Debates of Oct. 7th, 1994

Breast Cancer

[Jan Brown, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to challenge the medical community to assume a more aggressive approach to breast cancer research.

Women are asking why it is taking so long to answer questions about breast cancer. No one even really knows what causes it.

The cancer establishment continues to focus on basic research, treatment and diagnosis. We should be exploring further than that: toxins in the environment and their effects, the relationship between smoking and breast cancer.

I know what it is to feel the abject terror of a potential breast malignancy. There is nothing lonelier or more fearful and there is not anyone who can remove that fear.

We need to consider this statistic: one in nine women will get breast cancer. Look around this Chamber, that means six of us here.

October is Breast Cancer Awareness Month. It is time to refocus our energies and find a cure.

Multiculturalism

[Rey D. Pagtakhan, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow marks the 23rd anniversary of a visionary policy that recognizes the cultural diversity of Canada and ensures the cultural freedom of all Canadians.

Former Prime Minister Trudeau said in this House: "There cannot be one cultural policy for Canadians of British and French origin, another for the original peoples and yet a third for all others".

Designed to integrate and not assimilate all Canadians in every facet of Canadian life, the policy of multiculturalism has become the envy of countries around the world struggling to integrate minorities into the mainstream of their societies.

Today multiculturalism continues to contribute to a shared sense of Canadian identity and societal cohesion.

Let us reaffirm through this policy our commitment to managing the diversity within our society to the benefit of Canada as a whole, that it may remain a united, strong and prosperous country.

Business Development Corporations

[Andy Mitchell, Liberal, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to bring to the attention of Canadians the importance of business development corporations. At the same moment that we are looking at a wide ranging revision of our programming through human resources development it is important that we recognize programs that work well.

Since 1981 over 200 BDCs have been providing loans to small businesses. In Ontario 55 BDCs have granted over $115 million in loans to almost 5,000 businesses. Companies exist today which otherwise would not.

The job creation impact has been impressive. In Ontario the program has created 10,926 jobs at an average cost of only $6,200. Even more impressive is the realization that the corporations make loans which have been turned down by traditional lenders and that in 93 per cent of the cases the advances are repaid in an orderly fashion.

BDCs are a success story of small business support and job creation. They deserve continued support.

Aids

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

Mr. Speaker, AIDS is now an unavoidable reality in Quebec and Canadian society. It is more than ten years since the first AIDS case was diagnosed in Montreal. The AIDS epidemic is far from abating

and it is now reaching population groups that so far were thought to be safe from it.

Unfortunately, no effective remedy to relieve the people affected exists yet. Only prevention can stop the virus from spreading. A public inquiry revealed that less than a third of high school students said that they used a condom the first time they had sex. These facts clearly show that governments must support community organizations which, better than anyone else, reach people where they live. In closing, I want to thank all the community organizations for the support that they give affected people.

Social Policy

[Jim Silye, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the House the Minister of Human Resources Development gave a speech on social programs. In that speech he outlined the type of attitude he felt would be needed in examining Canada's social programs, the need for co-operation, earnest debate, the free exchange of ideas and, most important, the need to refrain from deliberate, partisan cheap shots.

No sooner did he get those words out of his mouth than he proceeded to deliver a cheap shot of his own by repeating the ludicrous charge that the Reform Party would cut $15 billion out of social programs. This is rubbish, old style politics and he knows it. It is the Liberal government that is facing $15 billion in cuts out of total program spending if it is to meet its meagre deficit targets.

Canadians deserve better than this type of irresponsible scare mongering. Preying on the fears of the needy is no way to garner the respect of the people of this country.

When it comes to partisan cheap shots the do as I say, not as I do attitude is totally unacceptable. The minister should reread his speech and follow his own advice.

Bloc Quebecois

[Robert Bertrand, Liberal, Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on October 2, the Montreal daily La Presse published an article entitled ``Le Bloc lance ses troupes à la chasse au vote souverainiste sans attendre'' (the Bloc decides to go after sovereignist vote now).

In it, we learn that the official opposition whip is exhorting the separatists to infiltrate local community service centres, school boards, municipal governments and any other organization or body controlled by so-called federalists.

The message is clear-the Bloc cares not a whit about the administration of government and the quality of services delivered to the public. The Bloc is now pushing an out-and-out sovereignist propaganda campaign. This will rapidly turn into a exercise in demagoguery that can only destroy the country.

Social Policy Reform

[George Proud, Liberal, Hillsborough, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I stand today to commend the Minister of Human Resources Development on his discussion paper on social policy reform.

We made a promise last fall that there would be a different way of doing things in Ottawa. This week we proved that. The road to social policy reform will be navigated by the entire country, not just by politicians and bureaucrats in Ottawa. This government, unlike the previous one, is not interested in fighting the deficit on the backs of the poor and the unemployed. Nor are we interested in the system collapsing and serving nobody. By working with all Canadians we can deliver what we promised, a vibrant and prosperous economy in a country in which the need for social programs will decline.

Employment

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as of September 28 the government's infrastructure program claims to have created 71,000 jobs. Even if that were true, these jobs are only short term. By its own admission with the total expenditure of $4.5 billion just 10 per cent of these jobs are permanent. It comes as no surprise on this side of the House that some provinces have received no long term jobs at all.

B.C., Prince Edward Island, Yukon and First Nations people have none. Saskatchewan, though, has six long term jobs and, hurray, Manitoba gets three. The most obvious fact is even less of a surprise; the lion's share, 73 per cent of the long term jobs, has been created in one province alone. Which province could that be? Of course, that province is the minister's own.

The infrastructure score is Ontario, 5,140; British Columbia, zero. The taxpayer, as usual, loses the entire political shell game by $4.5 billion.

International Trade

[Ronald J. Duhamel, Liberal, St. Boniface, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister of Canada will soon undertake an important trade mission to Asia with his provincial counterparts to try to find new markets for Canadian services and products.

The objective is to find new markets. In line with the decision taken last December, the Prime Minister was to go to Asia with his provincial and territorial counterparts. Until recently, all the premiers were to accompany him with one exception: the premier of Quebec is still refusing to be a part of Team Canada.

Contrary to the explanations of the leader of the Bloc Quebecois that Mr. Parizeau has more pressing obligations, we have just learned that the Quebec premier will in fact be taking a holiday at that time. Instead of representing Quebec on Team Canada, he will apparently be on vacation. Imagine! This is shameful!

[English]

St. Andrews

[Harold Culbert, Liberal, Carleton—Charlotte, NB]

Mr. Speaker, this past Monday the town of St. Andrews, New Brunswick launched its daffodil project by planting several thousand bulbs. This project is being carried out for two major reasons: for the beautification of the town and to complement the already thriving tourist industry in that area.

These are the types of initiatives that assist in moving our tourism industries forward. I would like to congratulate the town of St. Andrews and its citizens on this worthy project. Not only did the community participate in its own program, but the town was also kind enough to provide daffodil bulbs for planting here on Parliament Hill.

I am sure that next April when they bloom we will all recall this donation from St. Andrews by the Sea.

Social Program Reform

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

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

The centralizing offensive being mounted by Ottawa with its reform of social programs has already caused a general outcry, and not just in Quebec. Yesterday, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs categorically rejected, for the first time moreover, the complete transfer to Quebec of federal responsibilities in the area of manpower training.

Does the Minister of Human Resources Development confirm the statement by his colleague the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs that Ottawa is announcing that the federal government will refuse to transfer full responsibility for manpower training to Quebec?

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

Mr. Speaker, last spring we proposed a new three year agreement on manpower training to all the provinces. As I said yesterday in the House, it included a transfer of responsibility for institutional training and training that is purchased in community colleges and CEGEPs.

We indicated our willingness to invite the provinces to plan priorities for federal resource investments in each province. In the case of Quebec where we spend about $800 million, that takes in an envelope of almost $500 million. We indicated our willingness to work with them on a system of guichet unique, of single window deliveries. We also indicated that if the provinces would be willing we would look at transferring responsibility for some of the programs which are more clearly in the educational field, such as stay in school programs and others.

Several provinces have responded positively and quite constructively. We are in the process of negotiating with them. We have not heard officially from the new Government of Quebec as to what its response to that agreement would be.

Let me make one important point. These are our proposed three year agreements. There is no point in having longer term agreements until we know what the new structure of our programs will be. There is no point in reassembling or reallocating programs that may not exist or that may be changed or altered. Therefore, the three year interim agreement is a very good demonstration of how we are prepared to be flexible. We are prepared to assign more responsibility to the provinces in areas of their competence. We want to work in co-operation with the provinces.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the minister has perhaps not heard back from Quebec, but former premier Johnson, a Liberal and a federalist as well, said during the recent election campaign in Quebec that he was not interested in this sort of half-measure from the federal government.

I come back to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, who said that what they were proposing did not run counter to Quebec's demands, that they were meeting Quebec halfway. What they are saying is "Take half the loaf now and we'll negotiate the other half later".

Does the government realize that in stubbornly refusing to give Quebec the whole loaf in the areas of training and manpower, it is perpetuating the duplication and waste that are costing Quebec over $250 million, at the expense of those people who would like to return to work?

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

On the contrary, Mr. Speaker. The federal government is showing a great deal of interest in working with provinces to redesign how we can better deliver services and programs.

We already have agreements in place with a number of provinces. We just signed one with Ontario four weeks ago to establish a new Ontario training board where the federal and provincial governments would co-operate with business and labour to deliver services. We are certainly interested in doing that with other provinces as well.

The study referred to by the hon. member, frankly, was a study not based on sound analysis. The hon. member took analysis done by the OECD covering 15 countries. He took an artificial figure and applied it across Quebec. He did not take the actual numbers. Therefore, any judgments being made are really subject to serious reconsideration. We have already submitted to the province of Quebec a reassessment of those numbers. I think you will see the duplication that is there is primarily because in many cases it is not on the federal side. We would like to see single window deliveries, and I think that is the key to it.

We need single window capability. All partners, the community groups, labour, the business community, the provinces and the federal government would share the work and collaborate on the review of services to serve every member of the public better.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, when he questions the $250-million figure, the minister is actually questioning Robert Bourassa, Daniel Johnson and former minister Bourbeau, all of whom happen to be Liberals as well as federalists. In fact, they should have said so during this past election campaign, but they chose not to for quite understandable reasons. It did not make much difference anyway.

When the minister talks about co-operation, does he realize that, for two or three years now, there has been a consensus in Quebec amongst unions, business circles, the co-operative movement, the academic community and even the Liberal Party of Quebec that all powers concerning manpower should be repatriated in Quebec?

How can the minister contend that his government is committed to discussing, or even co-operating, with the provinces, while it rejects from the outset one of Quebec's fundamental demands which enjoys widespread support among all the socioeconomic stakeholders in Quebec?

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

Mr. Speaker, as I said in my first answer, we have already made an offer to all the provinces to transfer training responsibility to them. The member does not seem to have understood the importance of that particular statement in his scripted lines. It seems to me that would be a good demonstration at this time of how we can share.

One thing not on the table is the unemployment insurance program. It is a national program. It is clearly in the Constitution. It is one program by which we can ensure that this country's resources are shared from one region to another to help those most in need. By the way, the hon. member well knows that Quebec has benefited mightily under that sharing over the past many years.

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

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

Not only does the reform herald an unprecedented centralization effort, but one of its objectives is to reduce substantially the federal contribution to social assistance funding. This will leave the province no choice but to either increase their tax rates to compensate for the withdrawal of the federal government or cut back welfare benefits.

How does the minister want us to take seriously his government's stated objective to do more for children living in poverty, when Ottawa is cutting its transfer payments to the provinces for social assistance? How can it be taken seriously? How contradictory, Mr. Speaker!

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not know where the hon. member was last February or where he has been since, but that was clearly announced in the federal budget last February. I am glad that after nine months he is finally able to catch up with the figures.

There was a clear declaration in the budget that we were going to hold transfer payments under these programs at the 1993-94 level. As a result we have started to work with the provinces to find ways of more efficiently dealing with the problems of social assistance. We have already worked with provinces to find collaborative ways of enabling people on social assistance to get back to work, to begin to change the rules.

That is one of the things which is part and parcel of the green book. We are prepared to immediately work with the provinces to change the rules under the Canada assistance plan to enable almost 50 per cent of those who are on social assistance and want to get back into the workforce to do so without being prohibitively discriminated against by losing income. The best way to handle the social assistance problem is to get people a job.

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

Mr. Speaker, the minister wishes to know where I was in February. I would like to tell him through you that, if he was to the left of the Liberal Party in the past, he is moving far to the right with this reform.

How can he claim that he wants to help disadvantaged children, when the main consequence of his reform would be to impoverish the parents? How can he claim that he wants to help disadvantaged children?

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

Mr. Speaker, obviously the hon. member has not talked to the people who are on social assistance. They want to have self-sufficiency. They want to have independence. They want to be able to earn an income for their families. They do not want to stay on dependency.

That is what this green paper is all about. It is about giving people real hope that they do not have to be dependent on a program and cheque, but once again can go to work.

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the government claims to be concerned about education and job skills for Canadians but the social policy discussion paper tabled yesterday calls for the virtual elimination of federal transfers in support of higher education.

At the same time the government continues to spend billions of dollars on subsidies to businesses, interest groups and crown corporations. The minister must have had some set of spending priorities in preparing this paper. I ask the Minister of Human Resources Development, where does the funding of post-secondary education come in the government spending priorities?

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

Mr. Speaker, it clearly comes very high because we are committed to an expenditure of over $8 billion to help the provinces in the area of higher education. It seems to me that we are prepared to put our money where our mouth is, unlike the hon. leader of the Reform Party.

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, slashing $1.5 billion from transfers to higher education hardly seems like an indication of high priority.

In developing our approach on this issue, Reformers have said that the federal government ought to maintain as its highest spending priorities transfers in support of health care and education. We have advocated cutting virtually everything else in order to sustain those spending priorities.

I ask the minister, why does the government not preserve federal funding for post-secondary education at current levels and get more bang for the buck by transferring that funding directly to students through educational vouchers rather than to the provinces and the institutions?

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

Mr. Speaker, the question posed by the hon. leader of the Reform Party shows one thing clearly: He has not read the green book. If he had read it, he would have learned a couple of important facts.

He likes to deal in facts. I am going to give him some facts. Number one is that present transfer arrangements under the existing EPF means the provinces are getting a substantial increase in revenue by the tax points we transfer to them. Therefore the revenue to provinces is going up for education through the tax points, but as a result of the existing formula the cash transfer declines over a period of time on a proper ratio.

If the hon. leader of the Reform Party would understand that fact, he would not be using the kind of nonsensical statement that we are slashing programs. In fact the revenue is growing. We are saying that rather than having the cash disappear over a 10 year period, let us use that money in order to lever an additional $3 billion back into higher education to assist all kinds of Canadians in going back to school. That is what is called creative government.

[Preston Manning, Reform, Calgary Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, students know the difference between a repayable loan and a non-repayable voucher. I was endeavouring to get the minister to consider this more innovative way of transferring funding for higher education by paying directly to the students through non-repayable vouchers rather than through either tax points or transfers directly to the provinces.

Hundreds of thousands of students are worried that the federal government's withdrawal from federal support of higher education will damage the quality of their education. Students worry that the minister's scheme will end up loading themselves with a higher and higher debt load. Is the minister in his vaunted consultation process intending to travel and talk to university and college students to explain his position to them? I am certain he will get a warm welcome if he does.