House of Commons Hansard #258 of the 35th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was mmt.

Topics

Manganese Based Fuel Additives ActGovernment Orders

11:05 a.m.

Reform

Dave Chatters Reform Athabasca, AB

Madam Speaker, I have a number of questions.

I cannot remember when I have heard such a gross distortion of facts as we have just heard. Perhaps it is as a result of overexposure to manganese.

Does the member not believe that officials and experts in the Department of Health are competent and reliable? Has she read the blues from when Health Canada appeared as a witness before the committee and on several different occasions clearly stated manganese in fuels does not present any health hazard to Canadians? That is clear. It is written down and there for her to see.

The other comment I have is a return to the red herring of ethanol. The member should check the evidence presented by witnesses. Every manufacturing and refining witness that appeared before us said ethanol is not an alternative, it will not replace MMT.

Manganese Based Fuel Additives ActGovernment Orders

11:10 a.m.

Liberal

Rose-Marie Ur Liberal Lambton—Middlesex, ON

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. Perhaps his judgment is that ethanol is not the only alternative. In my speech I offered other alternatives. It is one of the alternatives that can be offered to this program.

Health is not the issue at the present time. We are looking at the air pollution issue as well. He says we do not take studies into consideration. In the United States they filed with the EPA four times as to qualifications for MMT. Three times they filed under section 211(c) and were denied. This section deals with matters concerning public health in relation to MMT as well the effect of MMT on the performance of emission control devices. They were turned down.

In their good wisdom they looked at section 211(f)(1) within the clean air act. The application was denied because it only related to the health aspects. We must consider what section they applied and when it was accepted or turned down.

There have been other studies conducted. I believe some Reform Party members said NOx emissions would be reduced by 20 per cent. However, these data were collected by Ethyl corporation. Environment Canada has said NOx would be reduced by 5 per cent. We must get our data straight on the issue.

Manganese Based Fuel Additives ActGovernment Orders

11:10 a.m.

Reform

Jay Hill Reform Prince George—Peace River, BC

Madam Speaker, I listened to the hon. member's comments quite closely. I am a little concerned she is still putting forth the idea that ethanol is an alternative to MMT. As my hon. colleague from Athabasca stated, clear evidence was presented to the committee which contradicts what she is trying to say.

Once again in her comments she has said ethanol is one of the alternatives, which is simply not correct. I would like her to retract that statement because ethanol is not an alternative to MMT.

Manganese Based Fuel Additives ActGovernment Orders

11:10 a.m.

Liberal

Rose-Marie Ur Liberal Lambton—Middlesex, ON

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague. In the past few days or weeks General Motors acknowledged that its cars would be able to use ethanol gas.

In addition I am very proud to say that gas stations have included ethanol pumps in London, Ontario, within the last week or two. They have been in touch with the car manufacturers. Obviously they know there is a requirement for such an option. I am very pleased to say ethanol is making strides in southwestern Ontario, my area.

Manganese Based Fuel Additives ActGovernment Orders

11:10 a.m.

Reform

Garry Breitkreuz Reform Yorkton—Melville, SK

Madam Speaker, as I have listened to the debate over the past few days one thing has become abundantly obvious. We need to do more research. The evidence, as the hon. member said, reflects people on one side saying one thing and people on the other side saying another thing.

I appeal to the government to support the amendment my colleague from Athabasca has made. We should give some time to it. The Americans are studying it. We need to look at it some more. It would be a great disservice to Canadians to quickly rush the bill through the House. There is nothing wrong with accepting the amendment and looking at this matter a little more.

If we look at the evidence presented in committee it becomes quite clear we need to look at this a lot more. I hope the government will listen to reason and support the amendment.

Manganese Based Fuel Additives ActGovernment Orders

11:15 a.m.

Liberal

Rose-Marie Ur Liberal Lambton—Middlesex, ON

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.

I reassure the member that the government is not rushing through this issue. The minister gave notice in 1993, two years ago. In my view that is not rushing.

Further, I believe the House has been working on it since 1985 to broker a solution. Senior departmental officials from environment, transport, industry and natural resources have all been working with senior representatives from the petroleum companies and the automotive industry. This has not come by night; it has been looked at for several years with one option or another.

With all due respect, I believe there has been sufficient data put together and we have to move forward. We cannot constantly be looking and looking and looking. We have a party in the House that tells us we are wasting money continually. This costs money. I do not say it is wasting money when we do studies, but it costs money. We have adequate information. Let us move forward on the issue. It is time to move. We have to respect the information we have collected.

Manganese Based Fuel Additives ActGovernment Orders

11:15 a.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)

Is the House ready for the question?

Manganese Based Fuel Additives ActGovernment Orders

11:15 a.m.

Some hon. members

Question.

Manganese Based Fuel Additives ActGovernment Orders

11:15 a.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)

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

Manganese Based Fuel Additives ActGovernment Orders

11:15 a.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Manganese Based Fuel Additives ActGovernment Orders

11:15 a.m.

Some hon. members

No.

Manganese Based Fuel Additives ActGovernment Orders

11:15 a.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)

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

Manganese Based Fuel Additives ActGovernment Orders

11:15 a.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.

Manganese Based Fuel Additives ActGovernment Orders

11:15 a.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)

All those opposed will please say nay.

Manganese Based Fuel Additives ActGovernment Orders

11:15 a.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

Manganese Based Fuel Additives ActGovernment Orders

11:15 a.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

Manganese Based Fuel Additives ActGovernment Orders

11:15 a.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)

Pursuant to Standing Order 45(7), a division on the question now before the House stands deferred until Monday, November 20, at 6 p.m., at which time the bells to call in the members will be sounded for not more than 15 minutes.

Department Of Human Resources Development ActGovernment Orders

November 9th, 1995 / 11:15 a.m.

Winnipeg South Centre Manitoba

Liberal

Lloyd Axworthy LiberalMinister of Human Resources Development and Minister of Western Economic Diversification

moved that Bill C-96, an act to establish the Department of Human Resources Development and to amend and repeal certain related acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased, along with my colleague from Portage-Interlake, to move second reading of the bill that provides for the formal foundation of the Department of Human Resources. This is the last of the 10 reorganization bills and with its passage the major reorganization of departments that began in 1993 will be complete.

The bill primarily deals with administrative reorganization. As members know, the new department brought together portions of several other departments: the former departments of employment and immigration, health and welfare, secretary of state, and Labour.

At the outset I say the bill makes no significant changes to the statutory elements of the legislation that established these founding departments.

The bill does not change the powers of the federal government or the provinces. It gives no new powers. The mandate conferred in the bill is clearly limited to the matters over which Parliament has jurisdiction. That is literally what it says in clause 6.

In other words, the programs and structures included in existing legislation have simply been put together in this new bill.

The Bloc objects to clause 20 because it allows the minister to sign contracts with agencies and institutions other than the provinces. But this is not new. This has not changed.

For instance, the bill includes agreements on older workers with the government of Quebec and the other provinces. Under this agreement, the government purchases annuities from financial institutions.

All the legislation does is allow us to continue to provide assistance for older workers by buying a series of annuities from financial institutions in full co-operation with the provinces. Frankly, the attempt to raise fears and create the impression that this is some form of new intrusion is simply another example of blowing smoke, which we have seen so rampant over the past several weeks.

Why then is the legislation important? Why bring together four or five departments into a singular instrument of government? I think the vision that underlies the reorganization of the department is captured in the name itself, Human Resources Development. It tries to bring together all the different elements, instruments, programs and policies of the federal government into one coherent

approach to the fundamental issue dealing with individual Canadians. In a sense it is a single drawer out of which a number of tools can be brought to try to tackle and focus on the concerns and issues of many Canadians as they go through difficult times of personal, family and community adjustment at a time of incredible changes in society.

This is not a defence of the status quo or what used to be. It is an attempt to try to provide a new, innovative way of doing government. One of the great singular difficulties we have, as we well know, is to get people to begin to think differently about how government can relate to individuals, communities and the country. The old ways simply are not relevant to the kinds of conditions we now face. That is one reason the government has undertaken to provide a new set of instruments, brought together with a single focus of policy. It really gives us a foundation on which the role and participation of the Canadian government can tackle the real deficit problem in the country, which is not just the fiscal deficit but also the human deficit, a deficit as corrosive and undermining to the well-being of individuals as anything we face on the fiscal side.

The singular challenge we face, regardless of political opinion or jurisdiction, is how to give Canadians the ability, the resources and the support they need to manage sometimes very painful and difficult transitions as the economy changes into a globally integrated economy, as we try to cope with the major impacts of new technology and the impacts on the workplace, where job requirements and qualifications change in an instant. This almost revolutionary transitional sweep is affecting not only Canada but every country in the world.

The time has come for all levels of government-federal, provincial, and municipal-not to engage in the old fashioned warfare of whose turf we own, but to find ways of working together, find ways of bringing together our combined resources. The attempts to try to stake out what one jurisdiction should do versus the other oftentimes leave out one major problem. We are still talking about the same people who are interested in their family, their job and their community and simply want government to help, not hinder or in the way but provide the resources they need.

The real fear and the real uncertainty gripping the lives of people is how to cope with unprecedented change and how to make something of it that can be positive and constructive. There are those in our society and I suppose there are people in the chamber who would like to roll back that change. Like King Canute, they would like to stop the waves from coming in. That is bound to frustration.

Department Of Human Resources Development ActGovernment Orders

11:25 a.m.

Reform

Garry Breitkreuz Reform Yorkton—Melville, SK

Madam Speaker, I did not want to interrupt my colleague, but I have just consulted with the official opposition and we have contravened one of the rules in the House.

According to Standing Order 45(6)(a), a division deferred on Thursday is not held on Friday but is instead deferred to the next sitting day at the ordinary hour of adjournment.

The government whip did not consult with or get the consent of our party. Nor did he get the consent of the official opposition in deferring the vote.

Department Of Human Resources Development ActGovernment Orders

11:25 a.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)

I will take that under advisement and get back to the member.

Department Of Human Resources Development ActGovernment Orders

11:25 a.m.

Liberal

Lloyd Axworthy Liberal Winnipeg South Centre, MB

Madam Speaker, the fundamental purpose and rationale for reorganizing the department is to put us in a position where we can take a holistic view of this transformation, try to put a finder on it that enables us to see the linkages and the crossovers.

We know full well that the problem of child poverty stems oftentimes from relationships in the workplace. We know that poor children also end up with children who have illnesses. Therefore we have to find some way of cross-linking the responses and in so doing be more effective and more efficient both within and between governments and provide the best possible answer in that respect. This means not abandoning basic values but finding new ways of doing things.

We have to recognize, a fundamental and critical issue, is that the old top down centralized hierarchies of governmental organization, which have been really a product of the old industrial age, no longer work effectively. The kind of management that is driven from a command point of view no longer works very effectively. We now must find a much different way of working in a society with individuals and communities, much more in a lateral and horizontal way than in a vertical way. The old manuals that governed inputs and outputs and measured results according to fiscal accounts no longer apply when it comes down to values.

I would like to point out one of the interesting initiatives we were able to co-sponsor with the OECD last spring. The secretary of labor in the United States and I made a motion that rather than have the OECD issue purely economic indicators every year it should begin to also look at social indicators, the impacts on investments in education, investments in welfare and what it tells us in terms of the resulting capacity and competence of individuals to make progress in dealing with the problems.

I am really talking about getting the best use of taxpayers' dollars at a time when we face real restraint and providing a much more effective way of enabling people to respond and make choices themselves and not have choices made for them.

Let me give one small example of how a saving can be made that has an impact both for the individual and for society at large. If we could get the 400,000 people who are almost permanently unemployed through the unemployment insurance ranks and who

receive benefits by changing that benefit to a form of employment benefit so they could get one more week of work, we would save the entire system $50 million, just by that one act alone, an additional week of work.

Think of what it does for the individual who knows that for the first time he or she has an opportunity to springboard back into the workforce as opposed to simply planning a life which is a constant round of getting from one benefit program to another. That is the key element in trying to shift the role of government and the way government operates.

This is not critical of what was done in the past. It was a product of its time. In the 1940s, 1950s and even the 1960s there was a view about how government should work in terms of providing a form of security through welfare payments and social benefits. During those times we were not facing the kind of economic transformation which is going on today. We were not facing the disruption which is now taking place.

People now have a much higher level of skills requirements. We have seen all the reports; I do not have to repeat them. The reports show that those who have some kind of post-secondary education have an 85 per cent to 90 per cent chance of getting a job. Those who have less than high school have about a 30 per cent chance of getting a job.

One cannot simply say it is the individual who has to survive and swim in that sea. I reject that philosophy. Government after all is nothing more than the combined collective representation of all those individuals recognizing there are certain things that have to be done together and not individually. We have to combine resources across the country so that when one area is facing higher unemployment, other areas help support it. That is the fundamental concept of sharing.

The more we fragment the country, the more we divide it, separate it and turn it into a series of fiefdoms, the less capable we are of helping individuals to respond when they have needs because we no longer have the benefit of that sharing. That is why the federal government must continue to play an important role in this area. Those who are the apostles of provincialism, which is to say turn everything over and make all the decisions, will recognize what can happen.

One example is a discussion we are having with the province of British Columbia. It is feeling the pressure from people who are moving in from other provinces. Those in B.C. forget that in the 1980s people from British Columbia were moving to other provinces which were picking up the responsibility. They forget that it was a very important time for there to be a balanced wheel to make sure there was a proper adjudication and sharing of resources.

That is why it is important to help redefine, select and work out how we in the new department of human resources can play that role clearly in a system of partnership. We must also make sure there is a very active and useful delivery of service to individual Canadians nationally.

In the last year in the department of human resources in its combined form, we provided in one way or another a transaction service to one million Canadians. We are the largest service delivery organization in the country. We deal with more Canadians than McDonald's, Air Canada and Sears, Roebuck combined. That is why the question of service becomes so important.

One of the most important elements of the reforms we are introducing is trying to understand how we can provide a much better service related to where the individual is and to get away from the top down command system. I used to say that the departments we brought together had a General Motors or IBM philosophy. I wanted to turn that into a Canadian Tire philosophy where it was based in the local communities with tools and instruments customized and tailored to the needs of those communities.

We are pioneering in this approach. We have made enormous progress in the past year by being able to fundamentally rethink and redo the way in which the department of human resources works. It is an attempt to find the most relevant kind of governmental organization to fit the job system and social system we are going to need as we approach the new century.

As an example, last August we announced a fundamental change in the way in which the service delivery operation of the department would operate. We are going from 450 points of service in the country to 700 points of service. We are providing a much broader network.

Some of my colleagues have been very concerned about how the federal government ensures adequate and effective services in rural areas. This means a much broader extension of the services of the department into areas that did not have services before. People can now access services without having to travel 50 miles or 70 miles to visit an old CEC.

I will give the example of a person in Elgin county where I visited about a month or so ago. In terms of testing out new models, one of our young officers in St. Thomas worked out a system where through the Internet he was able to provide the same access to information and services we used to provide by having somebody come into the St. Thomas office. In a period of three months with that simple change alone he was able to provide service to 4,000 new clients.

If we had had to do it the old way, people would have been in line ups five miles long every single day at that St. Thomas office trying to find information on pensions or employment. One of the

end results is that people can access the job bank in the local grocery stores, high schools, libraries, places where people go, where they carry out their normal business. We can work partnerships at those local levels so people get that same level of service.

We are also working with the disabled community to establish a new job bank for disabled Canadians which is tied in with a large number of corporations. Again the access is provided at the local level and is designed by the users themselves working with the business community. All of a sudden a number of disabled Canadians can put their resumes on the system. Businesses can recognize what those resumes are and they can do the transaction together. It frees up our own officers to do the really important and intense work of counselling and mentoring and providing good advice as to where one can go and how to get there.

One of the major advantages as well is that what used to be the old job centres are now becoming in a sense human resource centres where there is an integration of all the services of the department. Seniors, students and workers under the unemployment insurance system can all come to the same place.

As a result, seniors will have four times as many offices in which they can be serviced than previously. The new technology means that processing UI claims can be reduced to two days when it used to take sometimes 10 days to two weeks. Claims for old age security can be processed in half a day instead of eight days. That means a lot. We can put that in cold statistical terms but for a senior who has been waiting for an application for old age security, to have it within a half a day as opposed to eight or 10 days makes a big difference when they do not have a lot of money to deal with.

We are substantially broadening that network to a variety of points of service. We are using the new technology. We are not afraid of it, like some members are saying, like the Luddites of old who say that we cannot use new information systems. There is not a business, not an organization in the country which is not asking itself questions about how to improve efficiency, productivity and access by using the new systems. That is what we are now doing and implementing. It is a fundamental part of trying to provide better service for those nine million Canadians who use our services.

Not only are we integrating within the programs we offer, we are also undertaking a wide variety of experiments and projects throughout Canada in terms of a guichet unique. We are providing ways in which all three levels of government can work together to provide a common one stop shopping service.

For example, in Alberta there are a series of youth centres. Both the federal and provincial governments now combine to provide a very direct ability to deal with long term unemployed youth in three of those centres. In early evaluations and in talking to Alberta officials, we are finding a much higher success rate because we combined services and young people can come to one place and get that same kind of service.

Another interesting example is in the province of Quebec, in Alma, the hometown of the Leader of the Opposition. My department, the SQDM, the local municipalities and local clubs are now combined in a single service delivery system.

It is exceedingly strange that we are being attacked by those who say we are intruding but in fact we have a wide variety of those co-operative projects going on in the province of Quebec with the Government of Quebec. The reason we are doing that is because they work better that way. This is at the working level. It is not at the level of the top bureaucrats or politicians who love to talk about the grand design. It is at the working community level. We are dealing directly with the service in towns like Alma, Jonquière, and other places where there are these combined services.

The key to success is that people find it much more effective, much more helpful and much more productive for them as individuals. Is that not what it is about? Is that not what government is about? Those are the kinds of changes we are undertaking.

It also means we will go back and look at many of the old programs which were developed 20 or 30 years ago, some of which I helped to develop when I was a minister back in the early eighties, for example the national training act. We must ask if they work any more.

During this past year we have undertaken very extensive evaluations testing what does and does not work. We have produced a series of 24 different evaluation reports which are publicly available. They provide a very good assessment as to what kind of involvement or participation makes sense in the areas of benefits, youth, et cetera. Based upon those evaluations, which we have already highlighted, we are providing a substantial distillation of our programs from 39 or 40 programs down to five programs, five basic tools.

I will take a moment to articulate this most clearly. These five tools will provide the opportunity for decisions to be made at the local employment centre level instead of having to respond to some program designed and manufactured in Ottawa or the regional office. Decisions can be made right at the community level with the local partners, the provinces, municipalities, businesses and social agencies. They can tailor how those tools can be most effectively used to deal with the unemployment problem in a specific locale.

It is decentralization of a very different kind. There has been a lot of talk and we have read much in the paper about decentralization. So far it has been a somewhat restricted debate as it talks only

about decentralization in terms of transferring from the federal government to provincial governments.

Should we not also be talking about how to empower communities and individuals to make more choices? Is that not what we should be looking at in terms of decentralization? Should we not be looking at how governments become partners and facilitators in the local community context? Not only do we find a much more effective way to deal with the unemployment problem in a specific community, but we can also begin to help strengthen and enhance those communities themselves.

Social analysts have made a very good and profound contribution by recognizing that with all the pressures of the global economy and new technologies, one of the consequences has been the unravelling of what they call a civic society. Those intermediate organizations, trade unions, social agencies, community based organizations no longer have the same capacity to respond.

I will give a personal working example. When I was in school, just a few years ago-

Department Of Human Resources Development ActGovernment Orders

11:40 a.m.

Liberal

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

Very few, yes.

Department Of Human Resources Development ActGovernment Orders

11:40 a.m.

Liberal

Lloyd Axworthy Liberal Winnipeg South Centre, MB

You don't have to snicker.

One of my summer jobs was working on recreation programs for a boy's club, which was associated with the local United Church in inner city Winnipeg. We brought in 40 or 50 volunteers per night to provide student recreation programs at the local level in an area where children did not have much opportunity.

A month or so ago I was talking to a woman who was a contemporary of mine. She had been involved in the program and had become heavily involved in the work of the United Church in offering this program. I asked her whether she still did those programs and she replied: "No, we spend money lobbying people like you". That is an interesting change. Rather than investing their dollars in terms of providing a rooted, community based activity directly designed to meet those problems, they were mobilizing to lobby the government.

Is there a way we can make government a partner in that area? Is there a way government can help the local boys' club or church organization? That is why I want to decentralize the department. It will give far more discretion, far more autonomy and far more accountability at the local level so it can make decisions and work out its business plans. I believe this is a very exciting opportunity.

The other night in Winnipeg there was a major conference put on by the Institute for Advanced Research on children's problems. The institute brought together from across Canada about 20 different agencies which were pioneers in bringing together community based responses to the problems of children and youth at risk. It was a heart warming and encouraging experience. We saw how schools, agencies, local police, local municipalities, the provinces and our department all came together at the same time to provide a range of services. They could make use of the resources. Rather than having single silos or pyramids built all over town, they were now bringing them together.

Their request to us was to have an information network which would link them across Canada so they can share experiences and resources, so they can get common procurement and look at common training for their workers. That is a simple way of hooking them up to the information network.

Look at the connection. One of the reforms we are introducing in our department is the new labour market information system across Canada. Individuals can tap into that system to find jobs whether they are in Gander or in Prince Rupert. If we can provide the same information network to those child centres, all of a sudden we have substantially enhanced their resource with very little cost to us and we have made them much more effective in their local communities. That is the vision the department is trying to put forward.

How do we take this very large department, which has 27,000 employees and a budget of $60 billion, and really make it an active, involved participant at the community level along with its other partners?

At times I show some frustration at the old debate about which level of bureaucracy will control the money. I am saying the real problem is at the community level. That is where it really counts.

It gives us the opportunity to help to clarify the roles between levels of government. Contrary to the charge that there is a big intrusion, one of the direct results of the department will be to give far more space for provincial governments to begin to make decisions at their level of responsibility and jurisdiction. I firmly believe that. The time has come for us to take a much closer look at the respective roles and to build bridges to bring us together.

That is why we have formally invited the provinces to work with the Government of Canada on the decentralization of the delivery of services so we can tailor them to local labour market needs. That is the key. We cannot do it unilaterally, as some provinces want; we must do it together.

As the federal government simplifies its programs and further defines their scope, the roles of both levels of government will be clarified, and major sectors of the labour market will be open to the provinces.

That is a very major task we have set for ourselves. We have already started a number of discussions with many provinces about how we can do exactly that. One of the most important results of the new legislation we are preparing which will be introduced very shortly will give us the ability to make a much better, more effective clarification of the respective roles and to create far more space for provinces to make their decisions.

Rather than getting into the bare knuckle federalism that some people in the House have advocated, in which they seem to enjoy confrontation, it is time to start building a partnership of federalism. In that wonderful world of Judith Maxwell, one of our important social and economic confreres, said: "Is it it not time governments look at the potential of federalism, not its problems, not its disputes, but the potential of federalism?" That is what we are trying to discover and search out as we deal with the new issues, the potential of federalism, the potential we can bring together.

As I said earlier, we have already succeeded in building that in a number of new delivery systems. Let me give an example of the things in the past year we have been able to do working with the provinces in those areas.

One good example is from Newfoundland dealing with a serious problem, as my colleague from St. John's knows well. We established a collaborative approach to deal with youth unemployment. As a result of the student work and service program, 2,700 young people including 1,000 on social assistance were given an opportunity to work for a period of 16 weeks in either the private sector or community agencies. Upon completion of that work they were given a voucher and could then choose to go back to school or use it for self-employment.

A full 97 per cent of those young people on social assistance have used or intend to use those vouchers to go back to school. They worked, they earned it, they have the voucher and now they understand the importance of education. That was done with full collaboration between two levels of government working with youth agencies, schools and colleges in that area.

Does that kind of thing not indicate exactly how collaboration is better than confrontation, division and separation? That is the way to get things done, by working at that level of opportunity.

Let me give another example from British Columbia where certain ministers are claiming we do nothing. There is a major child care project going on, almost $30 million invested through our strategic initiative. Again, we sat down and worked it out. We asked how we could provide a better service in child car. The province took the lead in the design and implementation and we provided the resource through which it could establish community based child care centres that provide a series of services for 30 or 40 child care activities. They provide a common procurement, common training, respite care for parents who need it.

The evaluations I shared with a minister in British Columbia again demonstrating we have saved the child care system money because there is a common based service. Those individual child care units can provide a better range of services because there are special remedial programs for disabled children which can be shared among a number of units. That collaboration has resulted in better planning within the community level about how children can be looked after at the community level.

This makes sense, rather than getting into the bare knuckles. It is better to realize the real issue is children and how we can work together to provide that kind of service.

Another good example in Quebec is the APPORT program which the province pioneered with the previous government. It has provided a form of assistance and testing those on social assistance so they can go back to school or to work with the use of an income supplement. While the debate about separation was raging, we were negotiating with the Government of Quebec about how we could combine and collaborate jointly fund the APPORT program and extend it to new kinds of clients so that we could find a way of enabling people, rather than staying on social assistance, to find self-sufficiency and independence in their lives and find a job. This is again an example that while the great political battles are waging over here, at the community level we can do something very useful, very effective and very helpful.

That is one level of the kind of partnership we see as the abiding philosophy we want to put forward. Another very important problem all members of the House are concerned about, because we see it every day in our constituencies, is our young people. They have a much tougher time than our generation had. They have far fewer opportunities because of the higher demands for skill and education. They have far less certainty about what the future holds because the future is so much in turbulence and turmoil.

However there are ways we can work together in partnership. One of the areas we are exploring most actively is how to work with the private sector in this area. The most crucial area and where there have been serious problems is when young people finish their formal education. How do they open the door to new kinds of work experiences? How do they make that transition, build that bridge?

Our department has been working on the establishment of a series of human resource sector councils. We now have 19 in place. These bring together employees and employers, unions and management to work out a human resource plan for their own industry: electronics, software, tourism, horticulture, culture. They recognize, again through experience, is by bringing workers and management together they can do much better than having them separated. They also recognize they have very serious gaps in skills in those sectors and they are working to improve them.

We have just signed an agreement with the Grocery Products Manufacturers Council two weeks ago, the second largest manufacturing group in Canada with about 300,000 employees. Half its employees do not have the level of education required to meet the new kinds of technologies now coming into that business. Therefore they will start with basic on the job literacy programs. The private sector helps to support this program and the provincial governments provide support for the private sector which is taking the responsibility to manage the program.

Councils could provide very important conclusions in youth internships in which we could provide the opportunity, managed and driven by the private sector, to take responsibility for our young people to make that transition. It means that in schools in all provinces there are young people who work half days through a private sector opportunity and go to school half days. The curriculum and standards have been designed jointly by the private sector council and the local school or provincial agency.

This year 25,000 young Canadians will have the opportunity to be involved in that kind of youth internship program. Again, it is a partnership: government with the private sector; government with the local school boards; government with the provinces. That is the kind of philosophy we have to continually talk about because that is what works.

That is what the department is about, finding what works based on dealing with the real individual needs of Canadians and getting better services to them, but also developing a real set of partnerships that will enable us to reach out and cross over to find the linkages, bridges and connections throughout the country with our fellow governments, the private sector and community style agencies to combine resources and focus our efforts specifically on enabling individual Canadians to make a difference and to make a change.

Therefore I strongly recommend to the House the legislation we have before us. I hope members will see it for what it really is, not based on the old prisms and optics of the past, which is to say this is federal or that is provincial, but on the prisms and optics of the future, which is to say let us redefine government as partners with individuals, partners with communities and as partners with each other. That is the real philosophy that underlies the new Department of Human Resources Development.

With the accord and support of the House, we can get this legislation in place. It would give us the authority to bring together the powers of the old department and provide a coherent, concise focus on helping Canadians meet the challenges of a new century.

Department Of Human Resources Development ActGovernment Orders

Noon

Liberal

Don Boudria Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. A little earlier today there was a question raised in the House about whether or not the vote that was deferred until Monday at 6 p.m. by the deputy government whip was appropriately deferred.

I want to confirm to the House that consultations were held by the whips. Pursuant to Standing Order 45(7), the vote was properly deferred pursuant to the consultations which had taken place as early as Tuesday of this week.

Department Of Human Resources Development ActGovernment Orders

Noon

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)

In response to the point of order by the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville, since we appear to have agreement of the whips of all recognized parties, under Standing Order 45(7), the vote on the amendment for the third reading of Bill C-94 will take place at 6 p.m., Monday, November 20.