Debates of Nov. 9th, 1995

Department Of Human Resources Development Act

[Garry Breitkreuz, Reform, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, we have no objection to the vote being held at 6 p.m. rather than 6.30 p.m. It should have been clearly stated when it was presented to the House that consent had been reached by all the whips.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

I am sorry, that is not a point of order.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Madam Speaker, the minister who tabled the bill implies that his bill is a model of flexibility, co-ordination, decentralization, and letting the average citizen decide. Unfortunately, that is not the case, since it all depends on whether the minister is prepared to say yes or no to a project, any project.

In the final analysis, the minister will decide what will be decentralized, who will get a grant, who may co-ordinate, because ultimately, the decision will always be his. This bill is the exact opposite of flexible. This bill is unbending, and its author did not listen to Quebec.

Coming ten days after a referendum in which the people of Quebec spoke loud and clear, while giving Canada a brief respite to shape up, this bill is an insult. It is easy for the minister to say: Let us set prerogatives and jurisdictions aside and co-operate, when in this legislation he assumes powers he never had under the constitution, powers he had the colossal nerve to extrapolate from his spending powers and which he today wants to legalize in a bill.

With complete disregard for efficiency in the use of shrinking resources and for the constitution, this bill for the first time clearly gives the federal Minister of Human Resources Development the power to replace the provinces in many of their jurisdictions, since, and we will see this later on, it literally allows the minister, as it

says in the clause, to make decisions on all matters relating to human resources development in Canada, no less.

Far from withdrawing from provincial jurisdictions, the federal government is in fact assuming general responsibility for human resources development. The federal government is assuming the powers it needs, whether the provinces like it or not, although some do, but that is another matter and we will get back to that, but Quebec was not consulted, and when it was, it said in no uncertain terms what it wanted. The federal government is getting ready to change the social safety net, with no regard for the impact this will have on the provinces and especially on the individuals concerned.

This is a new phase, a qualitative leap in the development of Canadian federalism which tries to provide a legislative basis for this invasion by the federal government's spending power. The government has decided unilaterally to provide a legal, specific and positive basis for its spending power, which it often used to spend its way into debt. Today, the debt is being decentralized to the provinces, but the power has been recentralized to Ottawa.

This confirms our worst fears, and we discussed this during the referendum campaign. For instance, instead of announcing a withdrawal of the federal presence from manpower, this bill accentuates that presence by giving the federal government the requisite powers to negotiate and make deals directly with local agencies, without prior consent from the provinces. That is what the minister calls being flexible. Even municipalities may be approached and offered responsibilities under contracts to be concluded directly with the Department of Human Resources Development.

A good example is what happened during the so-called battle of the employment centres. We have yet to hear the epilogue to this story. Bill C-96 throws wide open the door to the delegation of the powers entrusted to the minister or the new employment and insurance commission-I will get back to this-to entities other than provincial governments and public administrations.

In other words, this bill, without any consultations, also opens the door to privatization and contracting out. Again, this is to be done on the minister's say so; if this bill is passed, he will be in a position to adopt any standards he wants and to define expected results. All those involved-including provinces, if he feels like it, organizations, people and financial institutions-will have to be totally flexible in complying with his decisions. This will remain true even though he says he wants to make employment centres responsible for some programs, since these centres will also be accountable to the minister.

If Bill C-96 is passed, it will also put in place the legislative framework allowing the Minister of Human Resources Development to go ahead with his UI reform according to the policy outlines revealed in the past few days. This policy is fully consistent with the bill.

I would like to stress a disturbing fact. This bill, whose only purpose, according to the minister, is to join together previously separate departments or programs, is Kim Campbell's legacy to the Liberals.

It is important to remember that, during her short-lived government, she gathered under the same roof all departments dealing with unemployment insurance, income security for both seniors and young people, literacy, student loans, employment training, and family policies. She did this as part of a major reform of social programs, as she said during the election campaign. Over 50 per cent of the federal government's budget spending is done, decided, directed, and controlled by this new Department of Human Resources Development.

The Tories did not hide the fact that they wanted to carry out a comprehensive reform. Let us not forget that, during the following election campaign, Liberal candidate Chrétien hounded the minister for saying, and we remember this, that this issue was too complex to be debated during an election campaign.

When questioned, the Liberals never suggested that they were only waiting to be elected before doing what Kim Campbell wanted to do. It is important to keep this in mind. It is important to show that when the Liberals came to power, instead of putting the departments back the way they were, they took advantage of the major upheaval ordered by senior officials who are still there. This clearly shows that the Liberal policy is the same as the old Tory policy, which is the same as that proposed in 1985 by the Macdonald Commission set up, as we know, by Mr. Trudeau's Liberal government.

Let us have a look-and I will quote the minister himself-at the new department's jurisdiction. In his budget plan tabled on February 27, 1995, he said that Human Resources Development Canada was in charge of the UI program, the income security program for children and seniors, a major part of family policy, existing federal programs of assistance to the provinces for post-secondary education and social assistance, labour market adjustment, social development and student loans. This accounts for more than 50 per cent of federal expenditures.

The federal government is playing a major role in the daily lives of Canadians without having to consult anyone, when it is literally altering the social and economic picture in Canada. But Quebec should be left to get organized to look after the people let down by the federal government.

Quebec is expected to live with the consequences of this government's actions, that is to say, at a time when, as we know, deficits are high, let the middle class bear the brunt of the tax load, target assistance to the most disadvantaged, eventually creating a rather difficult situation, all this without being required in any way to consult the Quebec government, which is the only government representing the people and nation of Quebec.

Must we remind members that a people that is different from others sets up its own social, economic, cultural and political structure that is not necessarily better but different, based on its priorities and its needs. Merely ten days after the October 30 vote, what Bill C-96 is saying is that the central government, through the Minister of Human Resources Development, will go ahead with its plans for reform and keep making decisions affecting the social fabric of Quebec without having to consult anyone.

No wonder it is telling us: "Forget jurisdictions. It does not matter any more". It is taking over, making an unprecedented power grab in areas of responsibility that are not its own, by misusing its spending power to provide direction, decide, take charge.

Let us take a look at some clauses. The people have the right to know. The bill reads, in part: "The powers, duties and functions of the Minister extend to-they can say that again-and include all matters over which Parliament has jurisdiction relating to the development of the human resources of Canada-that is an even wider area than the specific ones I mentioned-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".

The federal government is trying to take over from the Government of Quebec a very wide and ill defined area of responsibility, human resources development.

It never had that power. True, unemployment insurance legislation was put in place, but that required a constitutional amendment. Unemployment insurance and UI benefits are one thing, but we know that the government never had the power to decide and to provide direction it is now claiming over manpower training. Quite the contrary.

And what about family policy, poverty, literacy, dropouts? The government first used its spending power to interfere, and now it is making this intrusion legal.

Let us move to clause 7.

1. In exercising the powers or performing the duties or functions assigned to the Minister under this or any other Act of Parliament, the Minister may- b ) cooperate with provincial authorities with a view to the coordination of efforts-

There is no requirement to do so.

Indeed, if you look at clause 20, it reads:

For the purpose of facilitating the formulation, coordination and implementation of any program or policy-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.

The minister decides whether or not he wants to hold consultations. He can delegate any power to the Minister of Labour, the commission or any other person or body he chooses.

This is important, because the desire to take over the provinces' responsibility for their own fields of jurisdiction has, as we know, a different impact on Quebec than it does on the other provinces. A debate seems to be taking place outside Quebec concerning the social program reform, or a reform of federalism. Some want to maintain centralization, while others are in favour of decentralization.

We understand that, but we want to say this: those who think that there is a will on this government's part to decentralize should open their eyes and their ears, and they should read these provisions. They will realize that what is in the making is not decentralization but, on the contrary, what one might call recentralization. Indeed, the central government is giving itself the means to directly decide what will happen at the local level.

It is easy for the minister to say: "Yes, citizen A or citizen B will be able to decide to-" That is not the case. The minister is the one who will really make the decision. He is the one who will decide and it will not be possible for a province wishing to integrate its programs to do so. We will let the debate proceed, but we had to make this point.

As for Quebec, it has been fighting Ottawa's centralizing views for a long time, because it conflicts with its own desire to have a well-adjusted or co-ordinated, as René Lévesque used to say, social and economic policy. Let me just mention that, before the Second World War, the Rowell-Sirois commission began preparing the ground-and would later complete the process-to ensure that, in Canada, major budgetary social and economic decisions would all be taken by Ottawa, with the provinces becoming mere flexible subcontractors.

The bill introduced by the human resources development minister is not new but is certainly in line with the recommendations of the Rowell-Sirois commission. However, succeeding governments in Quebec have always fought hard to maintain control over the

province's social and economic development. The war helped the central government, by allowing it to centralize all taxes. Once it had a foot in the door, Ottawa would not back out.

In Quebec, the public, co-operative organizations, as well as grass-roots movements, created a coalition, somewhat like the one which we witnessed during the referendum campaign, and told then premier Duplessis: "Quebec needs its own taxes".

That tax is what allowed the then exuberant Quiet Revolution to be channelled into specific projects.

At the federal-provincial conference on poverty in 1965, René Lévesque, who was to become the first sovereignist premier of Quebec and was then a federalist minister in a Liberal government, gave a very clear explanation of what the position of his federalist Liberal government was at the time.

I quoted him in relation to Bill C-95 but, if you will allow me, I shall repeat the quotes here for the benefit of our audience and for argument's sake. I do so for the simple reason that they show that Quebec has made no progress between 1965 and 1995 in controlling its own future. It has regressed. Quebecers have seen their situation worsen. Concretely-applying it to manpower-the people find themselves face to face with two levels of decision-making, to their disadvantage.

René Lévesque said that it had become imperative to establish a genuine economic and social policy. This policy needed to be integrated, flexible in its mechanisms, include a social security system centred on the family and be based on the right to assistance on the basis of need. Secondly, he said, for the sake of efficiency and on constitutional grounds, the Quebec government alone could and should, within its own territory, design and implement such a policy. I repeat, for the sake of efficiency first, and on constitutional grounds.

Thirdly, Lévesque said, the social and economic development policy they had formulated would create an integrated social policy-I would interject here that the foregoing is the key phrase-regional development policy, manpower policy, health policy, housing policy and job training policy.

Finally, he said that, as a federalist, the general policy, while he did not necessarily condemn it, did not necessarily correspond, in terms of its spirit and terms of application, to one the Government of Canada might opt for. The people of Quebec would enjoy at least as many if not more benefits than other Canadians might.

For the sake of efficiency, for the sake of determining economic and social policy as a function of needs and priorities, at a time when money is scarce, it is urgent for Quebec's economic and social policy to be integrated. Nothing, however, could be further from integration than this Bill C-96, which makes the Minister of Human Resources Development the key figure in that organization, as he has so aptly said himself.

In the manpower field in particular, there is unanimity in Quebec, and this has been expressed by another resolution by the Société québécoise de développement de la main-d'oeuvre, which comprises banking co-operatives, school boards, the Conseil du patronat, along with municipal institutions, co-operative businesses-just about everybody, you might say.

The Société québécoise de développement de la main-d'oeuvre, on the proposal of Mr. Béland and with the support of Ghislain Dufour, made a unanimous decision to ask the government-the federal government to be precise-not to put in place a parallel partnership structure or try to interfere with Quebec's jurisdiction over manpower development.

The board also indicated that the Société québécoise de développement de la main-d'oeuvre is and must remain the favoured partnership structure regarding Quebec manpower issues. Must I remind the House that this organization is not a government organization, but one whose members represent private groups. This is the organization through which the manpower policy is implemented. It stresses, almost imploringly, that the federal government is set to put in place another network, adding an extra level of consultation, decision and assessment.

This is not a reflection of the central government's will to eliminate duplication and overlap, but of its will to take over everywhere, pushing the provinces aside and sidelining Quebec. Because it must be borne in mind that the cutbacks announced in relation to the Canada social transfer will result, in 1997-98, in a $1.9 billion shortfall on top of all the other cuts.

Quebec is going to go through some rough times. Meanwhile, the central government and its HRD minister are letting UI fund surpluses accumulate, so that they can play Santa Claus by going over the Quebec government's head and spend this money in provincial areas of jurisdiction. But contributions to the UI fund come directly from employers and workers.

The minister of employment and consultation herself vigorously denounced his bill. She says that: "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".

Lise Bissonnette referred, in several editorials, to this increased desire to interfere, the term is not strong enough because the federal really wants to assume Quebec's power to make its own political and economic decisions. This is not the first attempt by the central government to bypass the Quebec government and manpower corporation.

Former minister Valcourt tried to do the same. Remember who told him off? None other than Liberal minister Bourbeau, also a federalist, who said: "Your commission does offer grants to what it calls co-ordination groups for all sorts of projects, directly or indirectly related to manpower training. These groups include all kinds of associations. Such projects seem relatively pertinent, but others are more questionable".

He then said: "Obviously, this is a new structure used by the federal government to spend money which comes primarily from the UI fund".

He also added: "What is unacceptable with this approach is that it is totally improvised, this at a time when, more than ever, government intervention in the manpower development sector must be planned according to priorities, so as to deal efficiently with issues such as manpower shortage, retraining in growing economic sectors, as well as improvement of skills, and thus benefit from market globalization".

Minister Bourbeau continued by saying: "I find it hard to believe that the federal government would wilfully do things which, under the pretence of initiating a rapprochement with the private sector, would result in the establishment of a network of intermediaries, given that it pledged it would not do such a thing".

I only alluded to manpower training because it is a very sensitive issue at a time when Quebec is, sadly, the champion of poverty, with an unemployment rate still at 11.2 per cent, and with Montreal in 23rd place, out of 26 Canadian cities, in terms of income level. We, Bloc Quebecois members, will do everything possible to ensure that Quebec does not remain in that situation. Less than 10 days after the referendum, instead of listening to us, they impose with an iron hand diktats that do not meet Quebec's economic and social needs and priorities.

Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for La Prairie:

That all words following the word "That" be deleted and replaced with the following:

"this House declines to give second reading to Bill C-96, An Act to establish the Department of Human Resources Development and to amend and repeal certain related Acts, because the principle of the Bill includes no provision requiring the Minister, as part of that person's powers, to award full and entire financial compensation to any province wishing to exercise, fully and alone, jurisdiction over human resources development."

If the government would only give a sign that it has heard Quebecers' majority vote calling unanimously for major changes, especially with respect to manpower. It could have given a sign. By moving second reading of this utterly offensive bill, the government shows no concern for efficiency and integration, for Quebec's need to co-ordinate all its resources at a difficult time, for the Constitution, for the wishes expressed once again by 100 per cent of Quebecers.

Consideration of this bill will allow us to say that this dialogue of the deaf, which has been going on for so long and which hurts both Quebec and probably Canada, must end. Should Canada, however, end the dialogue by refusing to listen, Quebecers know which way they must go to take control of their own destiny. In the interests of the whole population of Quebec, of the whole Quebec nation, Quebecers have shown the way that they will have no choice but to follow.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

The amendment is in order.

The debate is now on the amendment.

[Jan Brown, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-96 today.

At first glance one might think that a creation bill such as this is little reason to engage in debate, but there is indeed much we need to discuss. It is not so much what the bill says but the issues that underlie the bill that merit a resounding rejection.

Before I begin I would like to examine a recent event that speaks to why I stand before the House to express my rejection of Bill C-96.

As members of the House know, our country is submerged in troubling times. The referendum in Quebec has paralysed the House, the Liberal government and in particular the Minister of Human Resources Development. Promises made in the red book have fallen by the wayside as the government has chosen to do nothing, fearing the consequences of decisive action.

My party stated clearly at the outset of the referendum that we favoured a strong and united Canada. To this end, we made positive contributions to the debate. We outlined a very clear position for a new confederation. Our plan would change Canada for the better and bring our country into the next century healthy, vibrant and able to cope with its new challenges. Unfortunately for Canada, the no campaign launched a strategy based on a do nothing approach. It believed the status quo would work. In short order, however, it became obvious that this strategy was a complete and utter failure.

Our Prime Minister had a 10-point lead in the polls and lost it all. In a move motivated by panic and fear he committed a huge virage. After having categorically rejected constitutional changes, after having categorically rejected administrative changes, the Prime Minister capitulated at the last minute and offered up constitutional changes and distinct society. As we all know, this tired rhetoric was soundly rejected by Canadians, not once but twice.

Let me remind the Liberals that one of their titans, Mr. Trudeau, thoroughly and publicly denounced this strategy on Monday of this week.

In light of the Prime Minister's virage, Canadians are expecting great changes from the government. However, in the week that has just passed, do we have any indication of change? I think not. Instead of change, the Minister of Human Resources Development is attempting to sell us this flawed bill, which not only grabs more powers for the federal government but also fails to introduce one single noteworthy measure of administrative change.

I will speak on a number of areas the substance of Bill C-96 eliminates. My comments will touch briefly on these areas: specific concern with some of the bill's provisions; the government's trivial attempt at post-secondary education reforms; the government's non-existent approach to decentralization; the government's brazen attempt at accountability; and the government's invisible strategy for reform of the Canada pension plan. All these issues will show beyond a reasonable doubt that the House has only one option: it must clearly and soundly reject the bill.

In the bill the minister is accorded the power to deal directly with groups and municipalities for the delivery of social programs. This power circumvents the provinces directly and attempts to keep them out of the decision making process. This is disconcerting, as it is the provinces that have constitutional authority for social program delivery. This power contained in clauses 20 and 21 of the bill further demonstrates the government's penchant for power grabbing and invasive behaviour.

The bill also allows for the appointment of a minister for labour. If the government feels the need to increase the size of its cabinet then it should admit so publicly, rather than doing it through the back door like this. The government has an obligation to be forthright in its reasoning. If I were a cynic I might suggest this change amounted to nothing more than the creation of a position at the cabinet table for the no campaign strategist, the hon. member for Saint-Henri-Westmount. I will not imply motive as I am an optimist. Instead I will leave it to Canadians to judge this for themselves.

I would like to steer the discussion toward education. There can be no doubt that education forms the bedrock of a successful nation. Bill C-96 represents the creation of a department which oversees the federal role in education policy. The bill is a stark reminder that the government has no vision for an education policy which will meet the needs of Canada's students into the 21st century. The bill also reminds us that the government has failed in its attempts to create changes to revitalize post-secondary education.

By looking at the trends of globalization and retrenchment, we see not only where the government has failed but, more important, where the Reform Party offers a substantially stronger vision in this regard.

Herman Melville once said that we are not a nation so much as a world. This statement is as incisive as it is intimidating. Unwittingly it speaks volumes of the major shifts taking place today in all aspects of our world. For just as the business world is confronting the pressures of globalization to be more productive and competitive, so too are universities encountering the necessity to provide students with better tools to help Canada remain competitive.

There is at present a growing concern among educators in Canada that students are entering the world market without the requisite education and training to help them meet the needs of their chosen vocation. The skills mismatch. The global job crisis. Reinventing education. All of these are familiar battle cries of observers writing in North American journals warning of this disturbing trend.

Schools need to be relevant to reflect the realities of the modern world and to help train present and future workers who are capable of helping their employers, in whatever field, achieve higher levels of performance and productivity. For example, the challenge facing schools is to prepare future leaders to think critically about the forces and requirements that shape business operations in global markets and in different cross-cultural contexts.

What leadership do we have from the government in the area of internationalization and education? Little to none. The Canadian Bureau of International Education has reported that Canada's performance in this area is the lowest among all G-7 countries. In fact, the bureau found that the United States spends somewhat in the order of 20 times what Canada spends in this regard. We are not talking about increasing aggregate spending, but rather reconfiguring current spending to reflect our strategic needs.

The federal government simply has to be a player in the area of international education. In the short term a Reform government would work to do the following. Strengthen the policy dialogue with provincial governments and higher education institutions through regular and systematic consultation and information exchange at all levels. Increase networking and reinforce collaborative ventures among higher education institutions in priority regions and in priority areas of research. Foster the development of stronger partnerships among higher education institutions, professional associations and public authorities, business and other organizations which have a stake in the quality of higher education and research. Facilitate and encourage key stakeholders, such as the provinces and territories, national standards bodies and associations representing the learning community, industry, business and

labour to develop competency based skill tests which are matched to learning outcomes developed by learning organizations.

I want to examine a second trend, namely that of fiscal retrenchment. We are all agreed that the dismal state of public finances in Canada places a tremendous burden on the capacity of government to address any issue. This is particularly true in the case of education. Having said that, we must not let education be circumvented by, as the Smith commission noted in 1991, short term, make shift responses that have postponed temporarily the day of reckoning. I do not propose that we ignore the realities of retrenchment, but that we address our fiscal plight with a strategic mind set.

We must re-examine the way we fund our post-secondary institutions. Specifically we need to re-examine student loans and transfers to provinces for education.

The Department of Human Resources Development, which the bill will create, has done virtually nothing to take a lead role in promoting a new vision for education financing in Canada. Instead it has discussed, tinkered and carelessly cut.

Let us review this disappointing history. The 1994 discussion paper on reforming social security talked vaguely about life long learning. The document was long on rhetoric and short on details. It talked in generalities, as most discussion papers do. We do not need discussion. We need action. We need fresh and creative approaches to confront the plight of our education financing mechanism.

Bill C-28, passed in June 1994, made some modest improvements to the Canada student loans program. It removed financial liability from the government, which is good. However, it represents a stopgap measure for a program that requires fundamental redesign.

Some serious questions need to be answered by the government. For example, while the act made provisions to develop pilot program testing, new financing schemes, such as income contingent loans, it is not likely that anything will happen before 1997. That is four years that Canadians will have waited for the government to act, four years that the government has neglected the need to address questions of access and sustainability.

Another fundamental question that lingers is one of strategic intent. When loan eligibility is controlled by the government, loans do not provide an incentive for students to enter areas of study where there is good occupational demand. Competitiveness and productivity must be linked to education. We must determine where there is need and focus our energies to promote education in those areas.

The 1995-96 budget announced changes to the fiscal transfer regime by creating the Canada health and social transfer, known as CHST. Through the CHST the government carelessly cut transfers which support education financing and made it increasingly difficult for taxpayers to measure whether provinces are spending the appropriate amounts of money on specific programs.

The government decided that it is better to give education dollars to the provinces with no strings attached than it is to give education dollars to individuals, where it can be ensured that tax dollars are going to support their intended purpose. The logic in this is spectacularly flawed.

Bill C-96 will create a department that for two years has done nothing to make the fundamental changes required of our post-secondary education system. Why should we create a department, when we already know that it has no capacity to act on this issue?

Let us move to decentralization, an issue that has garnered significant attention of late and, in particular, when the Minister of Human Resources Development presented his remarks earlier this morning. Bill C-96 is a centralizing piece of legislation, make no mistake, despite what the hon. minister said in the House today.

Clause 6 of the bill reinforces the existing federal powers for social programs. In fact, it may even create new powers for the federal government. Even if this new power never manifests itself, the bill at a minimum entrenches the status quo of federal intervention into provincial areas of social policy jurisdiction.

I find it cathartic, though I suppose not entirely uncharacteristic, that the government should try to enact legislation which engenders and champions the notion of centralization and of status quo. To do so amidst the decentralization forces pressuring the country to change is profoundly absurd.

Recent events have shown to all that fundamental change is required in our federation. There is almost universal agreement that the federal government needs to rethink its current role as a provider of services and programs. In areas of social policy, we cannot continue to support a system which separates the revenue raising capacity from the expenditure function. In other areas too there is strong evidence to support devolution to the most logical level of government.

In October of this year the Reform Party released its vision for a new confederation. Reform believes that decentralization will

permit future governments to respond more effectively to the needs of ordinary Canadians. It also addresses many of the historic concerns of individuals from all provinces.

Reform's plan includes the following: giving provinces exclusive control over natural resources, job training, municipal affairs, housing, tourism, sports and recreation; giving provinces control over setting their own interprovincial standards for health, welfare and education and replacing federal cash transfers with tax points, allowing provinces to raise their own taxes to finance social programs. This decentralization will lead to a more balanced federation, one in which Ottawa will play a co-operative role rather than a dominating role.

The proposals outlined in the new Confederation speak to the long term. They furnish Canada with a vision. They put flesh on the conceptual bones of a new federalism. This is the kind of leadership that has been conspicuously absent in the federal Liberals.

How can one govern without coherent direction? It is incomprehensible. I am not talking about prescience but about the courage to say, these are my ideas, this is my vision. We have seen none of that from the government. The traditional response to fiscal crisis has been centralization, consolidation and concentration. This instinct increasingly leads to failure. Centralized control and consolidated agencies create more waste, not less.

There are many reasons why Reform speaks for this vision of decentralization. Decentralization will engender greater flexibility, allowing institutions to respond more quickly to changing circumstances and client needs.

Decentralization will create more effective programs and service delivery as the deliverers and providers of government assistance are closer to those whom they serve, which is whom we serve. Decentralization will reduce wasteful overlap and duplication created by concurrent jurisdiction and poorly co-ordinated government programs and services. Decentralization will engender greater fiscal responsibility. For a government that spends the money it raises will inherently be more accountable than the one that spends the money someone else collects. Decentralization in regard to the tax system is most compatible with the tenet of federalism. The essence of a federal form of government is local autonomy. In its designated spheres each unit is free, free to exercise its policy discretion unemcumbered.

It is important to remember in this debate on Bill C-96 that decentralization is neither a celebrated buzzword nor a passing political fad. It is a policy movement that has been vigorously championed in Canada since the 1960s. It represents reconfiguring the locus of attention in the federation. As former B.C. Liberal Party leader Gordon Gibson writes in his new book: "Canadians ultimately want less control by Ottawa and more local management of their affairs-The basic concept here is `government closer to home'. Now home is where the heart is in our private lives perhaps, but in government terms home is where the folk have the knowledge and resources to do the job. That single thought takes us a long way".

Adhering to the rule of thumb that the responsibility for addressing problems should lie with the lowest level of government possible does not require that we disavow the notion of federal leadership.

A federal government with fewer employees, fewer departments, and smaller budgets can still have a steering role in Canadian society. There would still be a policy framework setting functions in certain areas, even if it delivered no services. These would include policy areas that transcend the capacities of state and local governments such as international trade, macroeconomic policy and much environmental and regulatory policy; social insurance programs like employment compensation, where paying equal benefits to all citizens requires that rich and poor share differentiated burdens; and investments that are so costly that they require tax increases which might discourage business from locating or staying in a city or province.

Even in these cases Reform believes that programs can be designed to allow for significant flexibility at a provincial or municipal level. The federal government can and must work with provincial governments to define jointly the missions and the outcome. But in so doing it must free lower government to achieve those outcomes as they see fit.

What has been the Liberal response to decentralization? The government has resisted the natural ebb and flow of this federation by operating completely oblivious to its surroundings. We saw this in the recent referendum. The government grossly miscalculated by adhering to a status quo position. Only when it became obvious to the government that its policy was indeed a complete failure did it move to make insincere promises of change. Where is this change now, this vision of a new federalism? Where is its blueprint for a renewed Canada? Where is the leadership to bring forward such a plan?

Given the government's previous attempts at major change, I suggest that we will be waiting a long time before we see substantive and meaningful change.

Let me give one example of how the government is failing to deliver on its promise to reform and decentralize social programs. Consider the current welfare issue in British Columbia. When the province made changes to its own programs by stipulating a residency requirement for welfare qualifications, the federal government stepped in and threatened the province with punitive actions. That is certainly no stranger to Albertans.

There is no question that the B.C. government should be permitted to administer its affairs without federal interference. The minister, rather than threatening the province, should back off and leave it free to run its own programs. It is absurd for this minister, who has radically reduced transfers to the provinces, to turn around and intervene in provincial jurisdiction.

The minister continues to refuse to meet with the provinces over the Canada health and social transfer. Now, when the provinces try to move forward, he stands in their way. This, it would seem, is the Liberal position on co-operative federalism. How terribly predictable and how truly unfortunate.

I want to discuss accountability for a moment. Bill C-96 reminds us once again that the government has embraced a policy that will bring an end to departments submitting annual reports to Parliament. This ignoble policy speaks volumes of the government's attitude toward accountability, despite the sniping from the other side of the House.

Most observers who study Parliament lament the gap that exists between the relatively rudimentary theory of parliamentary accountability and its practice. The theory suggests that there are strong linkages between the representative system that created the elected House of Commons and the executive system of departments headed and controlled by ministers.

Parliamentary control is considered in two key phases: first, the assigning of responsibility and authority through statutes and appropriations; and, second, accountability through scrutiny in the House and in its committees. I can accept that the reality of modern government is not as neatly ordained as this theory might suggest. But I cannot accept any actions such as those provided for in Bill C-96, which weaken accountability through scrutiny in the House.

Reform supports in principle the current attempt to improve the accessibility of information in the budget estimates. However, by moving to end the annual reporting function before the estimates reform is in place, we are left with an incomplete picture regarding annual departmental activities and expenditures. How can this be? When the bill and others like it are enacted we will have poor estimates and no annual report. This is a disgrace.

At a conference hosted by the Canadian study of parliament group this past weekend the Auditor General of Canada stated that it was time for the government to go beyond rhetoric and embrace true accountability. The government would do well to listen to its own auditor general, because Canadians want information about their government. Canadians deserve to have access to good quality information about their government. For a department that spends some $70 billion annually, I think the relatively minor investment that an annual report could engender is a worthwhile expenditure.

In broader accountability terms the government does not have a solid track record. It is for this reason that I make specific reference to accountability in my remarks today. The red book outlined the seemingly ambitious agenda to restore integrity to the institution of Parliament. What has been accomplished since 1993? Not very much. Where are those free votes? Where is the independent ethics counsellor who was supposedly reporting to Parliament directly? Where is our code of conduct? Where is our real MP pension reform? Where is the promise of increasing the role of committees in drafting legislation? How can there be so many unanswered questions?

The Liberal government has made a mockery of parliamentary accountability by showing such brazen disdain and contempt toward its election commitments. It has talked incessantly about transparency, about integrity and about commitment to the Canadian people. In truth, the question is not really how many commitments have already been broken, but when next will the government break another one.

Because of this shameful lack of action the institution of Parliament has suffered. Members from all parties have suffered. Most significantly, the Canadian people have suffered.

[John Richardson, Liberal, Perth—Wellington—Waterloo, ON]

The only party that suffers in the House is the Reform Party.

[Jan Brown, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

The government has articulated the precepts of integrity but has failed to deliver the substance of its bravado. Canadians are right to be disappointed.

We were promised a new approach to accountability and ethics. Instead, we have received well rehearsed rhetoric and woeful policy from that side of the House.

I would like to turn my attention now to the issue of pensions. Bill C-96 will create the department responsible for administering the Canada pension plan. Given the importance of the program to all Canadians, it is only fair that we spend some time reviewing what the department has been doing. My review will be brief because in truth the department has done virtually nothing to address what the government has deemed unsustainable.

The government, in refusing to confront the issue, has said to Canadians that it is not concerned about their futures. There is widespread consensus that the Canada pension plan is in trouble. In October of this year the chief actuary for the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions stated: "The CPP's projected costs are considerably higher than previously expected. If the existing schedule of contribution rates is not increased and benefits continue as now legislated, the CPP fund is expected to be exhausted by the year 2015".

Other evidence suggests that prevalent fear and concern exists among Canadians regarding CPP. A Bank of Nova Scotia poll released last month stated that 75 per cent of Canadians distrust the security and sustainability of the Canada pension plan. The survey also showed that of those people aged 30 to 49, fully 81 per cent reported that they are not confident about the ability of CPP to provide them with income when they retire. When so many are in agreement that changes are overdue it is incomprehensible why the government has failed to make changes in its promise in 1993 to do just that.

Not long ago the Minister of Human Resources Development responded to my question in the House of Commons by stating: "The best way in which the hon. member can make a contribution is to start putting forward her own proposals on behalf of her party". If the department that Bill C-96 creates will not put forward its ideas to address our enfeebled Canada pension plan, it is only fair that I present Reform's vision for renewing CPP.

Reform believes that the Canada pension plan is under considerable financial strain, a strain which if not addressed will jeopardize the pension benefits of today's seniors, those baby boomers edging toward retirement and our children who are beginning or who will soon enter the workforce. This evaluation of the Canada pension plan is not fearmongering or partisan politicking. It represents the opinions of the governments and of ordinary Canadians.

Through access to information I obtained a briefing note prepared for the Minister of Human Resources Development written by one of his senior policy analysts. She writes of CPP that "the costs of the Canada pension plan are rising faster than the actuarial assumptions predicted". She continued in the note to say that "amendments may be required to Canada pension plan benefits or to restrict the cost of the benefits". The senior policy analyst recommends therefore that the government increase contribution rates for CPP or implement cost cutting measures in the Canada pension plan.

The only proposals for changing CPP the government is considering are cutting seniors' pensions or raising taxes for CPP contributions. We already have evidence that the government prefers the easy yet reckless tax grab option. On November 2 the government announced a payroll tax increase to support a faltering pension system. The Liberal penchant for tax increases, which is already legendary, once again rears its ugly head.

Unlike the government, Reform believes we can renew the Canada pension plan without cutting seniors' pensions and without relying on contribution rate increases. Our plan would gradually convert CPP into individualized, privately invested accounts similar to RRSPs. The total investment income in these millions of accounts will greatly exceed the total income that is possible under CPP's current restrictive investment parameters. This increase in total investment wealth is key to our plan for making possible a renewed CPP that is generous to all age and income groups.

The first point of our four-point plan to renew the Canada pension plan is a guarantee to seniors. The first step in CPP reform must be to provide a protected status for all benefits being paid to the current generation of seniors. Reform believes that when there are any changes to CPP, no matter what they may be, no matter who proposes them, those changes must never touch any benefits that we as a society have promised our seniors.

If the Liberals implement cuts to seniors' pensions, as suggested in the briefing note to which I referred earlier, we can expect a seniors' uprising like no one has ever seen. Reform will help in every way possible to take that uprising to the House of Commons and even to the front doors of 24 Sussex Drive. We will not allow anyone to tamper with promises we have made to our seniors.

The second point provides for recognition bonds. Because people over a certain age, say around 40, will not be able to build up enough savings in their super RRSPs to compensate fully for the loss of their Canada pension plan benefits, special bonds will be issued guaranteeing the redemption upon retirement of all previously made contributions to CPP. Once we have guaranteed seniors' benefits in point one, this point guarantees benefits for those who are quickly edging toward their retirement but will not be able to fully benefit from their new super RRSPs.

This brings me to my third point, the creation of super RRSPs. Who should Canadians trust to manage their retirement savings, themselves or a government saddled with a $560 billion debt? Instead of contributing to the Canada pension plan to provide for their retirement, individuals would contribute into what we call super RRSPs. The conversion process from CPP to super RRSPs would gradually reduce the financial demands on the CPP system while keeping payroll deductions at reasonable levels. The excess revenues would be diverted into each worker's RRSP.

The fourth point of our plan for renewing the Canada pension plan is to improve benefits for elderly widows. The avaricious benefits given to elderly widows of deceased CPP contributors would gradually be replaced by a system under which full ownership of the spouse's super RRSP would be transferred to the widow without tax implications.

Here are constructive ideas for addressing an issue about which most Canadians feel deeply. We have initiated the debate. Reform is prepared to discuss real options and is open to innovative ideas.

Reform has a vision. Where is the Liberal vision? Where are the Liberals as we navigate the rough waters of complex policy?

[An hon. member]

Right in front of you.

[Jan Brown, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

It is clear they have missed the boat. They have no ideas, no vision and no stomach for white water. At a time when Canadians need leadership the most, the government has failed to deliver. How truly sad. We should give the hon. member on the other side of the House a bull horn.

I have spoken at length about my concerns regarding Bill C-96. In light of what I have said my conclusions are self-evident. I cannot and will not support the bill.

[Ronald J. Duhamel, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board]

Madam Speaker, there is considerable mischievousness going on here today. I want to correct a couple of flagrant errors.

The Prime Minister said in the House on a number of occasions that the pensions of seniors, those who have them now, would not be cut. He did indicate it may be necessary to look at the amount being contributed at this time for future pensioners.

For the Reform to suggest that is what the Liberals are doing, that is what the Prime Minister is doing, shows it has not been listening. It is unfortunate it would stoop to that. Reform members are trying to put their party and their leader in front of Canadians. That is what that kind of remark does. That is what it suggests.

It is not unlike the remarks made during the referendum campaign. I have here over 30 some quotes from newspapers throughout the country condemning their behaviour, indicating quite clearly they were playing politics. They were putting their party, their leader in front of Canada. I would be delighted to share those comments with them if necessary.

For that member to suggest pensioners will trust Reformers, Reform policy to protect them is really dreaming in technicolour. I doubt it very much.

With respect to the official opposition I shall try to prove the bill is an administrative bill. It is putting the pieces together so that the job can be done. It is the kind of bill that will still require co-operation and partnership, those very elements required in order to make Canada work.

There are no new powers in the bill. My colleagues in the official opposition know it.

Clause 20 of Bill C-96 raises concerns for the Government of Quebec as well as for certain members of this House. It is the one authorizing the minister to enter into agreements with provinces and financial or other institutions.

Some members are concerned more specifically that this clause gives the minister too broad a discretionary power for entering into agreements with local organizations, which might lead to encroachment on provincial areas of jurisdiction.

To clarify the situation, it might be worthwhile to examine the exact wording of clause 20. This clause states very clearly that these agreements are expressly intended to facilitate the carrying out of programs, and I quote, "-relating to the powers, duties and functions referred to in section 6-"

This clause sets out the mandate of the department and, let me repeat, without introducing new elements and without creating new powers. This is, obviously, what limits the discretionary powers which could be conferred upon the minister.

These powers are restricted by the very mandate of the department, which the bill clearly defines as restricted to all matters over which Parliament has jurisdiction. Moreover, it has been repeated on numerous occasions in this House that Bill C-96 assigns no new powers to the minister. The bill makes no change in federal areas of jurisdiction, no change whatsoever, nor in those of provincial governments. In this connection, the bill makes no change whatsoever in the present situation. Clause 20 does not, therefore, in any way authorize the minister to encroach upon areas of provincial jurisdiction. Is that clear, now?

The purpose of clause 20 is very simple. It allows the department to sign contracts with other organizations, which is normal. The department could not continue to function without that power. HRDC has signed hundreds of contracts and agreements with a broad range of Quebec groups, I might add, including agreements with the Government of Quebec, which are important to Quebec workers seeking to obtain training and get back into the work force.

The existing legislation already allows this, the bill merely picks these agreements up again. Nothing is changed. In 1994-95 alone, HRDC signed more than 50,000 contracts relating to manpower in Quebec, representing in all $695 million in program financing and income support.

These contracts break down as follows: 9,600 contracts with non-profit organizations; 9,300 contracts with businesses in the private sector; 2,800 contracts with public sector institutions such as municipalities; 3,200 contracts with the Government of Quebec and 25,000 contracts under the program for independent students, which provides income support for unemployed workers while they are receiving training.

I am sure that, all things considered, no one would suggest cancelling the agreements made possible under clause 20. Think of the consequences. It would mean the end of shared-cost agreements to help welfare recipients back on their feet. It would mean the end of funding for groups like the world famous Cirque du Soleil in Quebec City, which has carried out HRDC training and

job creation programs since 1987, programs that really make a difference in the lives of people who need help.

It would mean the end of our partnership with two Quebec government departments which support youth training and job search programs through the Relais des jeunes adultes du sud-ouest de Montréal. It would mean the end of our partnership with the Société québécoise de développement de la main-d'oeuvre, which helps new businesses get established through the Société d'aide au développement des collectivités de Sorel-Tracy Inc.

It would mean the end of our agreement with the SQDM to help workers affected by the closing of the Hyundai Plant in Bromont, last March. It would mean the end of our agreement with the local Human Resources Canada Centre and the Société de développement économique in Jonquière on the collection and exchange of labour market information. It would mean the end of agreements on one-stop services, like the agreement involving HRDC, the industrial commissioner and the Office de tourisme de Témiscamingue on providing services to promote industrial, rural and tourism development.

It would mean the end of the partnership in Gaspé between HRDC, the SQDM, the Fédération québécoise des rivières à saumon du Québec and other groups that are working on upgrading the skills of salmon fishing guides. It would mean the end of the Older Workers Adjustment Program, a federal-provincial agreement that provides $54 million in assistance to displaced workers in Quebec.

In fact, the Older Workers Adjustment Program is a prime example of why it is so important for the minister to be able to enter into agreements, not just with other governments but also with financial institutions, for instance.

Thanks to the Older Workers Adjustment Program, the federal government purchases annuities on behalf of older workers. During the past three years and up to now, we have spent more than $111 million on purchasing these annuities and have helped nearly 5,000 older workers to face the future with a measure of security.

We would not be able to continue this practice without clause 20, which simply gives us the power to keep helping these workers.

These agreements and thousands like them in communities in all Canadian provinces are what clause 20 is all about. We have no intention of using clause 20 to bypass the provinces or get involved in areas of provincial jurisdiction. No intention at all.

For example, clause 20 gives us the power to enter into agreements with financial institutions providing student loans under the Canada student loans program, which is bigger and more flexible. As it is clearly entitled to, the Quebec government chose to withdraw from this program in favour of block funding.

Clause 20 will preserve this kind of flexibility, which fully respects each province's powers and priorities.

The department's ability to conclude this kind of agreement will become even more important as the department continues to streamline operations and decentralize programs.

For example, the minister is testing various ways of ensuring local integration by establishing decision making and service development at the local level. We must move away from the highly centralized and compartmentalized programs imposed by the central administration and give local authorities a much greater latitude in making decisions. It is then easier to develop an integrated range of programs and services meeting the needs of the various communities.

This will be impossible if we cannot enter into agreements with the people and organizations with whom we must work. Impossible.

It would be impossible to build on the real progress we are making in integrating more effectively the federal government's resources with those of our partners. Local CRHCs are already learning to form more effective partnerships with schools, colleges, businesses, unions, and community organizations.

In fact, many programs are now designed to integrate public and private sector resources. For example, the department has created 16 sectoral councils to co-ordinate the management of human resources needs in the private sector. These councils now affect nearly 36 per cent of Canada's labour force, and many other councils are being created.

In each of these councils, both labour and management in a given industrial sector work together to develop a master plan with respect to their human resources needs. This co-operation constitutes the basis for some truly innovative partnerships. Under the internship program for example, sectorial councils developed training courses to allow young people to gain experience in areas as varied as electronics, horticulture, tourism and knowledge based industries.

In this partnership, businesses and unions set criteria and develop curricula together. Then, they make arrangements with local high school, community colleges and cégeps. In fact, they themselves give the hands-on portion so that the young people get an adequate mix of academic and practical training.

By integrating governmental and private sector resources this way, we end up with a more effective and efficient program. In fact, not only do our private sector partners manage the program, they also invest in it.

This kind of forward-looking initiative attracts a great deal of interest. Other countries are looking into possible scenarios to involve the private sector and local communities in developing internship programs.

Without clause 20 of Bill C-96, all these innovative initiatives would simply boil down to nothing because there would be no mechanism to govern all the administrative arrangements involved.

There is nothing catastrophic about clause 20. There is no need to read between the lines. Clause 20 is straightforward.

I know that some believe that it goes further, that it will give the minister the power to dismiss concerns expressed by provincial governments. The minister has already given these people the assurance that provincial governments will continue to be consulted, as they were in the past, about the kinds of agreements that HRDC will be making.

He even went as far as stating that he would not enter into any agreement without the prior consent of the appropriate provincial government, if that is what the province wants.

I do not know what more those who oppose clause 20 could ask for. Instead of trying to find in Bill C-96 examples of usurpation of power which simply do not exist, we should get on with the real tasks of creating partnerships, co-operating, and providing jobs to Canadians. This is indeed the purpose of Bill C-96 and clause 20.

We all know that co-operation between the federal and provincial governments could be improved in matters of labour, as well as in any other sector.

Federal-provincial agreements and partnerships would help find better ways to fulfil our respective mandates. There is no doubt about that. The issue must be carefully examined, and this is why the minister sent a direct invitation to the provinces to start discussing it.

However, if we really want these discussions to be productive, we must pass this bill now, in order to continue shaping a new department and a new era of flexible federalism.

We must pass Bill C-96 to continue providing effective services to all Canadians.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened attentively to the remarks by the hon. member for St. Boniface, and note that sometimes the more we talk, the less we understand each other.

The hon. member suggests that this clause 20 will lend much more flexibility and better harmony between levels of government. The clause must be read; it states "-the Minister may enter into agreements with a province"-may, not must-"or group of provinces, agencies of provinces, financial institutions and such other persons or bodies as the Minister considers appropriate".

In order to keep it short, I would just like to ask my hon. colleague from St. Boniface if he recalls that post-secondary education, for example, as well as social assistance, are exclusively provincial jurisdictions? If he does recall that, is he aware of everything the federal government has done to date, not just this one, but all those before it over the past twenty years, to intervene via their financial powers in these two areas, in areas over which provinces have exclusive jurisdiction? Is he aware of this?

[Ronald J. Duhamel, Liberal, St. Boniface, MB]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

Yes, I am very much aware. I understand that, in the past, the situation was less than perfect, and I believe that we have tried to improve the situation, and have improved it. I believe that this bill is exactly what it claims to be, that is to say an administrative bill, one which confers no additional powers upon the minister or the department or the provinces or anyone else.

I believe that there is a guarantee, not only in the bill but also by the minister himself, that he has no intention whatsoever of encroaching upon provincial responsibilities or trying to interfere in their areas of jurisdiction. I believe that this is a firm commitment, an honest one, an honourable one, and one that will be respected.

I understand that there may be differences of opinion, but I would like to start by inviting my colleagues to make concrete proposals so that we may work together better to improve the condition of all Canadians, including of course the men and women of Quebec, where employment is concerned.

We all know what human beings want above all is a job, a challenging job, one that pays enough to keep them and their families. The challenge is to make concrete suggestions; we could sit down together. Let us make sure that the government of Quebec comes to meet with us, or we could go to meet with them if that suited better, if it were easier, in order to reach agreement.

Secondly, apart from what I have just proposed, if there are questions-and obviously there are-which are bothering us, raising doubts about certain possibilities, if you like, if we might just put them aside and discuss them in the appropriate forum. For example, there are issues on federal-provincial affairs, links, reports, agreements between the two levels of government. There are mechanisms for discussion. I would invite my colleague to encourage his colleagues to do everything possible to allow us to

work for the people, whether they live in Quebec or elsewhere. That is my wish.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

Madam Speaker, I could not resist asking the hon. member for St. Boniface whether, considering his comments and the tone of his reply, he himself would support the resolution adopted unanimously by the Quebec National Assembly under Liberal Premier Daniel Johnson, who this year was the president of the No committee during the referendum campaign?

This resolution is similar in every respect to another resolution adopted by the Société québécoise de la main-d'oeuvre, whose membership includes the Conseil du patronat du Québec and various institutions and labour federations. The Conseil du patronat is headed by Mr. Dufour, another supporter of the No side, who demanded the patriation of tax points for occupational training. The resolution asked the federal government to agree to relinquish these tax points and let Quebec act as it saw fit, as the people-he used the word people-as the vast majority of the people of Quebec want. Would the hon. member support this demand?

[Ronald J. Duhamel, Liberal, St. Boniface, MB]

Madam Speaker, personally I am prepared to consider any option. I am not the minister responsible for this particular matter or for the department, so I will not get into an area with which I am not sufficiently familiar. I think the hon. member will understand my position.

However, I do feel it is essential to put these matters on the table, to discuss them and to come up with flexible solutions that respond to the needs of the people, not only those of Quebec but of all the other provinces and territories of Canada. That would be my approach.

Theoretically, there is nothing that cannot be put on the table or discussed in a frank and forthright way. We should look for flexible solutions that respond to the needs of all Canadians. That is about all I have to say. It would hardly be fair to expect us to do otherwise, and I am not particularly keen on taking a position on certain issues when I am not sufficiently familiar with the subject to suggest a solution.

[John Richardson, Liberal, Perth—Wellington—Waterloo, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would have a question for the hon. member for St. Boniface.

During the recent referendum in Quebec, a certain regional party at the federal level did not get involved. Yet, it did not lose any chance to try to score political points. What does the hon. member think of that?

[Ronald J. Duhamel, Liberal, St. Boniface, MB]

Madam Speaker, I can understand. I am a federalist obviously and I was on the no side. Naturally, I would have done my very best to keep Quebec within Canada.

I have great respect for Quebec and Quebecers. Of course, as a representative of a francophone minority outside Quebec, I am biased, I am prejudiced, so to speak. Quebec is an important reference point. As far as I am concerned, Quebec is an inspiration for francophones outside Quebec. It provides a certain infrastructure that is very useful.

I wanted my colleagues to know that. I have a deep-rooted attachment to Quebec.

Regarding the involvement of political parties, I appreciated what mine did, but I did not like at all what the Reform Party did. I found this form of involvement to be dishonest and excessive. It seemed to me that what came first for the Reformers was their party and their leader, and not the country. This observation is not mine alone; thirty or so editorial writers said so.

On the other hand, I appreciated Mr. Charest's involvement. Pardon me, I should not mention members by name. I should say the involvement of the Leader of the Progressive Conservative Party.

As for the other parties, all I have to say is that many people were playing politics with our country. I often wondered if the public interest, that of our fellow citizens, really came first for them. I came to the conclusion that it did not always come first.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

Madam Speaker, as the official opposition's critic on training and youth, I am pleased to take part in the debate at second reading on Bill C-96, an act to establish the Department of Human Resources Development and to amend and repeal certain related acts.

This is an extremely important bill because it amends several acts, codes and regulations, in addition to repealing four important acts, namely the Employment and Immigration Department and Commission Act, the Department of Labour Act, the Department of National Health and Welfare Act, and the Department of State Act.

If its only purpose was to make these changes, which, according to the Minister of Human Resources Development, simply make official the structures in place since the Liberals returned to power in 1993, we would be entitled to ask why it took so long to make official something that is already in place. It took two years, Madam Speaker.

Later we will see that the impact of Bill C-96 is more significant than what the minister and even the hon. member for St. Boniface who just spoke first suggested. In fact, it changes the balance of power between the provinces and the federal government in favour of the latter, as this government is wont to do.

The most surprising thing in all this is that the government waited until after the referendum to move for second reading of this bill in the House, which involves a debate. As we know, there

is no real debate at the first reading stage when a minister introduces a bill in the House.

Why did they wait two years and why was there no debate in the House between June and now? If it was good for both Canada and Quebec, I think it would have been in the government's political interest to debate this bill even during the referendum campaign. This could have helped Quebecers better understand the government's intentions in some important areas.

I simply want to remind you that, if we forget about debt servicing, the Department of Human Resources Development will manage over 40 per cent of federal budget spending. This is considerable; it is by far the most important federal department.

Under these circumstances, one wonders why this is the case. I happen to think, and so do many Quebecers, that it is because there was a lot at stake, including the cuts affecting social programs. But the issue is not merely related to cuts: there is also a question of power involved.

Contrary to what the member for St. Boniface just said, our understanding of Bill C-96 is that, with this measure, the Minister of Human Resources Development is giving himself new powers which he did not have before. These are powers which he tried to exercise in an illegal context, through the spending power of the federal government.

We must constantly remind some people of that, because they do not always understand what we mean. This spending power is provided in the constitution and, surely, the federal government can use it on certain occasions, such as during a major conflict or crisis. However, it is contrary to the constitution to use that spending power on a permanent basis. It should only be used on an ad hoc basis. The bill before us is an attempt by the government to legalize its action, by using the spending power as a model.

Let me read the press release of the Quebec minister of state for joint action and employment minister. This will give you an idea of the Quebec government's reaction when it found out about this morning's debate.

It reads as follows: "While Quebec accepted the invitation sent by the Minister of Human Resources Development to participate in a meeting on human resources management, the federal Minister of Human Resources Development nevertheless intends to proceed, this very day, with second reading of Bill C-96. That decision sends quite a message to Quebec, considering the unanimous opposition to a bill which confirms the federal government's intentions to systematically bypass Quebec's jurisdiction and institutions to maintain, and even increase, duplication regarding manpower related measures in our province". This is the reaction ofMrs. Louise Harel, Quebec minister of state for joint action, Minister of Employment, and Minister of Immigration and Cultural Communities.

"Bill C-96 amounts to a flat rejection of the unanimous Quebec consensus to the effect that the federal government must completely withdraw from the manpower sector and give related budgets back to the province". The minister added that "Ottawa's tactic was formally denounced by all labour market partners represented on the board of directors of the Société québécoise de développement de la main-d'oeuvre by way of a resolution passed on October 2".

"By initiating second reading of Bill C-96, Ottawa has confirmed that it intends to pursue its centralist manpower policy and ignore the specific needs of the Quebec labour market, thus dismissing the consensus in Quebec on manpower issues which stresses the need to fight unemployment effectively by allowing for the differences in the various labour markets across Quebec and promoting the involvement of the socio-economic players in every region and community".

"Only a proactive labour market policy that is consistent, integrated and adapted to our situation can help us fight unemployment effectively, with durable results".

"Ottawa wields Bill C-96 like a sword of Damocles. Opportunities to implement such a policy are essential to the development of employment in Quebec", concluded Ms. Harel.

Since I am reading, I might as well quote the attached document. This document was not drafted by the Parti Quebecois government but by the board of directors of the Société québécoise de la main-d'oeuvre. It reads as follows:

"Whereas Bill C-96, an act to establish the Department of Human Resources Development, which in clauses 6 and 20 gives the Minister of Human Resources Development the power to 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, with the objective of enhancing employment, encouraging equality and promoting social security, moved by Gérald Larose, seconded by Claude Béland, president of the Mouvement Desjardins, and resolved unanimously: That the board of directors of the Société québécoise du développement de la main-d'oeuvre take the position adopted at the Conférence permanente sur l'adaptation de la main-d'oeuvre in November 1990;"

"That Quebec must have sole responsibility for manpower adjustment and manpower training policies within its territory and patriate, as appropriate, the moneys allocated by the federal government to these programs in Quebec".

"Under the Constitution as it stands today and to improve client services, Quebec will control and administer all services connected with employment and manpower development and all related programs funded by unemployment insurance contributions within Quebec's territory and will consequently receive the budgets commensurate with this responsibility".

"The board of directors asks the federal government, pending finalization of negotiations on the patriation of budgets, to refrain from setting up parallel partnership structures or taking steps to encroach on areas under Quebec's jurisdiction, since the Société québécoise de développement de la main-d'oeuvre is the dedicated structure for joint manpower programs in Quebec".

Nevertheless-and I could also quote a resolution adopted unanimously under Daniel Johnson's Liberal government which was along the same lines, in other words, patriation of tax points for manpower training in Quebec-nevertheless, in spite of a very close vote in the referendum and following promises for change, not by just anyone, by the Prime Minister of Canada, they said: "We will consider your desire for change". Nevertheless, ten days later, the Minister of Human Resources Development is embarking on phase two, namely the second reading of Bill C-96, which, according to Quebec political observers, is the most centralizing ever.

This morning, we listened to the minister and the member for St. Boniface talking about decentralization; they said that decentralization no longer necessarily meant cooperating with provinces in areas which are nonetheless under exclusive provincial jurisdiction; it no longer means this, it means that the federal minister has the authority to negotiate agreements with any organization, even municipal governments, and individual stakeholders. Does this take into account a people's desire for change as expressed to the federal government? Does this heed the results of the referendum? To the contrary. Nothing has changed.

The government keeps on going as if nothing had happened, following the same logic, using the same rhetoric, the same words as the green book-I am not allowed to show it-the same green book the minister tabled a year and a half ago after extensive consultations. Wherever he went in Quebec, he was told, not only by the Société québécoise de la main-d'oeuvre, but also by a multitude of stakeholders, and this is the consensus in Quebec: "Mister Minister of Human Resources Development, listen to us, please". In Quebec, we want to control education. We want our government, the Quebec government, to be in charge of manpower training, as provided by the constitution, by the way.

We want to run our own affairs. What is the minister doing? Like a steamroller, he keeps on going, making a mockery of decentralization, saying that there will be further decentralization. The federal government will deal directly with local communities, individuals and local stakeholders. He mentioned a club in his parish, in his Winnipeg riding, and said that the federal government will be able to help.

I have no problem with that. It may work for the other provinces, the member for St. Boniface may not see anything wrong with it, but all Quebec stakeholders are against it. They want no part of it. We have said it time and time again, especially since the Bélanger-Campeau Commission, in 1990. Nevertheless, the minister is sticking to his gun. For him, decentralization means keeping all the powers for himself, and hogging 40 per cent of the federal budget, excluding the debt, to deal with unemployment problems. Of course, people who hear that and are not familiar with government operation, may say: "Here is a man who is genuinely interested in creating jobs, here is a man who wants to train individuals". Of course, these are good intentions, but this is not his jurisdiction. This is not his field.

This government keeps repeating that we must cut spending, but continues to spend in areas outside of its jurisdiction and cuts transfer payments to provinces, so much so that they, in turn, have to cut services such as hospital care. We know about that in Quebec. We have to cut because the federal government reduced transfer payments.

It seems like the Minister of Human Resources Development and government members have not grasped the meaning of the referendum results.

I was listening this morning as the minister boasted about a youth program he implemented as a pilot project in Newfoundland. He was explaining that finally, after quitting school to go looking for work, 97 per cent of the young people had decided to come back to school. According to him that was quite an accomplishment. It is easy to understand that if young people cannot find jobs, they will go back to school but in fact, what they wanted was to find jobs.

They maintain the training programs, but they are carried out directly from Ottawa and entrusted to civil servants. I have some experience in that area; let me tell you about a specific incident.

In my riding, two or three organizations asked me to help them get some federal funds, since we are still part of that system, by finding or creating some employment programs. The minister said that if we supported the no, he would be happy to give a positive reply to those requests. He said it and then the parliamentary secretary had to come to his rescue.

When I saw, on Tuesday this week, only one week after the referendum, that the independent member for Beauce had announced in his riding a special project for an employment center, so that training could be provided directly by businesses, and that he was boasting to have been successful at that, I remind the House that the independent member for Beauce was the chairman of the no committee in that riding. Is this the federal government's new way of decentralizing management: giving things to people who are on the right side or support federalists? Is this the way of governing that they want to show Quebecers? If Quebecers had known this is how things work, a lot more would have said yes.

In the end, when you hear so much double talk- That reminds me, for instance, of the Minister of Human Development Resources, a disciple of Mr. Trudeau, who was saying this morning that he was flexible. That reminds me of Prime Minister Trudeau who said in a message that he sent recently: "Considering my legendary flexibility". If this kind of bill, of attitude had been debated before the referendum, the result-

Mr. Speaker, I see that you are inviting me to sit down because question period is coming soon, so I will conclude, and if I have a few minutes left, I will complete my statement later.

I am simply saying that if Quebecers had known that, perhaps we would be talking about something else today.

[The Speaker]

It being 2 p.m. we will now proceed to Statements by Members.

Florence Christie

[Ted McWhinney, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Florence Christie of Vancouver has just been given the Canada Volunteer Award Certificate of Merit for her work for Canadians suffering from lupus.

She was diagnosed with the disease in 1980. Despite great sacrifice to her own health she has maintained constant contact and support with 50 support groups in British Columbia. In the past year she has answered over 600 telephone calls from lupus patients and has compiled and mailed some 1,300 information packages for the B.C. Lupus Society.

Her message is one of hope and inspiration that despite a severe debilitating illness one can continue to work effectively and live in dignity. The award to Mrs. Christie is one in which British Columbians and all Canadians can take pride.

Householders

[Val Meredith, Reform, Surrey—White Rock—South Langley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, one of the cornerstones of renewed federalism must be giving the people of Canada a greater say in the running of the country. Although the Liberals are not too interested in this concept, we in the Reform Party have been trying on our own to truly represent our constituents.

The best means we have available at this time are our householders. In each of my first six householders I have asked 10 questions covering a wide variety of subjects. For the past two weeks I have been collecting results from my latest survey. To date I have over 3,800 responses with hundreds coming in daily.

Liberal members might be interested to learn that their employment equity bill did not fair too well. Only 16 per cent of respondents are in favour of Bill C-64. By comparison, 31 per cent favour the legalization of marijuana and 54 per cent favour the legalization of prostitution.

It is amazing what MPs can learn when they actually listen to their constituents.

Canada Post

[Elsie Wayne, Progressive Conservative, Saint John, NB]

Mr. Speaker, over the past several days, mailboxes in my city of Saint John have received a flyer from a Quebec company which was distributed by Canada Post.

The flyer is a mail order form advertising explicit pornographic videos. Included in the flyer is a detailed description and name of each of the 20 films. I will not repeat these words and descriptions as they are very explicit and deeply offensive.

I have had many calls to my riding office from people who are totally outraged by having this kind of filth arrive at their front door by Canada Post. People feel that it is an invasion of their privacy and they want something done about it.

What is the government's policy on delivering such material? Whatever the policy is, it should be revisited. I strongly urge the minister responsible for Canada Post to put an end to delivering pornography.

Very Reverend Laszlo Tokes

[John English, Liberal, Kitchener, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Very Reverend Laszlo Tokes, moderator of the Hungarian Presbyterian Church in Transylvania, is visiting Canada from November 7 to 15.

The Romanian revolution in December 1989 was sparked by Reverend Tokes. He is a champion of human rights for minorities. He will address in general the human rights problems facing all Romanian minorities, especially those of the nearly three million Hungarians in Transylvania: the loss of Hungarian language schools and universities, the prohibition of the use of the language itself and the eradication of fundamental Hungarian culture.

The Very Reverend Laszlo Tokes is a man of God. He is a man of peace who stood unarmed against the brutal Ceausescu regime and sparked a revolution. His continued battle in fighting for human rights and minority rights is one which we all encourage and support.

Status Of Women

[Georgette Sheridan, Liberal, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it has been 25 years since the Royal Commission on the Status of Women tabled its report in this House, making numerous recommendations to improve the educational levels for women.

Since then we have made significant progress. For example, 25 years ago less than 3 per cent of women held university degrees. Today 10 per cent of Canadian women are university graduates and 52 per cent of full time university students are women.

The need for education is gender neutral. Education for women and for men is fundamental to economic advancement, to personal fulfilment and to the opportunity to participate to their full potential in Canadian society.

Federal and provincial initiatives have improved the educational status of women. Our goal is to ensure equality in education and training for Canadian women and girls, thus paving the road to a truly equitable society.

Drayton Festival

[John Richardson, Liberal, Perth—Wellington—Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to speak about a little known area called Drayton.

Terms such as sold out season and financial success are not usually used when referring to a relatively new performing arts theatre. However, after five successful seasons the Drayton festival is accustomed to breaking the rules.

Nestled in the picturesque village of Drayton, Ontario, the festival has fast become a Canadian success story. During the 1993-94 season the festival made Canadian theatrical history by selling out every available seat before opening night. This year some 60,000 theatre goers enjoyed an evening at this fine theatre.

Under the direction and guidance of artistic director Alex Mustakas, the talented cast and crew create a theatrical experience which is second to none.

I invite all Canadians to visit Drayton and take in a performance. However, I warn them to be prepared to be dazzled by an evening of music and laughter.

Federal Transfer Payments

[John Solomon, NDP, Regina—Lumsden, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the federal Liberal government claims that it wants standards for health care, education and social programs, but federal standards are meaningless without adequate core funding. The federal Liberals have cut back over $7 billion or 25 per cent of the budgets for health care, education and social services, yet they have cut back only 8 per cent on other government programs.

The implications on provincial governments are devastating, particularly Saskatchewan. The province of Saskatchewan will lose $200 million in federal transfer payments in 1996.

The impact of these cutbacks means savage reductions in social programs in some provinces, forcing Canadians to relocate. They go to where better jobs and better social programs exist, putting extreme pressure on those very provinces.

Weak national standards and the absence of adequate core funding means that provinces like Ontario and Alberta can punish those that need the help most. Pitting one province against another is wrong. So is a lack of funding for national standards.