Debates of Nov. 20th, 1995

Questions Passed As Orders For Returns

[The Speaker]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-96, an act to establish the Department of Human Resources Development and to amend and repeal certain related acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee; and of the amendment.

Department Of Human Resources Development Act

[Jean Augustine, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on second reading of Bill C-96, a bill that deals primarily with administrative reorganization.

Canadians have made it clear that they want government and government services to operate in a more efficient and cost effective manner. The service delivery network initiative is an ambitious effort to respond to this message.

I will focus on the service delivery network because this is a key part of the government's overall plan to renew and revitalize federal programs and services. The service delivery network should be viewed in the same context as Bill C-96, the Department of Human Resources Development Act.

Does Bill C-96 contemplate new programs? No. Does it create new authorities? No. Does it alter jurisdictional arrangements? By no means. Bill C-96 is not a policy initiative aimed at new authorities or new programs. Rather it is a means to improve the delivery of programs and services while saving taxpayers' dollars.

It introduces creative and innovative delivery mechanisms. The service delivery network is a vital part of this policy initiative. It looks to the future instead of to the past. It puts people first by providing comprehensive service at the local and community level. The evolution of this service delivery network would not have been possible without a strong commitment to meet the needs of Canadians without jeopardizing the economic and social future.

We firmly believe that it is possible to enhance the quality of services to the public while delivering those services in a more cost effective manner. Indeed, this approach has been tested within the Department of Human Resources Development.

Through innovation and creativity, the Department of Human Resources Development has been able to create a network of some 700 outlets across the country. When the network is fully opera-

tional, it will ensure access to human resource development service for a full 97 per cent of working Canadians.

In concrete terms, I want to stress that these improvements will mean applications for old age security will take only a half a day instead of eight days to process. The processing of Canadian pension plan applications will take one day instead of 15 days. Canadians from all walks of life will find it easier to access services and information and some services will be available 24 hours a day.

As well, the network will deliver a broader array of programs and services. Employment counselling and other employment services, unemployment insurance, federal labour programs, income security programs such as the Canada pension plan and old age security, will be provided at the more than 300 human resource centres across the country.

In addition, up to 400 self-serve electronic kiosks will be located in strategic sites, such as Outreach offices, libraries and municipal offices. In my constituency I am now working with HRD to ensure that we have three to five kiosks in our general area. They will provide access to job information, UI programs, CPP and OAS.

Personnel assistants will be available at all but a few sites, meaning that for seniors personalized service will be available at four times as many points of service as is presently the case. There will be someone there to offer assistance to the seniors ready to use the kiosks.

That is not all. Self-serve access through mail, computers, telephones and the Internet will continue to be expanded. As well, a new electronic labour exchange system is being tested. The system will connect job seekers to employers by computer.

A system to allow unemployment insurance claimants to complete their report cards by telephone is operating on a pilot basis in Calgary and Sherbrooke.

The genius of the self-service delivery network is its capacity to adapt to local realities. Through agreements with organizations such as the YMCA or YWCA and other service groups, the network permits community based delivery of services. This grassroots approach makes tremendous sense in a country as vast as Canada, where local circumstances can vary considerably.

By tailoring programs and services to individual communities, in co-operation with Canadians, the department demonstrates wisdom and foresight. Partnership arrangements, such as co-location of offices and merging of services are being entered into with other federal agencies, provincial and municipal governments, and social service organizations outside government.

All of this demonstrates the sensitivity and breadth of vision the government has brought to bear in designing this network. A great deal of thought and preparation went into its creation. The idea for this particular initiative did not happen overnight. It grew out of our red book commitments to improve services and opportunities for Canadians.

It began to take greater shape during the extensive social security reform consultations held with important stakeholders, business people, labour and community groups. Over and over, as we tour the country, Canadians delivered a clear and compelling message: get Canadians back to work, put more power into the hands of individuals to help themselves, remove unnecessary obstacles to Canada's social and economic prosperity.

The service delivery network responds directly to the demands we heard. It achieves the twin goals of improved service and reduced cost. Clearly this is the kind of government renewal Canadians have demanded: better, more personal, more efficient, responsive, flexible, innovative and creative services, aimed at the individual needs of clients where they live, and it saves taxpayers' dollars.

If there is any formula for its success it lies with the network's overriding focus on the people it serves. The network zeros in on local needs and priorities. It maintains personalized services for those who need help while increasing the number of access points. It also makes use of proven application of new technologies.

Does it attempt to create new authorities or change the power of the federal government to initiate or administer programs of any sort? No. It is simply innovative, a more creative and responsible approach to delivering services to Canadians.

Does it attempt to change existing jurisdictional provisions, as some members opposite would have us believe? Not at all. Existing agreements remain in place. Arrangements, partnerships, joint programs and so forth will continue to be negotiated as always. Our partners will be better able to achieve their own goals and objectives as a result of the service delivery network.

This new service delivery network strengthens the community of shared interest across the country. Canadians have placed their trust in us to make the best possible use of our resources, both economic and human, and I call on all members of the House to understand this new delivery service.

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, once again, I welcome the opportunity to rise in the House to defend the interests of those I represent. Today we are discussing Bill C-96, an act to establish the Department of Human Resources Development and to amend and repeal certain related acts. At first glance there is nothing to be worried about.

According to the minister, the bill merely brings together elements of various departments under the single name: Department of Human Resources Development. The stated purpose of this reorganization, to improve management of various services, is entirely praiseworthy, but unfortunately, we must point out that such bills are being used by the federal government to continue its

attempts to encroach on the jurisdictions of Quebec and the other provinces. Unfortunately, these attempts are often successful.

Less than a week ago, I rose to condemn another bill, C-95, which also turned out to be a direct attack on the prerogatives of the Government of Quebec. I strongly condemned this approach, and I must say that the situation today calls for much the same treatment.

When we analyse Bill C-96, we see it is typical of a government that is discreetly trying to extend its powers, a government for whom provincial prerogatives are far from sacrosanct. In this respect, my colleague the hon. member for Mercier pointed out that coming hard on the heels of a vote in which Quebecers gave Canada a brief respite to shape up, Bill C-96 is an insult. How right she was. With this bill, the government is trying to legislate powers it never had under the constitution.

For instance, in clause 6 we read that the powers of the minister are to be exercised with the objective "of enhancing employment, encouraging equality and promoting social security". Never mind the minister: encouraging equality and promoting social security were not part of the original legislation. Similarly, what about clauses 7 and 13, the former providing that the minister may "co-operate with provincial authorities with a view to the co-ordination of efforts made or proposed for preserving and improving human resources development"? Now that is a good example of the government's attitude to co-operation with the provinces.

When we see what it does with the suggestions and the consensus there, it is easy enough to believe. Clause 20 provides that the minister may, as part of his duties: "-enter into agreements with a province or group of provinces, agencies of provinces, financial institutions and such other persons or bodies as the Minister considers appropriate". This is what the government is calling decentralization, this circumventing of provincial jurisdiction and going directly to persons or bodies. This is what they call decentralization.

Once again, despite what the Minister of Human Resources Development says, this clause enables him to enter into agreements with, as I have just indicated, a number of bodies and institutions and even with individuals. With this clause, the minister is giving himself the power to go over the heads of the provinces-this cannot be said often enough-and enter into agreements with whomever he deems appropriate.

Do I need to point out that this does not appear in the original legislation? No clause in this bill provides that the government should respect provincial jurisdiction. Bill C-95, which a number of my colleagues and I strongly criticized recently, to its credit, at least attempts to respect the provincial governments by precluding the possibility of its exercising "any jurisdiction or control over any health authority operating under the laws of any province".

When we see the extent of the federal government's encroachment, even when it says it wants to respect areas of jurisdiction, we can easily imagine the situation had it not expressed its desire to do so.

This bill definitely confirms the federal government's involvement in social and job programs. This fact is all the more obvious in the area of manpower training.

The minister talks of a whole other sort of decentralization. He intimates that his aim is to give communities and individuals more manoeuvring room. It is clear, however, that Bill C-96 is a way to get around what the provinces and Quebec want in order to deal directly with the groups and individuals the minister considers appropriate, who will, of course, be subject to whatever standards he may wish to impose.

The minister also talks of a single window. In this regard, the Quebec minister of employment, Louise Harel, said recently that Bill C-96 was the antithesis of the single window Quebec would like to establish by making the Société québécoise de développement de la main-d'oeuvre the primary intervenor in training matters. The SQDM is the embodiment of Quebec's consensus on the need for the Government of Quebec to be given full powers in manpower matters.

Despite this, according to the federal documents Le Devoir cites in its November 10 issue, the federal government is apparently preparing to end its co-operation with the Société québécoise de développement de la main-d'oeuvre in order to deal directly with community organizations and private institutions that it will finance and that will be subject to its eligibility criteria.

At a time when only the present Prime Minister and Pierre Trudeau still believe that further centralization is the solution to the multiple problems of federalism, it is not surprising that Bill C-96, although long ready, was not debated before the referendum.

This government has a very disappointing record with employment and social services; more than two years have passed and there is as much unemployment and even more people on welfare, and the coming unemployment insurance reform, also long ready and also kept hidden to keep Quebecers from knowing the true intentions of the government, will only make its record even worse.

Recently, in response to questions from the Leader of the Opposition on Bill C-96, the Minister of Human Resources Development replied that "obviously the Leader of the Opposition has not taken the time to read the bill". To counter this pretentious

statement, I would like to refer to a number of Quebec reactions to the federal announcement of its intent.

The Société québécoise de développement de la main-d'oeuvre under Claude Béland and Ghislain Dufour has unanimously adopted a resolution calling for the federal government to transfer all of its manpower training budgets to Quebec.

The Quebec Minister of Employment, Louise Harel, described Bill C-96 as "the blunt rejection of the unanimous consensus in Quebec-".

We might add the reactions of the Canada Labour Congress and the Canadian Institute of Adult Education, both denouncing Bill C-96, one calling it "an attempt to bypass the provinces" and the other "a flagrant lack of respect for the aspirations of the provinces, Quebec in particular, in matters of education, training and manpower development".

For his part, the secretary general of the FTQ, the largest labour federation in Quebec, deplored the federal government's thumbing its nose at areas of provincial jurisdiction, and the Quebec consensus, in order to put into place a parallel structure to what is already there. He added "Even the Conseil du patronat sides with the unions on this. And even Robert Bourassa's Liberal government opposed a similar attempt by Ottawa in 1991. Anyone who still harbours any illusions about Canadian federalism ought to think twice before voting in the referendum".

These comments were made three weeks prior to the referendum, but they hold as true today as they did then.

For all these reasons, it is obvious that we in the Bloc Quebecois share the opinion of the majority of Quebecers and would be unable to vote in favour of such a bill.

[Larry McCormick, Liberal, Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox And Addington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak on Bill C-96.

A year ago our human resources development standing committee conducted public hearings in Ottawa and all across Canada. As a member of this committee I attended hearings in 25 cities in 35 days in 10 provinces, 2 territories and the East Arctic. In my own riding constituents shared their ideas and concerns with me at four town hall meetings held in Napanee, Sydenham, Bancroft and Tweed.

I believe the bill addresses the concerns we heard from many Canadians. Recently in my riding I had the opportunity to attend the opening of an HRDC job kiosk in Northbrook, Ontario. Mr. Adrian van Asseldonk, our local HRDC manager, and his staff have provided residents from the Northbrook area, the northern part of our Lennox and Addington County, access to job market information. They no longer have to make the long trip to Napanee, Belleville or Kingston.

As we look at the legislation before us we could talk for hours on end about what this mandate clause means or that qualification entails or about what wordings should be changed; indeed we have to do this. It is our responsibility to get the legislation right but we also have to take our eyes away from the fine print, look at the thing as a whole and ask what it really means.

We can find out what it means outside these four walls in the communities because in the end this is about people; people who have hopes and dreams for the future, people who are willing to work hard for those dreams, people who are often struggling to hang on to a job or fund a new one, old people who are struggling to get by on a fixed income, young people stepping out of the school room into a world few of us could have imagined just a few short years ago. Those are the people who know about the real work this department is doing day in and day out across the country.

HRDC touches the lives of millions of Canadians every year perhaps more directly than any other government department. From survivor benefits to student loans, unemployment insurance, employment programs and services, old age security, HRDC has an impact on Canadians at each stage of their lives.

The HRDC described in the bill is working with Canadians in a new way. The government recognizes that Canada and Canadians are in the midst of a sea of change economically and socially. Our labour market and social programs have to change as well. For women, for aboriginal peoples, for people with disabilities and visible minorities this means a new Employment Equity Act, a stronger, more effective act which was tabled last year. In times of economic upheaval our commitment is to equity for all Canadians and it must be stronger than ever before.

For people looking for a chance to learn and expand their opportunities, it means a new Canada student loans program, the first major overhaul of the program in years and one that puts a good education into the reach of more Canadians than ever before.

For the first time there are specific grants to help women go to graduate schools in areas once dominated by men. For the first time students with disabilities can get support for the special facilities they need. For the first time single mothers can go back to school and get the financial help they need to pay for child care. At a time when knowledge and education are so critical, the new program is vital to many Canadians.

For older workers displaced by technology or by the decline of an industry, the bill means marshalling our resources to give them

a hand, through strong partnerships with other governments like we have in Quebec through the program for older worker adjustment.

It means bold new approaches like the Atlantic groundfish strategy, helping displaced fishers and plant workers across Newfoundland and Labrador.

For young people who are unemployed and out of school it means youth services Canada. At last count, there were 200 projects across the country where they are learning new skills through community service.

Projects like one in Red Deer, Alberta where young people are working with the RCMP to deal with drug programs. Projects like the one in Clayoquot Sound where 20 young aboriginal men and women are working to develop a promising new eco-tourism program. Projects like the one in New Brunswick where young people are cleaning up and reclaiming polluted streams and rivers.

For young Canadians still in school the new approach means youth internships where private sector firms are giving kids in grade 10 or 11 hands on work experience tied in with the school curriculum. This year alone there are 25,000 young interns across Canada thanks to the strong partnerships we are building with the private sector. Business and government are working together to give young people a shot at a great future.

Bill C-96 means the Canadian Tourism Human Resource Council addresses the training needs of 1.2 million workers across this country. For women, this bill means Women in Trades and Technology, a national group helping women get into more trade, technological and blue collar jobs, with a national support network, courses and training programs designed specifically for women.

For some 30,000 unemployed Canadians it means getting a helping hand as they create their own jobs and become self-employed and, in the process, creating an additional 30,000 jobs for other Canadians.

For all Canadians this bill means the federal government working with the provinces to test new approaches in employment and training, learning and education and income support and services.

For example, in P.E.I. the Choice and Opportunity Project is designing and testing a delivery model to improve integrated services for persons with intellectual disabilities, eliminating barriers within generic programs and services and moving from segregated to inclusive community systems. The project is conducted in partnership with the Canadian Association for Community Living and the P.E.I. Association for Community Living.

In Newfoundland, the project "Transitions-The Changes Within" is helping over 5,000 people by testing a tuition voucher system that helps students remain in full time studies, helping post-secondary graduates gain work experience and becoming self-employed, helping unemployed workers find full time work.

In British Columbia an initiative is under way to improve the quality and access to child care for working and studying families through community one stop access centres, testing delivery models for the delivery of child care and finding ways to help children with special day care needs.

In New Brunswick the job corps project provides an annualized income to participants, people over 50 who were unemployed or on social assistance, in return for 26 weeks of volunteer work.

In every province we are making a real difference in the lives of Canadians from all walks of life. We are making a difference because we have transformed HRDC and our approach to delivering the programs that Canadians need.

This transformation will continue. In August the Minister of Human Resources Development announced the establishment of a new modern service delivery network that will reach more Canadians than ever before, the most sophisticated, efficient delivery network in the government.

We are developing new, more flexible programs and services through the human resources investment fund, programs that will be locally based, locally driven and focused squarely on results.

That is what the bill really means: a new direction for the department; a new focus for jobs and opportunity; a new approach to helping Canadians catch hold of their dreams for the future.

The human resources development department is doing good things for Canada. Bill C-96 will let us do more and better things. Let us not put up roadblocks. Let us get on with the job of serving Canadians.

I have a comment for an hon. member opposite. When I, along with other colleagues of the House, put in 12, 15 and 16-hour days across the country, in all corners, from sea to sea to sea, most members of the committee stayed in the room, listened to the witnesses. They listened to Canadians. Some hon. members stayed for one hour a day. There were stories of them going out on to the streets and signing up members for their party. I am ashamed of the conduct of some members of the House.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to rise on behalf of the people of Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt to oppose Bill C-96, an act to establish the Department of Human Resources Development and to amend and repeal certain related acts.

As we all know, this piece of so-called legislative genius proposes to transfer legal powers from one department to a new department. A new department. Another department.

Once again the Liberals are not listening to Canadians. Canadians have repeatedly demanded, in fact they have begged, the Liberals to reduce the size of the federal government. All over the world, western democracies are reducing the size of bureaucratic monsters. Canadian provinces are doing everything they can to reduce the size of their operations. Other governments are trying to eliminate the waste of taxpayers' dollars, to eliminate duplication of tasks, to eliminate overlap in duties and to eliminate inefficiency and ineffectiveness. Not the Liberal Party of Canada.

The federal government, under the command of a man who brought our country to the brink of destruction, is creating more bureaucracy and red tape.

The Liberals are quick to say that this legislation only serves to reinforce existing federal powers for social programs. In the current post-referendum phase in which we are living Canadians do not want to reinforce any areas of federal government intervention. In fact, Canadians are demanding alternatives to the status quo.

The Liberals insist the legislation does not create any new powers for the federal government. How can we believe this, given the Liberal government's intention to increase government and to reinforce its firm grip of power over social programs for Canadians?

The Liberals are silent with respect to the increase or decrease of staff in the human resources development sector. There is nothing more scary than a silent Liberal, unless it is the Liberal defence minister saying that he needs a pen. In fact, this legislation contains a royal recommendation which authorizes expenditures that are undisclosed. Undisclosed?

This bill is a masterpiece of Liberal silence. Ask any Liberal member and he or she will tell you with a straight face that any expenditure under the bill is expected to be minimal, so Canadians have nothing to worry about.

The defence minister's new quill-tipped, gold lettering engraved pens, encased in some kind of black velvet, were a minimal expense.

The Liberal government's $100 million gun registry is a minimal expense. Most non-Liberal Party sources agree that $100 million is the minimal amount that the punishment of law-abiding, responsible firearms owners and users is going to cost. On the subject of how much the gun registry is going to cost, most authorities, that is those who do not belong to the Liberal Party of Canada, believe it will cost Canadian taxpayers much more than $100 million.

Since this past August I have uncovered over $100 million worth of wasteful and questionable spending by the Minister of National Defence and his senior officials. One hundred million dollars means nothing at all to this Liberal government. It has only to be careful to make sure that the defence minister does not spend $100 million on gold-plated pens.

The Reform Party of Canada is looking forward to building a new Canada of the 21st century. The Reform Party has a program which would allow the federal government to withdraw from fields it currently occupies jointly with the provinces.

The provincial premiers are in favour of negotiating the transfer of power from the federal government to the provincial governments. The Reform Party's voice has no attachment to the status quo. The Reform Party is not interested in dragging our country back into a constitutional quagmire. Our 20-point plan can modernize and decentralize the country, something for which Canadians are clearly asking.

Bill C-96 is an embarrassment to the Liberal government. The Liberals should withdraw this phoney bill. The Prime Minister has nearly smashed our nation to smithereens as a result of his complete misunderstanding of the will of the people of Quebec and all other provinces. The Prime Minister misjudged the referendum within Quebec. He misjudged the referendum as a national issue. Canadians had to take it on themselves to travel to Quebec to express their wish for that province to remain in our family.

Canadians were hoping the Prime Minister would lead the way in assuring Quebecers that all Canadians wanted Quebec to vote no. Canadians as usual since October 1993 were sorely disappointed by the Prime Minister. We have been let down. The Prime Minister and the Liberals have lost the confidence of our nation. Yet the Liberals are busy creating another federal government department. This is pure balderdash.

The Minister of Human Resources Development and the Minister of Western Economic Diversification has been fudging his handling of Canadian social programs since the Liberals took office. The infamous red book made lofty promises of social policy reform. This minister has yet to be able to get anything meaningful past the Liberal cabinet.

The bill is a desperate attempt by this minister to do something about our nation's social policy. Canadians want social policy reform. This bill creates bureaucracy. It does not reduce government or reform social policy. This bill takes the existing situation and shuffles it all around.

The Reform Party is offering Canadians the opportunity to decentralize powers to the provinces and truly reform our public tax supported institutions. We propose to get our money's worth from what we have to work with. Unlike the Liberals, we want to

bring power closer to the grassroots of Canada. We do not propose to continue allowing bureaucrats in Ottawa to answer their phones and just say no to whatever the people of British Columbia, Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia and all other provinces are asking.

Western Canadians have as many problems with the status quo as our Quebec counterparts. Virtually all Canadians want change and the Liberals do not realize it. Our forefathers managed to change our nation each time we were faced with difficulties in how we would govern ourselves.

In terms of social services, including medical services, we propose to change the role of the federal government to that of fostering co-operative interprovincial agreements rather than imposing unilateral standards and withholding transfer payments as a punishment for non-conformity. By proceeding with the bill the Liberal Party is acting completely against the will of Canadians. The government should be ashamed.

I must sound the alarm for Canadians watching that the bill does away with an annual report for the new department. As hard as it is to believe, even though we are $550 billion in debt the Liberals are creating a department of the federal government that does not even have to report its administration costs.

The Liberal Party and its leader have been terribly smitten because they have been trying to appease Quebec without consideration for the wants and desires of other provinces.

The Reform Party is rising like a phoenix out of the west. After the next election the Reform Party will have at least an additional 100 seats. These seats will come from lost Liberal seats in rural Ontario and eastern Canada. The grassroots movement of our party is a wave that is sweeping across the nation. After the next election Canadians will see a new form of federalism come to the country with the Reform Party of Canada as a new government.

On behalf of my constituents and all Canadians I say no to Bill C-96.

[Shaughnessy Cohen, Liberal, Windsor—St. Clair, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-96, the Department of Human Resources Development Act.

I am also pleased to respond to some of the suggestions of the member for Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt. He said that his party seeks to eliminate overlap and inefficiencies and is a rising phoenix. The phoenix is dragging its tail. It is trying to make its point on cheap shots about the Prime Minister and about the minister of human resources.

[Darrel Stinson, Reform, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

There is nothing cheap there.

[Shaughnessy Cohen, Liberal, Windsor—St. Clair, ON]

A phoenix is a bird that cheeps and this phoenix is certainly about the cheapest around.

Canadians are demanding alternatives to the status quo. Canadians are demanding efficiencies. The bill does not deals with substantive issues. The bill deals with issues consequential to not creating a new department but merging three different departments. The bill is about efficiencies, about preventing overlap and about producing better results for the Canadian taxpayer.

Members know that the Department of Human Resources Development already exists through orders in council. An obvious question might be: Why bother proceeding with this in a legislative format? The department is working. Why not put the legislation off until other substantive issues could be included? It is a fair question and I would like to address it briefly. In my view there are essentially five reasons why we need the bill and why we should proceed without delay.

First, we need a straightforward way to clarify the role of the department and to clarify ministerial responsibilities. The existing arrangements are set out through orders in council. They are perfectly legitimate as transitional arrangements. However, in the final analysis the government, and I am sure everyone in the House, even the great Reform phoenix, would prefer to see this complex trail of statutory powers leading back to the enabling legislation of many different founding departments replaced with one single, coherent bill that sets out the mandate and the powers of the department in one place. That is just common sense. It ought to appeal to all of us. It certainly ought to appeal to the Reform Party.

Second, by providing that single coherent mandate we could then clarify the identity of the department, something that is important both for its employees, although I do not think the Reform Party is worried about them, and for its clients, Canadian citizens, people the government cares about.

For more than a year employees from the four founding departments, labour, employment and immigration, health and welfare and the secretary of state, have been working together to create a new organization. They have accomplished a great deal but their own sense of belonging, being part of a single focused organization, really cannot be complete until the legislation is passed.

Bill C-96 means that the people who work for the department can turn the page and head into a new chapter. At the same time people in organizations who work with the department need to know with whom they are working. This is difficult when, for example, departmental officials at this point legally cannot really use human resources department letterhead. For legal and contracting purposes they still use letterhead from departments that in the

eyes of our partners do not even exist any more. That may seem like a minor issue, but it creates a great deal of confusion among our partners and is expensive.

It is related to the third reason why we need Bill C-96 now. It would be overstating the case to say that existing arrangements are an administrative nightmare, but it does not overstate the case by much. Without enabling legislation for the department even simple issues like getting a person transferred turns into a complex, time consuming and costly process.

When more detailed contracts are involved the process gets very messy. This is understandable and unavoidable during a major restructuring and transition, but there comes a time to bring that transition to an end. Two years have passed since the reorganization started and the time is now because we need to move forward. This is the fourth reason for the bill.

We have to consolidate the progress we have achieved in integrating social and labour market programs and sharpening the focus on developing Canada's human resources. More important, we need to clear the way for further progress.

As we undertake a major overhaul of the UI program, as we develop new programs and services under the human resources investment fund, as we work to improve programs for seniors, as the department implements the next phase of re-engineering and streamlining services to Canada, we need to clear the way.

This brings me to the fifth and most important reason we need the bill. Canadians need and deserve the best possible service. In the end that is what really matters about the bill. In the end that is what Liberals worry about. The displaced workers who walk into the Canada employment centre in Windsor, Ontario, deserve the same kind of integrated, results oriented support focused on helping people adjust and get new jobs.

The single mother from my riding who is looking for help needs the kind of integrated service that will help her care for her children while getting the skills and income support that will help her to build a life with a future.

The young person stuck in a cycle of dead end jobs and unemployment after leaving school needs help breaking that cycle. That is what Human Resources Development Canada is there for. We need to ensure that the department can do its job. It is important to clear up the administrative tangles left over from earlier times. It is important to establish a clear identity and a coherent mandate for the new organization to function properly. It is important to ensure that as the department looks to the future there is a solid foundation to build on.

It is important also to continue to fulfil the overwhelming desire of Canadians, a desire that is clear in all 10 provinces and in the territories. What Canadians want is a strong federal government that can make sure that programs and services are delivered uniformly across the country.

Bill C-96 provides the department that will provide that foundation in the human resources development area. We need to pass the bill. We need to get on with the work of serving Canadians.

[Yves Rocheleau, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I take part in this debate today on Bill C-96, an act to establish the Department of Human Resources Development.

Over the next ten minutes, I intend to look at the issue of employment centres restructuring, from the particular point of view of Quebec, where, from now on, we will have 78 suboffices coming under 28 offices called regional management centres.

I will also address this issue as it relates to a case of particular concern to me, namely the CEC of Trois-Rivières, because we were stunned and outraged to learn, on June 22, 1995, that the department planned to establish the regional management centre in Shawinigan rather than in Trois-Rivières.

This announcement immediately gave rise to a general outcry. Yours truly was the first one to denounce such plans, soon to be followed by the mayor of Trois-Rivières, the Chamber of Commerce and 70 organizations of the greater Trois-Rivières area, including 40 municipalities, all of which passed resolutions denouncing the federal government's plans in this respect.

This eventually resulted in a petition being circulated over the summer by the EIC employees' union, with the full support of the Federation of Senior Citizens, because this bill is a direct attack on senior citizens, and of the local branches of the Fédération des caisses populaires Desjardins, which helped circulate the petition. As a result, upwards of 25,000 citizens have signed the petition and expressed in writing their opposition to these plans the federal government has regarding our region.

As you can see, in addition to being very unpopular in the Trois-Rivières region, this decision actually contradicts the department's own criteria for determining the most sensible location for these offices.

In fact, the criteria were based first of all on the total population; second, on the number of people on unemployment insurance; third, on the number of people receiving income security benefits; fourth, on the number of senior citizens concerned; and finally, on

the number of businesses and employers affected by the activities of the employment centres. The department, preferring to ignore its own criteria, concluded for obvious reasons that it was better to locate the regional centre in Shawinigan instead of Trois-Rivières, although there is twice as much economic activity in the Trois-Rivières region as in Shawinigan.

The same ratio applies to the total population, the number of senior citizens and the number of businesses. This is one more example that shows why it makes no sense to locate in Shawinigan instead of Trois-Rivières. The practical implications are all explained in a document we happened to receive not long ago. This is an internal management document entitled: "Preliminary Report on Centralization of Claims Processing".

This document was released less than a month ago on October 23, 1995, and prepared by a committee of 11 department officials, including several senior officials. The report more or less describes the future role of the sub-offices, including Trois-Rivières. The sub-offices will receive benefit claims, transmit the claims and collect the facts from the client. According to a note in the document, this will only consist in taking down information provided by the client.

So they will take this information down in Trois-Rivières and routinely send it on to Shawinigan, where more than half of the files will come from Trois-Rivières and the surrounding region. Trois-Rivières in this case includes Cap-de-la-Madeleine and Trois-Rivières West. And what about Bécancour, which will have to deal with Drummondville? It does not make sense. There is no administrative or historic link between the residents of Bécancour and Drummondville, which is another absurd aspect of this plan.

We, that is my colleagues for Champlain and Richelieu and myself, wrote to the minister to make the appropriate representations. People in our regions, especially the unemployed, will have a hard time as a result of this plan. Six weeks later on November 10-as soon as possible, as usual-we received a written reply from the minister who, by the way, was too busy to meet three members of Parliament. He referred us to an assistant deputy minister in Montreal, Mr. Gladu. We will let somebody else go and meet him.

In his letter, the minister explained why Shawinigan had been chosen instead of Trois-Rivières, and I quote: "The government decided to centralize Human Resources Development Canada's internal services for the Mauricie region at the Shawinigan centre because it felt it would be useful to bring together a certain number of services and departments, including Revenue Canada and Human Resources Development Canada".

Which means it was a matter of accommodation, office space would appear to be available at the Taxation Data Centre in Shawinigan. The reason is therefore simply a physical one, despite the decision's unpopularity and unreasonableness. It is a matter of premises that has led to preparations to move it to Shawinigan-South and yet, in the present building, there are premises available. Even more will be coming available soon, because the network will disappear in the restructuring, and this will free up a whole floor and another one, two floors leased until 1999 which will be available and could accommodate all the personnel required for a regional management centre in Trois-Rivières.

So this reason does not hold. What is more, the minister says that the future centre in Shawinigan, in addition to offering the same programs and services as in Trois-Rivières, will manage internal services relating to the administration and processing of unemployment insurance claims. This tells us about the particular role of the Shawinigan centre rather than the one in Trois-Rivières.

Here again, according to this document, not only will the actual files of people from Trois-Rivières be in Shawinigan, but departmental investigations will be done from Shawinigan, appeals to the board of referees will be made there and complaints about unemployment insurance will be lodged there. According to the same document, three claims out of four will be reviewed, as they call it, and will be given special follow-up because of some complexity or other. Therefore three claims out of four arriving in Trois-Rivières will be transferred to Shawinigan and given special treatment.

And yet, here is what the minister says in his missive. He tells us that he has no intention of making any changes to the way the department is serving the people of Trois-Rivières. Well, at this time, the physical files of UI claimants are in Trois-Rivières; departmental investigations are conducted in Trois-Rivières; appeals to the UI arbitration board are heard in Trois-Rivières; and relatively complex files are processed in Trois-Rivières. Therefore, we cannot trust the minister when he tells us that the services provided to the people of Trois-Rivières will not be affected in any way. This cannot be true in my opinion.

How can we trust the minister? What guarantee does he give in this letter that there will be no changes? There is no guarantee. The more we look at this, the more we realize that the decision to move and almost dismantle the Trois-Rivières manpower centre-whose staff, according to our information, will be reduced from around 100 one or two years ago to 12-is purely political.

This is a purely political decision. If the hon. member for Saint-Maurice and Prime Minister wants to show his constituents that electing him was not a mistake, that they did the right thing for the riding of Saint-Maurice by electing him, he may have the right to take measures, but he has no right to do so at the expense of the people of Trois-Rivières and the surrounding region and to look down on them. He has no right to do that, and I take this opportunity to tell you, Mr. Speaker, and to tell this House that we will not give up. We do not accept this decision and we never will.

[Marlene Catterall, Liberal, Ottawa West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the service delivery network initiative, a feature of this bill, is a significant step forward in providing Canadians with faster, more effective and efficient services. It gives the government and local communities greater flexibility to help those about whom we are all most concerned, those Canadians in need of some assistance from their government, whether it is through unemployment insurance, a retirement pension or many of the other services now under the jurisdiction of the Department of Human Resources Development. Not only does it provide for greater self-service, it enhances access to in-person service.

The service delivery network was spurred by the need to accomplish two goals: improve the quality of service and reduce costs. These goals may seem contradictory. The government, however, was convinced from the beginning that better and more innovative service is a means saving money. It is also a way to meet the needs of Canadians more effectively.

Canadians clearly agree. They know fiscal restraint and social responsibility are both essential to Canada's future; they told us so during our wide ranging consultations. That is what the new service delivery network achieves; faster, more responsive, localized and personalized service at less cost.

Given the tone of the debate on Bill C-96, it would be useful to restate the background behind the reform. First, it bears repeating that Bill C-96 is an administrative measure, not a policy instrument. The new service delivery network breaks new ground in terms of innovation and creativity. What it does not do is create new powers for the federal government; nor does it invade provincial jurisdiction in matters of labour market development. It is an administrative reform initiative, period. It is not necessary or even desirable to alter jurisdictional arrangements or create new authorities.

How will this new service delivery network benefit Quebecers? The new network will affect the lives of Quebecers in many ways. Across the province, Human Resources Development Canada provides services through an expanding network of offices. Whether through programs and services relating to employment, old age pension benefits and unemployment insurance or any of the various job-related services, every Quebecer will be affected by one or more of these programs at one time or another, from their youth to their retirement.

HRDC offices in Quebec serve more than one million people. For students alone, there are 87 Canada Employment Centres for Students. The Quebec network administers several employment programs and Canada-Quebec agreements, a number of joint ventures involving the province and the federal government, 50,000 contracts relating to manpower and a $13.3 billion budget.

In 1994-1995, HRDC helped more than 164,000 Quebecers find jobs and nearly 45,000 students find summer jobs.

Education is another area in which HRDC makes a significant contribution. Without the required skills, Canadians and Quebecers have no hope of matching the competition on the rapidly changing global market we are dealing with today. That is why HRDC pumped $1.5 billion into the Quebec post-secondary education system. Young Quebecers certainly took advantage of this financial assistance to further their education.

The department helped nearly 280,000 participants in employment services and nearly 150,000 employment program participants. It served 850,000 old age security pension plan recipients. As well, HRDC contributed more than $2.7 billion under the Canada assistance plan to help some 700,000 people receiving social assistance benefits. It provided the unemployment insurance service to a monthly average of 528,000 claimants.

HRDC funds pilot projects like Éduplus, Formetal and La Puce to develop innovative ways of serving the public. The department also contributed to the outstanding success of groups like the Cirque du Soleil, which flourished with the financial support of HRDC.

This list of achievements speaks volumes. It shows that meaningful partnerships between the federal government and the people of Quebec promote community building and shape its future. By providing easier access to improved services, we broaden even more future prospects.

These initiatives and programs did not appear out of thin air; they are the result of sustained efforts by the department in Quebec. They certainly bear the Quebec government's seal of approval, since most of them arise from various partnership agreements that have been signed.

There are the Canada-Quebec interim agreement on labour force development measures, the Canada assistance plan, the agreement on enhancing employment opportunities for social assistance recipients, the Canada-Quebec agreement on the assignment of unemployment insurance benefits, the Canada-Quebec agreement on the exchange of information, the Canada student loan program with

block funding to Quebec, the post-secondary education financing agreement with block funding to Quebec.

Do Quebecers appreciate these services? Undoubtedly, as evidenced by the 50,000 contracts relating to manpower, representing about $685 million, that were awarded in Quebec, including 9,600 contracts with non-profit organizations; 9,300 contracts with private sector enterprises; 2,800 contracts with public sector enterprises such as municipalities; 3,200 contracts with the Government of Quebec for the provision of institutional training and 25,000 contracts under the fee payer trainee program.

I have described the daily ongoing service of Human Resources Development Canada to the residents of Quebec and in co-operation with the people of Quebec. These are not the inventions of the new service delivery network. They are the content the network was designed to deliver more effectively, more responsively, more creatively.

Opposing improvements in the delivery of programs does not serve the interests of Quebecers. Confusing administrative reform with reform of social policy or jurisdictional changes does not serve the interests of Quebecers or of Canadians anywhere. Innovation and creativity do serve the interests of all Canadians, including Quebecers, and innovation and creativity are what the new service delivery network is all about.

The Department of Human Resources Development has every intention of remaining innovative in its delivery of services and programs but it has not by this initiative invented any new programs. We do need new ideas and ways of doing things. We need clarity of vision, which is what this bill represents, a new way for a new future of delivering programs right across the country, helping those who most need to adapt in a new economy.

[Dennis Mills, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the opportunity to participate in this debate.

Human Resources Development Canada I believe, from my longstanding commitment to the Liberal tradition, is central to the government's maintaining its credibility with the people of Canada. Of all government departments Human Resources Development Canada is the one at this time that should get the most support and the most encouragement from all members of the House.

As we are going through a period of restructuring we have these incredible forces from the right that say cut, eliminate, offload, decentralize. When we are doing that for the purpose of eliminating waste I am sympathetic.

I believe human resources development has to be one of the departments of the national government that remain strong and intact. It must be the counterbalance to provincial forces that quite often are shortsighted and think in a parochial way rather than in the interest of the whole of Canada. I maintain that unless we have national programs with national standards it will be very difficult for us to maintain a sense of national will.

I am totally opposed to offloading any more of the decision making process in an area like human resources development to the province of Quebec or to any other provinces. All of a sudden we will have that parochial thought process emerge. We will become a country in which essentially we have about five or six different standards, thought processes emerging. When we are trying to develop national standards it is virtually impossible when we go that route.

I will give an example in terms of my own province, Ontario. We have a Conservative government which is being very shortsighted in the way it is treating its human resources development opportunities.

[Darrel Stinson, Reform, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Not according to the people.

[Dennis Mills, Liberal, Broadview—Greenwood, ON]

A member from the Reform Party said not according to the people.

I have to take a minute to talk about the people and why the provincial government is so popular in Ontario. We have in the country now an emerging culture. A book written by John Kenneth Galbraith was called The Culture of the Content . What we have now is a culture in which there are people who have work, who have a job, who have everything going for them, who might have a lot of RRSPs, whose business may be in good shape, who are essentially content. They represent about 70 per cent.

The 70 per cent who are basically content, who have their paycheque secure, or who have enough investment income that they can look after themselves are essentially comfortable with this right wing agenda. Those people are not being as sensitive as they used to be toward those in our community who do not have, who do not have work, who do not have the opportunity to get retrained. We must as governments invest in some people to be retrained.

We have in our province a Conservative government catering to the contented culture. It is forgetting the 30 per cent who are having a very difficult time. The Ontario government's vision is very much like a business vision. It is like earnings per share per quarter.

When building a country we cannot run it like a business. We have to think of the investment in human capital for the long term. It is essential that we have a counterbalance at the national level.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh.

[Dennis Mills, Liberal, Broadview—Greenwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when I try to talk in a constructive way about the issue here, the Reform Party does not let me finish. There may be a day when those gentlemen might be given the trust by the people of Canada. If they have been given the trust of the people of Canada, they are not supposed to get the trust and then simply say hand it over to the province.

The Chamber is meant to be a counterbalance to those regional and provincial forces. When one is in the Chamber, one does not speak only for one's own riding and one's own province. When in the Chamber, one is supposed to speak for all of Canada. We are here to speak for all of Canada.

Ontario has a shortsighted vision evolving in which we do not have investment dollars going into human resource development. We should be thanking God that we have a minister who will not be pushed around by the bureaucrats in the Department of Finance when they are trying to offload this place. He will maintain his presence for a strong national human resources development department.

To the members of the Reform, there are many I have had good constructive debate with-

[An hon. member]

Does that include giving something to the Winnipeg Jets?

[Dennis Mills, Liberal, Broadview—Greenwood, ON]

The member asked whether giving money to the Winnipeg Jets is a good decision? He is taking me off the subject matter of my speech but I will talk about the Winnipeg Jets. I declare conflict of interest with the Winnipeg Jets. As members know, my son played his nine games with the Winnipeg Jets. He is only a 19-year old kid.

I support the commitment of the Government of Canada to try to maintain another National Hockey League franchise in this country. I come from Toronto where we do not have any problems maintaining a franchise. This is not a country that has looked out only for those provinces that have. We should be looking out for provinces that do not have the same resources as downtown Toronto.

It does not bother me if some of the cashflow from Ontario is distributed to Winnipeg or other places if it means we can maintain our national sport. It does not bother me.

[An hon. member]

Big business.

[Dennis Mills, Liberal, Broadview—Greenwood, ON]

It is big business. It is a multi-billion business that has created exports, equipment, players, tourism and exposure. Do not underestimate the contribution of hockey as a national sport.

Let me get back to my speech on human resources development. Mr. Speaker, please do not dock me for the diversion that was generated by the Reform Party on the Winnipeg Jets.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

The only commitment I will make-I cannot put you in the penalty box-is you have two minutes to wrap it up.

[Dennis Mills, Liberal, Broadview—Greenwood, ON]

I will not argue with the Speaker because I am afraid of a 10-minute misconduct. That means I will not be able to speak tomorrow.

I want to go back to the essence of the department, human resources. Many of the ideas and decisions taken by the Department of Human Resources Development do not always come out of Ottawa. It is very rare. That is one of the myths, one of the spins we hear from the Reform Party.

I know many of the ideas for human resource development, ideas for job creation or jobs for retraining, actually come from the grassroots, from the local human resource development offices. I bet there is not a member of Parliament who has not had an idea come through the system and get approved where the idea came right from the community.

To all members and to my dear friends from the Bloc Quebecois please, the people of Canada have spoken. They want a strong national government. We must begin by reinforcing the voice of the people to make sure the Department of Human Resources Development is the ground swell for rebuilding this great, strong, national government that once was.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing, education; the hon. member for St. John's East, domestic violence.

[Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral, Bloc, Laval Centre, QC]

Mr. Speaker, now that the Quebec referendum is over, the Liberal government is finally tabling the most important piece of its legislative agenda, that is Bill C-96. We had to put up with years of Liberal dickering and federal pussy footing to arrive at this result: at last, this government is showing its true colours.

The government can try its best by including so-called "technical" details in its bill, by saying that it merely seeks to "establish" a legal entity, and that it "streamlines" federal bureaucracy to meet the concerns of those involved. However, nothing can hide this obvious will to increase federal involvement in fields of provincial jurisdiction.

On October 5, in response to questions from the official opposition, the Minister of Human Resources Development deemed appropriate to say that the Bloc Quebecois obviously had "not taken the time to read the bill".

Whether the minister agrees or not, the fact is that the Bloc Quebecois, the Quebec government, the Société québécoise du développement de la main-d'oeuvre, the socio-economic partners in Quebec, including those representing management, union and social sectors, not to mention the Quebec minister of state responsible for joint action, have all read the same document and come to the same conclusion: Bill C-96 strengthens the centralizing views of the federal government and increases its involvement in the employment and social program sectors, including manpower training. This shows a complete disregard for the consensus reached in Quebec on the need to have all necessary powers, so that the Quebec government, in co-operation with its socio-economic partners, can channel its energy and its resources where they are needed most, based on the actual and increasing needs of its population.

On October 4, Louise Harel denounced, in a press release, the federal attempt to set up a parallel structure to get involved in the manpower training sector:

"Like its labour market partners, the Quebec government denounces Ottawa's intentions to set up its own parallel manpower structures in Quebec. This federal initiative amounts to a flat rejection of the unanimous Quebec consensus, repeatedly expressed, both under the previous administration and under the current one, on the need for Quebec to regain control over all labour adjustment measures, including the related budgets".

Let there be no mistake. This bill is a screen allowing the Liberal government to hide its real intentions. This makes it the cornerstone of federal interventionism for the Liberal government, which is now determined to ignore Quebec and overlook the provinces' wishes. This is a great example of the importance and role the federal government wants to give the provinces in tomorrow's Canada.

Bill C-96 mirrors the Canadian constitution: encroachments, overlap, duplication, and waste. Bill C-96 clearly shows that the federal government has no intention of respecting provincial jurisdiction. How can we not denounce this attitude?

This is not the federal government's first encroachment on provincial jurisdiction. After taking over unemployment insurance in the 1940s, it consolidated its hegemony in the labour sector by creating employment centres and manpower training programs. Fifty years later, we are forced to recognize that the federal government has no intention of withdrawing from that sector.

Bill C-96 undermines Quebec's efforts to set up a single framework for labour initiatives, thus confirming the official opposition's worst fears. The minister is trying to take advantage of his reform to give himself more powers at the expense of the provinces. Bill C-96 gives the government the powers it needs to bypass the provinces in concluding agreements with local organizations.

The federal government will then be able to go after municipalities and offer them responsibilities contracted directly with the Department of Human Resources Development. This would allow the minister to delegate powers to the new employment commission or any other entity, thereby bypassing provincial governments and administrations. Quebec's fears and concerns are justified, since the minister can impose his own standards on these entities by delegating these powers, without, of course, the agreement of the Canadian Parliament or the provinces. This is the Canadian version of decentralization.

This bill, if passed, will provide the necessary legislative framework to allow the minister to implement his much talked-about UI reform, which is the second piece of the federal puzzle. Several clauses of Bill C-96 grant huge discretionary powers to the head of the department, which, in the opinion of the official opposition, promotes greater federal interference and invasion of the provincial jurisdiction over social matters, and manpower in particular.

For instance, clause 6 of the bill states that the "powers, duties and functions of the Minister extend to and include all matters over which Parliament has jurisdiction-not by law assigned to any other Minister, department, board or agency of the Government of Canada, and are to be exercised with the objective of enhancing employment, encouraging equality and promoting social security".

It is clear that, with Bill C-96, the powers, duties and functions assigned to the minister are larger, because his thrust area is no longer specified in the act. One can wonder about the deeper motives of the legislator.

As for clause 7, it could hardly be vaguer. It states that "In exercising the powers or performing the duties or functions assigned to him under this or any other act of Parliament, the minister may- cooperate with provincial authorities with a view to the coordination of efforts made or proposed for preserving and improving human resources development".

Nowhere does it say that the minister has to cooperate with the provinces. The minister is not required to respect provincial jurisdictions.

However, clauses 20 and 21 are even more worrisome. Clause 20 provides that:

-the Minister may enter into agreements with a province- agencies of provinces, financial institutions and such other persons or bodies as the Minister considers appropriate.

This covers a vast range. As for clause 21, it provides that:

The Minister may authorize the Minister of Labour, the Commission or any other person-to exercise any power or perform any duty or function of the Minister.

It is obvious to the official opposition that, through these legislative provisions, the minister is getting the powers necessary to delegate, to whoever he considers appropriate, the management of his department's policies and programs. From now on, the minister will have the power to contract out, at his full discretion and with full impunity.

In this instance, the minister will have the power to enter into agreements with local or regional organizations, such as municipalities, and thus completely ignore the provinces.

The federal strategy taking shape with this bill will inescapably generate a clash between the already well established manpower network and that of the federal government, with the numerous programs and grants of all kinds that the government will provide throughout Quebec. That strategy is already being used by the federal government. The establishment of this superdepartment, along with the discretionary powers given to the minister, will only reinforce the centralizing position of the federal government.

Unfortunately, by acting in this way and rejecting Quebec's efforts and desire to be effective in the manpower sector, the federal government clearly shows a lack of integrity. By establishing national standards in that field, the government carries on its tradition of interfering in fields which are not under its jurisdiction.

Quebec and its dynamic forces denounce the federal will to further interfere in an area where the programs and initiatives must be defined by the Quebec government, based on the real needs of its population.