If the hon. member opposite will give me a chance, I would like to take part in this debate today on Bill C-96 to legally establish the Department of Human Resources Development.
As I said in my remarks on November 20, this bill accentuates the federal presence by giving the minister new powers, including the power to bypass provincial authorities and negotiate directly with local authorities and agencies. I denounce, once again, the federal government's centralizing designs. As you know, there is a strong consensus in Quebec on the need to have control over manpower training programs. This is an area where there is a great deal of duplication and overlap, which is proving to be extremely costly and inefficient.
Just to show how inefficient the federal government is, and this department in particular, the report tabled by the Auditor General of Canada two days ago, on November 21, is very critical of the manpower training programs, describing these programs as ill-suited to industry's needs. An estimated 300,000 positions remained vacant every year between 1988 and 1990 because suitable incumbents could not be found, but the training programs offered by the department related to only 5 per cent of these vacant positions. To be facing that kind of a problem when unemployment is on the rise is incredible. The federal government's inefficiency and squandering in this regard has to be denounced. The Department of Human Resources Development spends $2 billion a year on manpower training.
The auditor finds that there is no systematic or global measure to deal with the situation.
I also want to point out that clause 6 of Bill C-96 authorizes the minister to bypass provinces and establish direct links with financial institutions, local organizations and such other persons or bodies as he considers appropriate, "with the objective of enhancing employment, encouraging equality and promoting social security". Moreover, the minister may authorize "any other person or body" to exercise his powers. That provision opens the door to the contracting-out and privatization of employment services, something which is already illustrated by the streamlining of the federal network of employment centres.
The bill also provides that the Canada Employment and Insurance Commission may "authorize any person or body-to exercise powers or perform duties and functions of the Commission". Under subsection 31(3) of the former act, the commission could only delegate its powers to members of its staff or, subject to the minister's approval, to members of the department. Thus, the commission will enjoy a power to delegate similar to that of the minister. This is the same minister who is about to announce
additional cuts of $1.25 billion in the UI program. That is a lot of money.
In spite of the fact that the public service, the crown corporations and the private sector are all experiencing cuts, closures and massive layoffs, Bill C-96 is silent on job creation.
Let me give a few examples of such cuts. First, by 1997, Bell Canada will have closed nine regional offices in Quebec alone. It also intends to close three auditing offices.
That company, which employs 46,000 people, hopes to layoff 10,000 of them over the next three years. A large number of these people are members of the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada. This is a 22 per cent reduction of the company's staff. Bell has 28,606 employees in Ontario and 17,300 in Quebec. It intends to reduce its staff through voluntary termination of employment, early retirement and outright layoffs. It should be noted that Bell cannot justify such major cuts, given the huge profits generated last year. Moreover, during the first six months of 1995, the company paid $35 million in dividends, which is as much as it did for the same period last year.
Recently, a group of Bloc Quebecois members, including myself, met with officials from the company and the union, here in Ottawa. We heard both sides. Following these meetings, I personally feel that these massive layoffs are totally unjustified, particularly since Bell is among the telephone companies employing the smallest number of people per line in North America. Bell has always made substantial profits. I salute the courage and the determination of the employees of that company and also of their union, which seeks to protect the rights and benefits of its members against a management strategy designed to produce massive layoffs.
I would also like to salute the 2,000 delegates who are attending the Ontario Federation of Labour convention which has been going on in Toronto since Monday night. Yesterday, they marched down Bay Street, where Canadian banks and large corporations have their headquarters, to protest against Mike Harris' right wing policies, especially against the first piece of legislation his government enacted, which repealed the anti-scab act and makes the creation and certification of trade unions more difficult.
I would like to quote a statement made by an American, the Reverend Jesse Jackson, who told the convention delegates: "Do not allow the right to destroy all the accomplishments of many past generations". I could not agree more.
The Harris government has decided to dismantle the Ontario Labour Code. Moreover, it wants to reduce the size of the labour ministry by 46 per cent, which will mean fewer occupational health and safety inspectors, fewer air quality technicians, fewer officials to enforce minimum work standards, etc.
I an concerned about all these cuts and these attacks against workers in Ontario, the richest province in Canada.
The federal government, and the provincial governments of Ontario and Alberta, which are going after the poorest members of society in an attempt to put their financial house in order, are on the wrong track. They will only increase poverty. I believe that the way to go, instead, is job creation initiatives, tax fairness, a better redistribution of wealth, and increased social security.
Both at the provincial and federal levels, anti-scab legislation is not only essential, but urgently needed. I was very disappointed by the vote taken the day before yesterday by the members of this House who rejected by 144 against and 104 for the bill presented by my Bloc colleague, the member for Manicouagan. However, I salute the courage of a great number of Liberal members who supported the bill and who were in agreement with it, under the previous Conservative government. On the other hand, I denounce all the ministers, especially the labour minister, who voted against it.
Following the example of Quebec and British Columbia, such an act at the federal level would avoid the worsening of labour conflicts, as was the case at the Ogilvie flour mill, in Montreal, where the strike lasted for 15 months.
Finally, I will say that I support the FTQ's request for the strengthening of the present succession rights of workers, should a Crown corporation be privatized or a private company under federal jurisdiction be disposed of. This problem has arisen mostly with the sale of Canadian airports.
To conclude, I stress that I will vote against Bill C-96.