Debates of Nov. 20th, 1995

Department Of Human Resources Development Act

[Mac Harb, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of International Trade]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-96 does not in any way alter present federal and provincial powers. No matter how you look at the situation, there is absolutely no intrusion in spheres of provincial jurisdiction. This is forbidden by the bill itself.

The time has definitely come for all levels of government-federal, provincial, municipal-to rise above all jurisdictional quarrels and to start finding solutions for working together, pooling their resources and helping the people they serve.

The Bloc would prefer to see us do nothing. On November 9, the member for Mercier served up a fine piece of jargon about jurisdictional issues. Perhaps she might like to come back down to earth and talk to us instead about the people concerned.

Perhaps she might talk to the millions of Quebecers who each year turn to the Department of Human Resources Development for help, to let them know which of them will be abandoned and unable to take advantage of the $ 13.3 billion we spend in their province every year.

Perhaps the Bloc ought to talk to the 164,000 Quebec men and women we helped to find a job last year, to let them know "We will not be helping you any longer". Perhaps the Bloc members could let us know which of the 44,789 students who found summer employment last summer we ought not to have helped.

Perhaps they could tell some 700,000 Quebecers that the federal government ought not to have spent close to three billion dollars for the social aid program they depend upon to live.

Perhaps the Bloc could explain jurisdictional issues to the half million unemployment insurance recipients there are in Quebec every month.

Perhaps they could tell us which of the 400,000 Quebecers who benefit from our employment programs and services we should abandon.

Perhaps they could explain to the 850,000 Quebec seniors why they should not receive their Canada pension plan and old age security benefits.

Perhaps they could explain to Quebecers why the federal government should not invest $1.5 billion in their postsecondary education system.

While some members worry about the imaginary threat of federal power grabs, the Department of Human Resources Development is doing the work it has to do, with Quebecers and the Quebec government. Bloc members say we should not do anything, to avoid encroaching on provincial jurisdiction. I, however, say that, in the name of change, we should find ways of doing a better job.

It is not by erecting walls that we will do a better job. We need a better philosophy. We need the type of philosophy articulated by the minister when he talked about the need to empower the community and the people to make more choices.

What was the hon. member for Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup's answer? No. People should not be empowered to make more choices. This is not the Bloc's philosophy. We need the kind of philosophy articulated by the minister when he talked about new partnerships between the government and the private sector,

between the government and the school boards, between the government and the provinces.

What was the hon. member for Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup's answer? "No, we do not want to work together to bring about changes". The hon. members for Mercier and Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup made much of the fact that Bill C-96 allows us to conclude agreements with Quebec organizations for implementing our programs and delivering our services.

HRDC already has thousands of contracts and agreements with a myriad of Quebec organizations, including agreements with the Quebec government that are important to those people trying to return to the labour force. The existing legislation already allows us to negotiate such agreements. In 1994-95 alone, HRDC signed over 50,000 labour agreements in Quebec, representing a total of $695 million in funding for programs and income support. This bill simply renews these agreements. Nothing has changed.

Is the Bloc telling us that we should stop investing millions of dollars to help laid-off workers, as we are now doing under the program for older worker adjustment? We could not do so without the power to enter into agreements with financial institutions and to buy the pension plans these workers need.

Does the Bloc mean to say that we should stop building new partnerships in Quebec, partnerships that help reduce duplication and overlap and improve service delivery to Quebecers? Because we would be unable to establish partnerships if we no longer had the means of ensuring their smooth running.

Let there be no mistake about it, the partnerships we enter into are indeed effective, and the basic concept of flexible federalism which supports these partnerships is also effective. Think about the many current agreements between HRDC and Quebec, including the interim Canada-Quebec agreement on certain manpower development initiatives, the welfare recipient accord implementation agreement, the Canada-Quebec agreement on employment in the agricultural sector and the agreement on the global transfer of funds to Quebec under the Canadian Student Loans Program, just to name a few.

These master agreements are effective and they have a decisive impact on the lives of thousands of Quebecers.

I submit that we should consolidate these partnerships, further decentralize powers and let Quebecers decide what programs and services are best suited to their needs.

Labour market programs and services are already amongst the most highly decentralized federal measures. They are implemented through a very wide network of local centres that have gained a reputation for reliability and co-operation within the communities they serve.

The government is currently decentralizing by delegating decision making authority back to the regions, all the way down to the local level, where it should rest. Over the past year, we have been leaders and made tremendous progress in this area. We completely redesigned the way the Department of Human Resources Development operates within communities in Quebec and across Canada.

The federal government also undertook to work together with the provinces to afford Canadian maximum flexibility with respect to services. Take for instance the Canada social transfer for health and social programs, which is to replace the Canada assistance plan. The purpose of the social transfer is to help provinces provide the social services and benefits of their choice, which they cannot do at present because of inflexible rules.

Obviously, this is good news. We are making real progress on the road to co-operation, while also preserving our integrity. We are making real progress by putting stable social programs in the hands of Quebecers.

Bill C-96 is about the pursuit of these achievements. It will allow us to continue to work together, to define the roles of the various levels of government, and to create links between them.

These initiatives are certainly better than the alleged usurpations of authority. It is high time we started creating links that will bring us closer together.

This is why we officially asked the Government of Quebec, as well as those of the other provinces, to co-operate with us to decentralize services. Several provinces have already joined us to discuss ways to define our respective roles and promote more effective co-operation. Consequently, I urge all members of the House to encourage Quebec to join us to meet that challenge.

The motion from the Bloc Quebecois is certainly not a constructive move to bring about the type of changes that we all want. Rather, it is yet another obstacle on the way to the future.

What purpose would be served if the House did not go ahead with Bill C-96? None at all. It would not help the Bloc Quebecois to proceed with the type of changes it claims to be seeking. It would not help Canadians to get the services which they expect and which they need.

It would only force the Department of Human Resources Development to continue to work in isolation, outside the simple and consistent framework provided by the bill. It would only maintain the administrative burden resulting from the lack of enabling legislation, since even the simplest operations, such as a transfer of personnel, can trigger a complex, long and costly process.

We can certainly do better than that.

It goes without saying that co-operation is better than confrontation, discord and separation. We have to recognize that, at a time when we are trying to make the best of the resources of federalism, in which Quebecers have put their faith.

Co-operation is better than living in the past, as we are trying to redefine the role of partners which must be fulfilled by governments, that is being partners with individuals and communities, but also partners among themselves.

Such is the philosophy, the vision underlying the establishment of the new Department of Human Resources Development.

Bill C-96 is the foundation of that department. With the approval and support of this House, we will pass this legislation and carry on our work.

[Jean-Guy Chrétien, Bloc, Frontenac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great interest that I am intervening today in this House on Bill C-96, an act to legally establish the Department of Human Resources Development.

This is a long way from the agricultural portfolio for which I am usually critic for the official opposition, but the significance of the changes brought in by Bill C-96 requires me to speak out.

Application of this bill would be disastrous for Quebec, and I must defend the interests of my constituents first, but also those of all Quebecers.

What the government is preparing to do by going ahead with this bill is quite simply unacceptable. Bill C-96 is a tool with which the minister intends to broaden his powers once again, going over the heads of the provinces to do as he sees fit.

This bill enables the minister to ignore the provinces by establishing direct links with local organizations or individuals of his choice. What we are to understand from this is that when the federal government speaks of decentralization, it is merely replacing the salaries of federal employees with grants to local organizations, thus retaining total control over program standards.

With Bill C-96 it is absolutely clear that the federal government does not intend to respect this area of provincial jurisdiction in any way. We in Quebec will not allow this to happen.

Once again, this reminds me that, only hours after the last referendum, the Prime Minister of this country, the leader of the party across the floor here, the Liberal Party, the one that started off promising no changes, nothing on the table, after the conference on the UN, said there was no question whatsoever of proposing any changes. And with that great declaration of love, paid for by all of us of course, that put any possibility of decentralization, any possibility of change, on ice.

This bill was already prepared, of course, but it is totally contradictory to what the Prime Minister of Canada had suggested.

In reaction to Bill C-96, a proposal was made by Claude Béland, with the support of Ghislain Dufour, a person who cannot be accused of defending the sovereignist cause. As you are well aware, Mr. Speaker, Ghislain Dufour does not run with the sovereignists, but with the party across the floor. He asked that the SQDM unanimously adopt a resolution demanding that the federal government transfer the budgets it allocates for manpower training to Quebec and that it not establish a parallel structure to the SQDM.

Henri Massé, secretary general of the FTQ, also pulled no punches in his attack against this federal plan. "We no longer want the federal government butting in where it has no business to be-that is, manpower-and going over our heads to implement a parallel structure".

Still in connection with the referendum campaign, Victoriaville, in the next riding to mine, Lotbinière, had an important visitor, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, representing a Montreal riding whose name escapes me.

I know that an Ontario resident who has a riding in Montreal happens to be our Minister of Foreign Affairs. He told about fifteen people at a public meeting in Victoriaville that it was Quebec's fault if there was any duplication. Now really! Sure, that is what he said. He did not realize it but there was a reporter-he thought he was alone, no media-who only had a tape recorder and the next day they played his tape of the minister's speech on the radio news.

It really takes colossal nerve and then some, to go to Victoriaville, in the riding of Lotbinière, and say it was Quebec's fault if there was any duplication. Now that is a clear case. Let them stay home. We do not want them. The Liberal predecessor of the PQ government, under Robert Bourassa and then Daniel Johnson, unanimously adopted a resolution asking this government to stay out of manpower training. They just do not understand. Two structures and deficit upon deficit.

In fact, one of my constituents from East Broughton, Clément Paré-I asked his permission to mention his name-told me: "People do not understand. It is like a well at one end of my property. I take a pipe to bring the water from the well down to the bottom of my property. The further I get from the well, the more likely I am to get leaks, and I also lose pressure". It does not take a university degree to understand that.

"It is the same in Ottawa. You pay taxes to Ottawa, the money goes from East Broughton and Frontenac and is sent to Ottawa, some of it gets lost on the way, and then it goes back down

to East Broughton and to Thetford, and some more gets lost, and we are left with the crumbs". That is the kind of system we have: duplication throughout.

Mr. Speaker, I told you the story about the well and I saw your knowing smile. This is a very good example. I think my constituent, Mr. Paré, has very good judgment, and that is probably why he voted and worked for the Yes side in his beautiful municipality of East Broughton.

As I left my riding this morning, I stopped in Weedon to get some gas, and I noticed the Pepsi-Cola vending machine had been struck by a car. So I told the garage owner: "Too bad about that. Your Pepsi machine is broken already". He replied: "Yeah, sure, it was not big enough". In fact, it was huge, standing there outside the garage. Actually he was joking when he said: "It was not big enough". I said: "Too bad, it will cost you a few dollars to repair that". He said: "Oh, that does not matter". So I said: "How come?" He said: "It does not belong to me, it belongs to Pepsi". You see, Mr. Speaker? It belongs to Pepsi, so it does not matter.

People often react the same way to Ottawa. When I was the mayor of a small municipality, I remember we spread eight inches of nice new gravel on the sixth line. My constituents who were, of course, a small group, came to complain that the municipality was spending too much money. I said: "No problem. You are not paying for it". They said: "How come?" I said: "The money comes from the province". They said: "So you got a grant, Mr. Mayor?" I said: "Yes. I got it through our MNA". They said: "Great, the money comes from Quebec! It is not our money".

So you get the same reasoning when it comes from the federal government. When it comes from the federal government, it comes from somewhere on this planet, nobody knows exactly where. My point is that when the Minister of Foreign Affairs, this Ontarian who represents a Montreal riding, when he said in Victoriaville that if there was any duplication, it was not the federal government but the Quebec government, it really takes a colossal nerve.

The board of directors of the Canadian Institute of Adult Education has also condemned the Liberal government's initiative. The CIAE strongly objects to Bill C-96. The Bloc Quebecois is not alone in its opposition to Bill C-96. With this bill, the federal government has demonstrated a flagrant lack of respect for the aspirations of the provinces and especially those of Quebec in matters of education, manpower training and development.

With all these agencies and many others that are opposed to Bill C-96, the government of Quebec condemns outright the federal Liberal government's insistence on going ahead without considering the needs expressed by the groups concerned. Quebec Employment Minister Louise Harel reacted as follows to Bill C-96: "This is an outright refusal on the part of Ottawa to consider the consensus that exists in Quebec and was repeatedly expressed by the previous administrations of Mr. Bourassa and Mr. Johnson and by the present government headed by Mr. Parizeau, a consensus on the need to patriate all programs and budgets for manpower adjustment to Quebec".

In concluding, I want to point out that the Quebec Liberal Party, when it was in power, demanded that the federal government withdraw from this provincial jurisdiction.

[Osvaldo Nunez, Bloc, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in the debate, at second reading, on Bill C-96 establishing the Department of Human Resources Development and amending certain acts, which was tabled in June.

This bill provides, essentially, for the administrative reorganization of the department and brings together sections and services from the former Departments of Employment and Immigration, Health and Welfare, Labour and the Secretary of State.

It reaffirms the federal government's involvement in manpower training, employment and social programs.

It contains no indication of the federal government's intention to respect federal jurisdictions.

Reaction in Quebec to Bill C-96 was therefore negative. The FTQ cautioned the federal government about its latest attempt to intervene in areas of Quebec's jurisdiction in manpower development. The federation's general secretary, Henri Massé, indicated they had had enough of Ottawa's involvement in this area and its bypassing the province to set up parallel structures. He said that Quebec had established a special partnership in the area with the Société québécoise de développement de la main-d'oeuvre or SQDM. He added that there was a strong consensus favouring Quebec's becoming solely responsible for policies on manpower adjustment and occupational training within its borders and its acquiring the funds the federal government allocates to these programs.

The Conseil du patronat agrees with the unions on this, something that does not happen very often. Even Robert Bourassa's Liberal government opposed a similar move by Ottawa in 1991.

The SQDM has asked the federal government to keep out of areas of Quebec's jurisdiction in manpower development.

The board of directors, on a motion by Claude Béland, the president of the Mouvement Desjardins, seconded by Ghislain Dufour, the president of the Conseil du patronat, unanimously adopted a resolution to call on the federal government to transfer to Quebec the funds it allocates to manpower training. Furthermore,

they asked Ottawa not to establish any structure parallel to the SQDM.

The Quebec minister of employment, Louise Harel, denounced the bill in the following terms: "This federal initiative amounts to a flat rejection of the unanimous Quebec consensus, expressed, both under the previous administration and under the current one, on the need for Quebec to regain control over all manpower adjustment measures, including the related budgets".

I take this opportunity to again protest the upcoming closure of the Canada Employment Centre on rue Papineau, which serves the population of my riding of Bourassa in North Montreal, where the real rate of unemployment is nearly 30 per cent. It is a model CEC, which provides top quality service to a large clientele. Unions, business, community groups, users and my constituents vigorously oppose its closure.

Furthermore, the federal government has decided to close 34 other Canada Employment Centres in an effort to cut expenses, thus resulting in the layoff of nearly 1,000 public servants. Computerized job kiosks will become more prevalent.

The unemployment rate remains a very high 11.2 per cent in Quebec. The jobless have an urgent need for support services to which only 10 per cent of them had access last year. Instead of helping people who are looking for a job, the government makes it more difficult for them to have access to information and counselling services.

One must add that these closures are all the more difficult to explain as the unemployment insurance fund, which is entirely financed by employee and employer contributions, has a five billion dollar surplus.

Last September, the unemployment rate in Canada increased from 9.2 to 9.4 per cent. In Quebec, it went from 10.9 to 11.2 per cent. In British Columbia, it climbed from 8.8 to 9 per cent. Last year, cuts in the federal and provincial public sector resulted in the loss of 86,000 jobs. In October only, 3,000 civil servants lost their jobs. And yet, Bill C-96 contains no concrete measure to create jobs.

If you allow me, I will take this opportunity to ask the minister of Human Resources Development to speed up the negotiations with regards to a social security agreement between Canada and Chile. In 1990, with the return of a democratic regime in Chile, as president of the Chilean council in Quebec, I had asked for negotiations to start on this issue.

As a member of Parliament, I wrote the minister on several occasions. It was only at the end of 1994 that representatives of both countries met for the first time in Santiago. The second meeting took place last June, in Quebec City and in Ottawa. The Chilean community in Quebec and Canada would like this agreement to be signed without delay; it will benefit many Canadian and Chilean citizens who lived and worked in both countries.

I would also like to congratulate the FTQ and the CSN who signed on November 13 a solidarity and co-operation agreement which will create a partnership between these two unions. That agreement confirms their common will to enhance the impact and the influence of organized labour in our society.

I think that it is an historical agreement and an extraordinary measure bringing together two Quebec labour unions which will jointly face future challenges, including employment and the protection of existing social benefits.

The next FTQ convention will be held from November 27 to December 1st in Montreal, where the theme will be to fight unemployment and prepare the future.

The job issue will be the focus of all debates because the streamlining, reorganisations, voluntary termination of employment and early retirement programs are continuing and even increasing, both in the public and the private sectors.

I wish my FTQ friends an excellent convention.

Given the cuts in unemployment insurance, thousands of unemployed people will have no other choice but to ask for welfare, but welfare benefits have also been cut over the past few years. Recently, Ontario decreased welfare benefits by 21.6 per cent. It is unfair and cruel for Canada to fight the deficit at the expense of the have-nots of our society. I denounce the Liberal government's irresponsibility and lack of action in the fight against poverty.

In closing, I would like to say that I approve the amendment to Bill C-96 presented by the member for Mercier.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The vote is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Deputy Speaker]

Call in the members.

I have been requested by the government whip and the opposition whip to defer the division until tomorrow, immediately after Government Orders.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-83, an act to amend the Auditor General Act, as reported (with amendments) from the committee.

Auditor General Act

[The Deputy Speaker]

There is only one motion in amendment standing on the Notice Paper for report stage of Bill C-83, an act to amend the Auditor General Act.

Motion No. 1 will be debated and voted on.

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Laurentides, QC]

moved:

Motion No. 1

That Bill C-83, in Clause 5, be amended by deleting lines 1 to 23, on page 3.

Mr. Speaker, I want to address the motion that we have tabled, an amendment to remove the amendment tabled by the Liberals during the committee meeting of November 2, which amended Bill C-83, in clause 5, by adding section 21.1, from (a) to (h).

I note that this bill was given a fairly bumpy ride in committee, if I may say so. The Liberals seemed to be caught between a rock and a hard place, to be torn between public servants and politicians. First, members opposite moved and voted on their own amendments, then cancelled them and moved and voted on new ones. You will agree that this is confusion at its best.

The amendment our friends opposite, our friends of confusion and discord, are proposing seems to be a big catchall of environmental principles that constitutes a dangerous foot in the door of provincial jurisdiction.

A careful reading of section 21.1 and its points (a) to (h) leads us to believe that the Liberals may have wanted to better explain the work of the future commissioner of environment and sustainable development. If that was their objective, I think they are way off the mark. Instead of presenting precise objectives in support of the future commissioner, the Liberals propose to give him a series of broad environmental principles that, ultimately, will not make his task any easier. Even worse, these broad principles will extend his mandate to a point where he will be unable to carry it out.

However, this section is, once again, a case of the federal government wanting to interfere in provincial jurisdiction. Indeed, through this section, the commissioner will have the mandate to monitor the progress of departments according to sustainable development criteria that are clearly the responsibility of the provinces.

Thus, under section 21.1, a department encroaching on an area of provincial jurisdiction will get a positive appraisal from the federal commissioner. There was certainly nothing else to be expected from the Liberal committee members. True to themselves, they repeated the same arguments they had put forward when we were studying the CEPA, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

It is becoming increasingly clear that the goal of Liberal committee members is to extend as much as possible federal jurisdiction on environmental matters and to use the federal government's spending power as much as possible, although that attitude is viewed as an aggression by the provinces. Committee members constantly refer to great green principles such as sustainable development, bio-diversity or systemic approach, to promote an increased federal presence in the area of environment.

Of course air pollution is not restricted to one region. Of course water knows no boundary. Of course species move around. We all know this, but this is no reason for the federal government to become or set out to become the sole keeper of the environment, especially since the provinces have made great strides in that area and have taken their responsibilities. The same certainly cannot be said for the federal government, something the Liberals should recognize.

The federal government has not made rapid progress and has failed on many environmental issues under its jurisdiction. Why then should we give it more responsibility, when it does not even carry out its primary duties? Why do they absolutely insist that the federal should interfere in areas of provincial jurisdiction against the provinces' will? There lies the failing, if I may say, of our dear Liberals. The Liberals have some great environmentalists such as the hon. member for Davenport and the hon. member for Lachine-Lac-Saint-Louis, who, much to their credit, are also great champions of Canada. But that is exactly where their weakness lies: they are fervent federalists.

Their vision of the environment is clearly influenced, not to say marred by their natural federalist tendencies. That is why they tie everything that has to do with the environment to the federal system. This kind of attitude is alarming and dangerous for the environment because the farther you are from the field, the harder it is to find a solution. It is obvious that the provinces are closer to the environment and are therefore in a better position to deal with environmental issues.

Let us have a look at the concept of sustainable development to be found in the bill, a concept the Liberals use a great deal to

crowd out the provinces. Sustainable development is an ideal all societies should strive for.

What is at stake here is not the validity of this principle, but the way it is implemented. The Bloc Quebecois not only recognizes the validity of the principle, but also the need, not to say the urgent need, to translate it into concrete measures.

We believe this principle should be implemented by the provinces because they have the overriding jurisdiction over the environment. It is up to the provinces to promote the conditions needed for sustainable development.

In a federal system, the principle of sustainable development takes on a new dimension, that is respect for jurisdictions and areas of authority. Obviously, the squandering of both financial and human resources, due to a double structure, is in no way sustainable. However, pursuant to their amendment, the Liberals are asking the commissioner to monitor the progress of the various departments, by taking into consideration criteria which clearly come under areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction.

Let us look at item (a) of the clause dealing with the integration of the environment and the economy. In fact, this part of the commissioner's mandate can turn into subsidy programs for suppliers or targeted purchase programs, for example.

Using its spending power, the federal government has often launched programs or projects in areas of provincial jurisdiction. In many cases, after a few months, the federal government withdrew and let the provinces, including the province of Quebec, foot the bill and go through the ordeal of squashing these projects.

This way of doing things can in no way help to protect the environment. Short term and paltry measures are to be excluded.

Item (b) talks about protecting the health of Canadians. Health is an area of exclusive provincial jurisdiction. It is the responsibility of the provinces to prevent health risks due to water and air pollution or soil depletion.

Again, the duplication of standards and the inconsistency with the provincial standards are inefficient and costly for the governments as well as for the private sector and the public. The federal government has again opened the door to new quarrels concerning the division of powers.

Given the rather firm stand taken by the provinces on this issue, it is hard to understand the attitude of the federal government. That proves again that the Liberals do not understand a thing about the repeated demands for change made by Canadians and Quebecers.

We are anxious to see the changes promised by the other side on October 30. It will probably, in the end, be another case of "Much ado about nothing". But I am fair-play and ready to wait and see. All the more so since the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs seems to be quite a miracle-worker.

Item (c) of clause 21.1 has to do with protecting ecosystems. As owners and managers of the land, the provinces have jurisdiction over ecosystems. As an example, to assume this role, Quebec created 17 national parks. It also gave itself the legislative tools to preserve biodiversity.

Provinces which have not yet done so have the responsibility to act and pay heed to the demands of the world community which, for example, made some criticisms in the OECD report concerning Canada's environmental performance when it comes to protecting ecosystems.

Those are some of the items that make us doubt the will of the federal government to respect the provinces.

Clause 21.1 of Bill C-83 is rather to the contrary. In mentioning vast environmental concepts the federal government shows its intention to interfere further in areas of provincial jurisdiction.

The federal environmental record is nothing to cheer about.

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the government, I want to respond to what the hon. member for Laurentides said and to the amendment she moved to the bill.

I think I should read the section the hon. member wishes to remove from the bill.

It is section 21.1, which reads as follows:

21.1 The purpose of the Commissioner is to provide sustainable development monitoring and reporting on the progress of category I departments towards sustainable development, which is a continually evolving concept based on the integration of social, economic and environmental concerns, and which may be achieved by, among other things,

(a) the integration of the environment and the economy;

(b) protecting the health of Canadians;

(c) protecting ecosystems;

(d) meeting international obligations;

(e) promoting equity;

(f) an integrated approach to planning and making decisions that takes into account the environmental and natural resource costs of different economic options and the economic costs of different environmental and natural resource options;

(g) preventing pollution; and

(h) respect for nature and the needs of future generations.

I find it really surprising that the hon. member for Laurentides has decided to move such an amendment to the bill at this time.

She knows perfectly well that her leader, the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean, was a minister of the environment and supported all these same principles. She comes into the House today while he is occupied considering his future and proposes an amendment that undermines the whole concept of sustainable development and a way of treating it in Canada.

I am absolutely astounded that the hon. member for Laurentides is getting away with this. I suspect that if the Leader of the Opposition were in Ottawa he would hound his colleague, the member for Laurentides, for proposing such an amendment as this. She has tried to claim this amendment is one that affects provincial jurisdiction but on its face it most patently does not.

It says that the commissioner will provide sustainable development monitoring and reporting on the progress government departments are making. How can government departments be making progress on things that are not within their jurisdiction? They must deal with matters within their own jurisdiction. If they were dealing with matters beyond their jurisdiction, they would be doing something unlawful. Everyone know that government departments do not do things that are unlawful, at least not very often.

The hon. member who is making these claims is saying that government departments are in fact dabbling in provincial matters all the time and therefore this section is bad because the commissioner in his work might impinge on provincial jurisdiction if the government department was doing so and he was reporting on it. Presumably if he thought the federal government department was overstepping its bounds he would report that.

After all, he is an officer who has some authority, according to my reading of this bill. I do not claim to be terribly familiar with it. I was not on the committee where the amendment was brought in but I understand the commissioner is given certain authority, which in my view is very sensible authority, to deal with a whole host of issues, all of which are of great concern to Canadians. Every one of the items I read from the list is of concern to Canadians.

Yet we have a situation where a party headed by a former minister of the environment who supported all of these things when he was minister-

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

He invented some of them.

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

As the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell has said so ably, he invented some of them and I am sure his memory of these things is better than mine. The hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean invented these very concepts and now one of his henchmen comes into the House and tries to undermine the whole process.

I am shocked. I am sure every member of the House is shocked at the duplicity of the opposition in saying one thing through its leader when he was minister of the environment and saying another now through the hon. member for Laurentides with this frankly ridiculous amendment.

I see even the members of the Reform Party are smirking. They must agree this amendment is pretty wild. It is not something they would support. I am sure they support the bill. I am sure they realize the bill is in the best interests of all Canadians as I am sure the Leader of the Opposition does. After all he knows more about environmental issues than I do. He was minister for several years. I know it was with a government that showed a callous disregard for the environment but he had a reputation for doing the best he could in difficult circumstances.

Some say that perhaps-

[Jean Augustine, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

-he should have remained.

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Some say that perhaps he should have remained as Minister of the Environment, but he did not. On the other hand, I understand there were often times when he did not get a lot of support from his cabinet colleagues on environmental matters he raised. He may have gone out on a limb and done it in an appropriate way from time to time, but I do not know. I was not in the cabinet. It is not something I could easily comment on, but we certainly can see the effect of his environmental crusade. The hon. member for Laurentides has wilfully abandoned all the principles her leader stood for when he was Minister of the Environment.

As I said, I find myself almost at a loss for words in trying to understand the amendment she has put forward today. I can only assume that the Leader of the Opposition did not see this amendment before it was tabled. If he had, he would have blown a gasket, in common parlance, and that would have been the end of the amendment.

I can only say that I hope there is a vote on this. I want to see the Leader of the Opposition come into the House and vote against the principles he so resolutely stood for when he was Minister of the Environment.

He may have forgotten some of the things he learned when he was minister.

[An hon. member]

Remind him.

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

I am trying to remind him by this speech. I hope he reads it very carefully and I am sure the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell would agree.

Sometimes remembrance is important in these things. The Minister of the Environment always learns something about his or her portfolio when occupying that portfolio. When the member for Lac-Saint-Jean was a minister, I remember him standing and answering questions, defending the government's environmental policy in the House. Now we see his party trying to undo the work of a committee of the House and the work of the present very competent Minister of the Environment, the hon. member for Hamilton East.

The hon. member for Laurentides is pleading with me to continue this eulogy. I certainly could do that. She knows what a competent minister we have. The fact is all these ministers have stood for this kind of principle and they have all adopted the principle of sustainable development as the cornerstone of Canada's environmental policy.

The hon. member for Davenport, who I am sure will be speaking on this amendment in a few moments, can remind us of how long this principle of sustainable development has been a cornerstone of Canadian environmental policy. It is reflected in this bill. Here is an opportunity to have an officer with some authority to report on government departments on how they are doing on specific concerns. It was a great list.

The hon. member for Laurentides wants to throw the whole thing out of the bill. I do not understand it. Of course, the government will oppose this change. It is wrong headed. It is contrary to principles espoused by the hon. member's own leader. It is contrary to the principles that were agreed on in the committee which studied the bill. I am shocked to hear at this late date that the hon. member for Laurentides would take it in her own capacity to move an amendment to the bill that would undermine what I think is the view of the vast majority of Canadians and the vast majority of members of the House.

I want to indicate the government's strong opposition to the amendment. We will support the bill and the amendments that were made in committee. We feel the committee's amendments were entirely appropriate and the bill as it stands is a good bill.

[Paul Forseth, Reform, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that the environment is an issue very dear to Canadians. We all want to do what we can to preserve this great country. Every day we ask ourselves: What can we do to make certain that the environment can be preserved and saved?

The member for Laurentides is a great believer in environmental issues yet I have to question her amendment to Bill C-83. The bill is not a solid, forthright piece of legislation. There is no doubt about that. However, removing the part in clause 5 dealing with sustainable development makes a weak bill all that much weaker. It removes benchmark measurements on reporting.

The Reform Party has been consistent in its position on Bill C-83. The bill would be much more effective if the role of the environmental commissioner were completely taken over by the auditor general. We know that the commissioner will be an employee of the Office of the Auditor General. The commissioner will have to pass everything by the auditor general before it can be released to Parliament and the public.

Bill C-83 makes the government look as if it is serious about cleaning up the environmental practices of federal departments. However, the real question is whether or not this commissioner is going to really make a difference. The role is a strange one. The commissioner would monitor and report annually to Parliament through the auditor general on the extent to which federal government departments had met sustainable development objectives and implemented the actions set out in their sustainable development strategies.

When the auditor general came before the environment committee, he stated quite clearly that there would not be a responsibility given to the commissioner that could not be performed by the auditor general himself. Therefore, Reform sees the role of the commissioner as outlined in this bill to simply be another level of bureaucracy, all of course at the expense of the taxpayers. It is a long envisaged proposal now coming in the form for the sake of appearances without any real substance.

Let us not forget the Minister of the Environment stated that one objective of the commissioner would be to look into waste reduction. Therefore, if the auditor general's office took over more responsibility in terms of environmental issues would this not be cost effective as well as a reduction of wastefulness?

The environment minister has truly convinced herself that Bill C-83 will be a solution to some of Canada's environmental chaos. The minister believes that when the commissioner reports to Parliament, federal departments are going to listen and then act. However, if they do not act now to the regular auditor general's reports, why would they act on a commissioner's report on environmental issues?

Let me illustrate the point. The report from the auditor general in May 1995 looked at Environment Canada and the management of hazardous wastes. The auditor general reported that there was a lack of effort on Environment Canada's part to control the storage and destruction of PCB wastes. The control of PCBs is under the regulation of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act in order to minimize risk to human health and the environment.

The auditor general stated: "On March 31, 1995, Environment Canada terminated its leadership role in the management of PCB destruction without devising a plan to guide federal departments to further consolidate PCB wastes, reduce their volume and develop action plans for their destruction. This could seriously impede the

government's ability to ensure safe and cost effective storage and timely destruction of federal PCB wastes".

The control of PCB wastes is crucial for true sustainable development. Unfortunately, the environment minister has not followed through with the auditor general's recommendations. Therefore, my question is: When and if the environmental commissioner is put into place, what will he or she say that will be any more convincing than what has already been said by the auditor general himself? The answer is nothing. The section of the bill adjusted by the Bloc amendment before us makes the bill ever more unfocused and vague and does not enhance any function at all.

Canadians will soon realize that the commissioner is just a smoke screen created by the environment minister to make it appear that she is working to clean up the environment. She has done little throughout her tenure as minister that accomplishes an improvement to our environment. Her talk is shrill and her actions are sometimes expensive; the end result being an increased deficit with little to no environmental improvements.

My friend from the Bloc Quebecois has an amendment at this stage that deletes what I believe to be the only clear specification in this legislation. While I do not agree that we should have a separate commissioner under the auspices of the auditor general, I do believe that if there has to be one it is essential that the person provide the best report possible on all sustainable development strategies to all category one departments.

In this time of budget restraint and fiscal responsibility, I am bothered that the minister has chosen to spend the taxpayers' hard earned money with such a redundant position merely to add prestige and political significance to environmental issues. Such redundant spending is common among most Liberal ministers. It will only be a matter of time before Canadians come to the realization that to achieve a new and more environmentally sustainable Canada a different party must come to government.

In closing, I cannot support the Bloc amendment. Bloc members continue to whine about preserving provincial jurisdiction while at the same time the Quebec provincial government creates overlap after overlap. The fiscal consequences for the poor people of Quebec due to the separatists' colorations and manipulations of public policy are very serious. The amendment adds nothing positive or helpful to a poor bill and therefore I cannot support it.