantiste", and the first time this word appeared in the dictionary, it said that it was a regional term meaning Quebec separatist.

[Garry Breitkreuz, Reform, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening very carefully to the answers that the human resources minister has been giving and the answer to every one is the same: Attack the questioner. I believe the minister is making a virtue of this consultation process as an excuse for inaction.

Will the minister of human resources tell us when we can expect legislation from this no action plan to be tabled in this House.

[Lloyd Axworthy, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development and Minister of Western Economic Diversification]

Mr. Speaker, I would not want to interfere with the hon. member's own particular form of self destruction by admitting in the House of Commons, the place of the people, the place where we are supposed to express the voice of Canadians that he has no interest in talking to Canadians, no interest in involving Canadians, no interest on behalf of the Reform Party in having any kind of discussion to allow Canadians to make decisions.

The when is now. We tabled the paper. Parliament began to debate it today. Everybody speaks on behalf of Canadians. Get up on your feet and debate for a change.

[Garry Breitkreuz, Reform, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, this answer absolutely proves what I have been saying: attack the questioner.

We have been discussing and consulting now for one year. Could the minister make a commitment today that he will not allow any factors to interfere with or delay in any way the much needed social policy reform that should be happening now, not a year or two from now?

[Lloyd Axworthy, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development and Minister of Western Economic Diversification]

Mr. Speaker, all members of the Reform Party produced after a year of discussion was a statement that said they were going to cut $15 billion from seniors' pensions, from children and from education. We do not want that kind of decision making process. That is why we want to go to the people of Canada. Let them be heard and let the committee and Parliament start right now.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[The Speaker]

I really do not mind being ignored from time to time, but I cannot even hear my colleagues any more.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development. With its discussion paper, Ottawa wants to justify its intervention in workforce training, and I quote: "The role of the federal government in helping people improve their skills derives from its general responsibility to foster better national economic performance-"

Are we to understand that the federal government definitely rejects the consensus reached by all stakeholders in Quebec and refuses to transfer the responsibility for manpower force training?

[Lloyd Axworthy, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development and Minister of Western Economic Diversification]

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member would read the book he would know that last spring the federal government had already tabled a new interim proposal on manpower training with every province that would provide the transfer of the purchase of training to the provinces. It would provide for the development of guichets uniques, single co-locations the provinces would initiate that would transfer several programs related to education under the management of the provinces and would have a joint planning priority wherein the provinces would have a direct role in the planning of federal programs in those provinces.

We said that was the first major step toward decentralizing the management of manpower training programs across the country. When we complete this reform and see more directly what the programs are then we can discuss further. It seems to me that is a positive first step toward giving the provinces more responsibility in the area of manpower training.

I would ask the hon. member whether he is prepared to support that or not.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, even the former Liberal Premier of Quebec, Daniel Johnson, refused this unacceptable offer.

Does the Prime Minister realize that his stubbornness will cost Quebec alone more than $500 million of wasted spending in the next two years and that the unemployed will continue to be the victims of the present mess the existence of which the federal government admits in its discussion paper?

[Lloyd Axworthy, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development and Minister of Western Economic Diversification]

Mr. Speaker, first the figure used by the hon. member has no bearing whatsoever. As members well know we have had major discussions with the previous Quebec government on how we could begin to undertake major programs.

For example, we had negotiated with the previous government four very important ways in which the federal government could support provincial initiatives by helping them with the APPORT program, helping them to support major programs for education of young people on social assistance and developing programs in which we could have co-locations.

We announced just two weeks ago the establishment of a major new women's resource centre in the constituency of his seatmate, which I think the hon. member sitting next to him applauded. We are showing that the federal government is flexible. We are showing a spirit of co-operation that has not been shown in the country in a long time.

All I would ask is one thing, that the hon. member go back and ask if the new Government of Quebec is prepared to co-operate with us.

[Jane Stewart, Liberal, Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.

I would like to ask about a divorced mother of two who recently wrote about how the system abandoned her when she tried to get off welfare. She complained the system is so backward that she had to quit her job in order to better provide for her family.

What assurances could the minister give this young woman that her concerns and the concerns of many other women like her will be taken into account in the reform of these social programs?

[Lloyd Axworthy, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development and Minister of Western Economic Diversification]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for a serious question.

In addition to the proposals that were contained in the green book dealing with major support for child care, a major attempt by my colleague to deal with the enforcement of child support orders and major new programs of employment enhancement, we have indicated in the green book that we are prepared to work with the provinces to free up many of the existing rules in the delivery of social assistance that provide penalties or disincentives for women on social assistance to go back to work.

One of the things I find sort of terrible and really obsolescent is that we confiscate close to 70 per cent of any earned income if a woman wants to go back to work; we figure we have to take back the benefits. As soon as the provinces reciprocate, we as a federal government are prepared to renegotiate the Canada Assistance Plan to make sure that particular condition will be changed and the woman the hon. member talked about can go to work.

[Dale Johnston, Reform, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, according to a document leaked to the Toronto Star the government has a hidden agenda as far as HRD is concerned.

Could the minister assure Canadians that he does not have a plan in his back pocket that would further tax away the hard earned income and savings of Canadians?

[Lloyd Axworthy, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development and Minister of Western Economic Diversification]

Mr. Speaker, there is no secret plan. There is no hidden agenda. We have put very clearly in the green book exactly what the fiscal parameters will be. We made very clear what we want Canadians to go through.

Furthermore I wish the hon. member would talk to his leader and other colleagues. They seem to be saying that they do not want any consultations. They want the government to impose a plan. We are saying quite the opposite. We want to give Canadians a right to consult with us and tell us what they think the priorities should be.

[Dale Johnston, Reform, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is just as I expected. Our questions go unanswered as usual. I wish the minister would actually come up with a plan whereby he could tell us yes or no, whether this implies there will be more tax for Canadians.

I ask the minister again: Would he tell us whether this means more tax implications for Canadians?

[Lloyd Axworthy, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources Development and Minister of Western Economic Diversification]

No.