Debates of Nov. 29th, 1995

Renewal Of Canadian Federalism

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for Laval East.

[Maud Debien, Bloc, Laval East, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party was already profoundly divided on the Meech Lake and Charlottetown accords. Faced with the Prime Minister's phoney proposals, which are worse than those of Meech and Charlottetown in terms of Quebec's expectations, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs would like us to believe that everything is sweetness and light with the Liberal Party. Give us a break!

Given the fact that both the caucus and the phoney committee are profoundly divided, and that the proposals are being met with negative reactions throughout western Canada, Ontario, the maritimes, and Quebec, is the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs aware that the Prime Minister-

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for Prince George-Bulkley Valley.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[The Speaker]

Dear colleagues, once again, I would ask you once again to ask shorter questions.

If the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs wants to answer the question, I will allow him to do so.

[Sheila Copps, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, I can assure the member that the Prime Minister has the support of everyone in the caucus and in the party.

No doubt this hurts the Bloc members who would like to rewrite history. It hurts them to see that most Canadians across the country support the Prime Minister. But we know that Canadians are able to see beyond politics and to accept a fact, a reality; they are able to accept that we recognize Quebec as a distinct society.

What is most unfortunate is that only the Bloc members will refuse the proposal.

[Dick Harris, Reform, Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.

While the Minister of National Revenue from B.C. contends that recognizing Quebec as a distinct society will not amount to very much, conversely the Minister of Natural Resources from Alberta said that distinct society status in Quebec would amount to something very substantial. One wonders whether it is substantial or not.

I ask the Prime Minister to explain how he intends to promote national unity across Canada when he is having such a problem getting unity even within his own cabinet.

[Sheila Copps, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, in the last few days the Prime Minister has shown a leadership that unfortunately will not be understood by the Reform Party because it does not understand either the word Canada or the word leadership.

I met a woman in a wheelchair during the Montreal march who had come from Peace River, Alberta. I met her in an elevator and she said to me: "Madam Copps, I do not speak French but I know you do and will you please tell Quebecers that I am here because I care for my country, and Quebec is a part of my country". That is why the vast majority of Canadians will support the Prime Minister and his leadership, unlike the cheap politics of the Reform Party.

[Dick Harris, Reform, Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, speaking of cheap politics, there is clear evidence that old style Tory-Liberal federalism and politics are alive and well as far as central Canada is concerned.

For instance, the unity minister says the west should sacrifice its own concerns for the good of the country.

I ask the Prime Minister if he would explain why western provinces should yet again sacrifice their concerns and support a unity plan that is aimed solely at appeasing the separatists of Quebec.

[Sheila Copps, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, the member talks about the western provinces and the regions. Certainly the Prime Minister has left the door open to a different Canadian configuration with the regions. In examining the proposition that calls for a recognition of four regions, he is actually following a study on Confederation written for the Canada West Foundation by one Preston Manning, who called for the western provinces as one particular entity.

When the member opposite talks about the five regions of Canada and asks is Alberta or British Columbia a separate region, I would like to quote the House leader of the Reform Party, who says the five regions of Canada means British Columbia, not Alberta. The answer by the House leader of the Reform Party: "Not necessarily Alberta and British Columbia. All the provincial governments now have a say in the ratification formula".

When they want to talk about regions, I wish the Reform Party would ascertain whether they want regional status for Alberta or British Columbia.

Manpower Training

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

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

The Prime Minister announced two days ago that instead of recognizing the responsibility of Quebec in the area of vocational training, as we have all requested for many years, Ottawa intends to keep full control over the money it now spends on employment training by giving that money directly to the unemployed.

Can the minister confirm that, in the area of manpower training, the proposal that would have the federal government deal directly with individuals, bypassing the provinces, will prevent the provinces from implementing a true manpower training policy adapted to the needs of the labour market?

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

Mr. Speaker, I think the Prime Minister made it very clear on Monday that in fact the federal government was very much clarifying the respective responsibilities and we were transferring to the provinces a large number of responsibilities that had previously been under various regimes of shared programming.

For the member to claim that somehow in fact there is now more interference is simply turning logic and reality on its head. We are making a very major departure for the province because we think that is a much better way of clarifying the role.

At the same time, I think everyone recognizes that under the Unemployment Insurance Act, as it was constitutionally agreed to in 1941 by all the provinces, including Quebec, the federal government has taken the trusteeship for those under the regime of that system and therefore we have a responsibility to the people in that system.

It would seem to me that it is about time this hon. member learned a little bit about the real Constitution of Canada.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the minister has such difficulty explaining his positions that he always has to resort to insults. It is exactly because we, in Quebec, understand the very basis of the Constitution of Canada that we say that manpower training is a Quebec jurisdiction both on legal and constitutional grounds.

Can the minister confirm that what he is about to do, by giving money directly to the unemployed, is to keep control over national standards, choices and needs, in spite of Quebec's rights?

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

Mr. Speaker, frankly, it is the height of absurdity to claim, as the hon. member has just done, that under the unemployment insurance program, where people have paid premiums, we have no responsibility of helping to pay benefits. The reason people pay premiums is so we can pay benefits. That is the whole purpose of the program.

Furthermore, the system has worked effectively in the past because we have the ability to share that responsibility across the country so that people who pay premiums in one part of the country can help pay benefits in another part of the country where there are higher levels of unemployment. That is the genius of the system. In this country we have learned to share from region to region and not isolate ourselves behind a wall.

High Technology

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for Science, Research and Development.

It is a well-known fact that technology is an increasingly important element of the world and the Canadian economy. Could the Secretary of State tell the House what measures the government has taken and will take to support and reinforce the high technology sector of the Canadian economy?

[Jon Gerrard, Liberal, Secretary of State (Science]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier for his question.

The question gives me an opportunity to emphasize to Canadians that a very important priority of our government is to launch Canada into the knowledge age. To this end, we have undertaken to fund and develop a number of significant initiatives: the second long term space plan, CANARIE, PRECARN, TRIUMF, SchoolNet, the community access program, Canadian Technology Net-

work, the technology partnerships program, the tele-learning network of centres of excellence. In the west and Quebec there is the new knowledge based industries and ideas fund; in Ontario, a new NRC institute in London; in the maritimes, ACOA's support for federal-provincial technology agreements; in Ottawa, the technological development-

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

Labour Market Training

[Jan Brown, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the federal government's Quebec package fails to heed the calls to decentralize social programs.

Giving labour market training to the provinces without giving them the resources indicates that the Prime Minister has decided to decentralize the federal debt.

Does the Minister of Human Resources Development admit that when he transfers responsibility without giving up resources he is transferring debt, not power?

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

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister made it very clear that when we table, as we intend to do on Friday, the full package of employment insurance measures that have been developed, we will ensure that the full recognition of responsibility for education and training by the provinces is acknowledged.

We would be more than interested and prepared to work with each of the provinces to ensure that the effective delivery of benefits under the employment insurance program is targeted, customized, and tailored to meet each provincial need and that there are full resources for the people in each of those regions to ensure they have adequate means of getting back to work. That is what it is all about, working together to get people back to work.

[Jan Brown, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps the hon. member did not understand my question.

Effective labour market training requires that the provinces have complete control and adequate resources. Will the minister admit that he has absolutely no intention of giving up the purse strings for labour market training?

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

Mr. Speaker, I have no intention of doing that. We will be proposing on Friday a number of initiatives and regimes that will enable and allow the provinces to fulfil the responsibilities they have under the training regime.

Unemployment Insurance Reform

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

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

This morning, we learned from a Canadian Press dispatch that the unemployment insurance reform to be tabled in this House next Friday will base benefits on household income instead of on personal income. This measure will deny thousands of jobless people access to unemployment insurance benefits.

Will the minister confirm that his unemployment insurance reform will make the family income a determining factor in eligibility for UI benefits?

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

Mr. Speaker, the poor member is totally confused. That is one reason I suggest he wait to see what we present, rather than basing his judgment on various news reports and speculation.

I would say there is far too much assessment being made of our package before anyone has seen it. I would recommend that before deciding whether they like the menu, they should first read it.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the minister could at least read the newspapers.

And today, he could at least do one thing, and that is what I am asking him to do, which is to admit that, by taking into account not the income of the unemployed but rather the family income, he will deny thousands of women access to the unemployment insurance program, while continuing to require that these women pay their UI contributions?

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

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member knew the dossier properly he would probably know that the child tax benefit, for example, where the federal government transfers $5.4 billion directly to aid families with children, is based upon a family income test. As a result, most of the beneficiaries, I would say almost 80 per cent, are women and particularly children.

It is about time the Bloc Quebecois began to be concerned far more about children and got off its hobby horse of separatism. The only way we will help poor children in this country is if all governments work together.