Debates of Oct. 5th, 1995

Manpower Training

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Mercier knows better than that because she has been carefully following many of the developments and initiatives we have taken.

Under the existing legislative authority which would simply be ratified in the new bill we have an agreement with the Government of Quebec to provide assistance to older workers who have been displaced from their jobs.

We buy annuities. Last year we helped close to 2,000 workers in Quebec. It simply gives us the authority to purchase those annuities to help those older workers retain some income when they cannot get a job.

It seems the hon. member for Mercier is telling the federal government that we cannot work with the Government of Quebec, we cannot help older workers, we cannot buy annuities and we cannot help people who are displaced from their jobs. It is an advocacy of a do nothing approach to helping people who do not have jobs.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, after a careful and most thorough examination, we find no previous legislation which gave legal and constitutional power to the government to sign agreements directly with individuals and organizations. This is what we are denouncing.

Does the minister acknowledge that all he has to offer Quebecers is an agreement which Daniel Johnson himself labelled, as did the present Minister of Labour, a bargain basement agreement and refused to sign because it did not correspond in the least to the consensus in Quebec.

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has made a very gross error in factual information. She said that somehow we are acquiring new powers. The legislation simply confirms existing mandates under the jurisdiction of Parliament on things like the Unemployment Insurance Act and the Department of Labour Act.

As a result, last year under existing authorities which will simply be confirmed by the new act, we signed close to 10,000 contracts with not for profit organizations. We signed 9,300 contracts with private firms. We had 2,800 contracts with public sector organizations and municipalities. We even have a number of contracts with the Government of Quebec which we have signed. For example, when the Hyundai plant in Bromont was going down we worked closely with the Government of Quebec to collaborate and help displaced workers.

We are already doing those things under existing authority. We are simply trying to have administrative simplification and cohesion so we can provide better service to the people of Quebec.

Peacekeeping

[Bob Mills, Reform, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, after years of peacekeeping under very difficult circumstances our ground troops are finally coming home from Bosnia. Our troops have done the very best job possible and all Canadians are extremely proud of them.

While the government blasted the Reform Party for suggesting a withdrawal, when the UN told it the same thing last night it immediately fell into line. Now that our troops are coming home will the Prime Minister guarantee that before Canada commits to any future missions Parliament will be allowed to establish a clear set of criteria for all future military commitments?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, Canadian soldiers in the former Yugoslavia for the last three years have performed an excellent duty. That is recognized by everybody.

The United Nations decided the battalion in Visoko is not needed any more because it is within an area completely controlled by the Bosnian government. We will repatriate its members with pleasure and thank them for a job extremely well done.

We were there because the UN asked us to be there. Now the UN says they do not need to be there any more, and so we will bring the troops back to Canada.

For the first time ever we have had debate on this in the House of Commons. I have seen the Reform Party change its position two or three times since the beginning. For our part we have always been behind the UN and behind the Canadian soldiers who are considered the best there.

Now the mission is over. We are happy. The troops will be back in Canada with the satisfaction of having accomplished an excellent job in Visoko. We are all proud of them in Canada.

[Bob Mills, Reform, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the mandate in Bosnia disappeared months ago. We have been calling for the withdrawal for months now. Canadians are demanding to know before they commit to these sorts of missions what they will cost.

They want to know how long we will be there. They want to know whether we can deliver the mandate being given to us. They want to know whether we will be part of the decision making process or whether we will simply be followers.

Can the Prime Minister tell Canadians the government has learned a lesson from this mission and that it will promise to let Parliament be involved and have a free vote on developing criteria for peacekeeping?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the mandate we accepted in February after a debate in the House of Commons was until the end of this month.

We respected the mandate. The UN now says it does not need the Canadian troops because it wants to reduce the number. We are happy because if we bring them back to Canada they will be better off.

Canada is always available when people are in very difficult circumstances, when there is misery and when people have been killed to protect families, children and so on. We have always been there. We will do it again and there will be a debate in the House of Commons.

The peacekeeping mission was created by the Canadian government. The peacekeepers who are so well known in the world were created by Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson, my predecessor as leader of the Liberal Party. It was done at the time of the war of Great Britain and France against Egypt. He had the guts for the good of the peace of the world to say to the British and the French that war had to stop.

It is in the tradition of Lester B. Pearson that we are making our decision in relation to the UN.

[Bob Mills, Reform, Red Deer, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I think this is typical of how the government reacts to issues. It is in the past. It lives in the past. It gives us a history lesson. What we really need to do is look to the future. The 21st century is coming. It is going to be different. The old line politics will not work any more.

The government is trying to claim victory on the backs of a decision made by the UN. It is about time that it admitted that we need these criteria, that people are demanding these criteria, and that people are really interested in this.

I wonder if the Prime Minister is going to be just like the last government: do things in secret and then try to somehow rubberstamp them by bringing them here after the decision is made.

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I believe I can see how desperate they are.

The member talks about the past. Yes, the past was last week, when the Minister of Foreign Affairs made a very important speech at the United Nations recommending the modernization of the United Nations. What the hon. member should do to complete his education is read the speech of the minister.

Manpower Training

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

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

Clearly the minister is about to make the same mistake with Bill C-96 as the Minister of Industry in the case of Bill C-88 on interprovincial trade, by unilaterally assuming powers that negate the responsibilities of the provinces. I may recall that after scoffing at the objections of the official opposition, the Minister of Industry had to acknowledge his mistake and back down.

If the minister does not intend to go over the heads of the provinces, why does he use clause 6 and clause 20 of the bill to acquire the means to do so, it is there in black and white?

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

Mr. Speaker, we have in fact done quite the opposite.

As I have said in the House before, when the minister of employment was given her new task I immediately wrote and suggested that we sit down and negotiate the whole question of the labour market issues in Quebec with a view to taking a look at 75 per cent of the programming we do in that province and developing a different set of authorities, joint planning, and transferring certain responsibilities. The answer from the minister of employment was no; she did not even want to talk about it.

I tried again. I wrote back to her and said let us do a joint study between the SQDM, the Government of Quebec, and my government on duplication and overlap. I made the offer, saying that we would jointly pay for it. Again the minister of employment refused to answer.

My point is that I cannot force the minister of employment in Quebec to co-operate with me. I would like to have that co-operation. I want to sit down and work out how we can get a better delineation of responsibilities. I would urge the hon. member to go back and talk to the minister of employment in Quebec and ask her when she is ready to co-operate. As soon as she says yes, I will be there.

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

Mr. Speaker, apparently the minister would like to be Canada's minister of education. Would the minister agree he is taking the means to circumvent the provincial governments because he wants to establish a national strategy for intervening in manpower issues, which may be acceptable to other provinces but flagrantly contradicts the general consensus expressed many times on this matter in Quebec?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is quite the contrary again. The member should know, because he has been in the House now for two years, that in fact what we have arranged is a very good, co-operative arrangement in the area of student assistance. We have the Canada student loans program. Quebec has its own program.

When we reformed our program this summer and brought in programs to provide specific grants for disabled students and students with high income needs that would enable them to go school earlier, we transferred that money directly to the province of Quebec so it could offer the same programs to its own students. Now that is the notion of flexible federalism: not a takeover, but a way of working in co-operation.

National Defence

[Jim Hart, Reform, Okanagan—Similkameen—Merritt, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my question speaks to the mismanagement at the highest level at the Department of National Defence and is directed to the Prime Minister.

Every day we have seen another leadership crisis in the Department of National Defence. The minister and the CDS are publicly at war. These are Liberal problems, and the government uses the inquiry to justify inaction. The Canadian Armed Forces are demoralized, dispirited, and cannot wait until June 1996 for the government to act.

Why is the government failing to deal with these daily scandals at the Department of National Defence?

[Fred Mifflin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, if there is any demoralization of the Canadian forces I can assure you it is aided and abetted by the irrelevant questions that are put forward by the members of the third party.

[Jim Hart, Reform, Okanagan—Similkameen—Merritt, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence has mishandled de Chastelain, Kenward, Vernon, Labbé, and it goes on and on and on every single day.

My question is directed to the Prime Minister. The Liberal government has done nothing to correct the leadership problems at DND. The Prime Minister's confidence in his Minister of National Defence and the Chief of Defence Staff is misplaced. Will the Prime Minister solve the leadership problem and demand the resignation of the Chief of Defence Staff and his Minister of National Defence?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I have confidence in the Minister of National Defence and the Chief of Defence Staff. We are now discussing a problem that arose in Somalia before we formed the government. We will try to get to the bottom of this. We took the initiative to have an inquiry on the subject, and I think that so far, the minister, the Chief of Defence Staff and particularly the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence are all doing an excellent job.

Manpower Training

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely incredible to see the Minister of Human Resources Development talk about the Quebec government's refusal to co-operate on manpower issues when at this very moment, he has a bill in which he assumes powers he never had before, which constitute an incredible and unprecedented invasion of the jurisdiction of the Government of Quebec over manpower. So much so that it was even criticized by hard core federalists in Quebec. You can only go so far.

Would the Minister of Human Resources Development agree that this bill marks the first time the federal government acquires the legal authority to go directly over the head of the Government of Quebec? Will he admit it?

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is being a little silly, frankly.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[The Speaker]

I would ask all hon. members to please choose their words carefully.

[Lloyd Axworthy, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, maybe I will rephrase it to say I think hon. member has strayed substantially from the line of logic and reason.

I would simply quote to him clause 6 of the bill. It is in black and white. It reads: "The powers, duties and functions of the minister extend and include matters over which Parliament has jurisdiction". That is the existing act. There is no difference. Nothing has changed. Nothing is altered. Nothing is amended. Everything is the same. We simply are able to work out the kinds of agreements and arrangements with provinces that the department of labour, the department of employment and immigration, the department of welfare, parts of the department that used to be in citizenship have all done over the past 30, 40, 50 years. Nothing has changed. We are working on the legislative base that exists. We are simply consolidating the powers because the department has been consolidated.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is really too bad that the Minister of Human Resources Development should stoop to name-calling, the logic of the weak, the logic of those who have nothing to say. He would be better off answering the question. We would rather have answers than arrogance. Quebecers would appreciate that.

I will direct my question to the Prime Minister, and maybe then I will get an answer. Would the Prime Minister agree that the bill introduced by his Minister of Human Resources Development is a perfect illustration of the federalism by administrative agreement he is proposing to Quebecers, in other words: first step, Ottawa assumes all powers over a given jurisdiction; second step, it asks the provinces to come and beg to have these powers back, and third, I am sorry to add, he calls them names when they do?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the minister just explained very clearly something that is quite straightforward. A number of departments were amalgamated to put all human resources together. The powers given to the minister are the same as they were in each department separately.

The bill clearly says that no new powers have been given to the minister. What we are trying to do is use certain decisions and administrative agreements, which will necessary vary from province to province because some are more interested than others, as a way to make adjustments appropriate to the needs and wishes of each province.

This is federalism at its most flexible, and there is no-

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.