Debates of June 7th, 1995

Supply

[Leon Benoit, Reform, Vegreville, AB]

Mr. Speaker, on the Canada social transfer, he said they are transferring $35 billion to the provinces. He forgot to mention that is a reduction of about $7 billion, if I have my figures right. That is downloading on the provinces.

Maybe that is the reason the Liberals in Ontario's provincial election are into a skid. Maybe it is that and Bills C-68 and C-41. Maybe that is why this Liberal Party got so desperate as to campaign for its provincial brothers and sisters during members' statements before question period, and it does not even claim them as an election expense.

[Paul Devillers, Liberal, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly am amazed at the interest our hon. colleagues from the Reform Party have taken in the provincial election in Ontario. They do not seem to miss any opportunity to discuss it. I have the impression that there is perhaps, as we have heard in the media, some possibility of a merger with the Tory government. They seem to be very concerned with the fortunes of the Tories in Ontario.

To answer his downloading question, the information I have is that in fact there is the same amount of money, if not more, being transferred to the provinces today as there was prior to this government's taking office.

[Jean-Paul Marchand, Bloc, Québec-Est, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate which goes to the very heart of the Canadian policy issue.

There is a proposal to reform the human resources system in Canada. As you know, this is the largest department and the most essential to any political system, for it is or is supposed to be in charge of job creation and training. Social and other programs also come under this department.

This is an extremely important department and talking about reforming such a department is like trying to change the entire Canadian federal system as we know it.

If only the peanut gallery in the Reform Party could listen-

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

I am trying to imagine what it must have been like when this wonderful Chamber sat every evening.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Quebec Est.

[Jean-Paul Marchand, Bloc, Québec-Est, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the point I was making in such a colourful way is that basically attempting to change the Department of Human Resources Development is tantamount to attempting to change the entire Canadian federal system because this department is at the heart of every federal program, anything that deals with employment, training, social programs. We also know that HRD may well have one of the largest budgets, if not the largest, of any federal department.

That is what prompts me to say that this debate tonight goes to the very heart of the Canadian policy issue. Looking at this reform proposal concerning the Department of Human Resources Development, we can see that the impact of this reform is quite disastrous in every respect. Even from the point of view of political philosophy, this reform makes no sense.

There is an ongoing debate in Canada about the value of decentralizing political powers. I think that this policy or idea is widely held across Canada. At least in Quebec and in parts of English Canada it is regarded as good policy. The Liberal government however would rather adopt a centralizing policy, which is obvious in several bills, including bills from the Department of Human Resources Development. This is a disastrous policy thrust, as we know. I even think that a majority of Liberal members, and you might be one of them, care and will recognize that decentralizing is the key to the future of Canada's political development.

However, this Liberal government and its Prime Minister seem more bent on centralizing, which is disastrous as we can see, particularly when we come from Quebec. This human resources reform is disastrous, both from a political and economical point of view.

Although the government is trying to cut several billion dollars in social programs, a measure which will hurt the poor and the most vulnerable people in our society, it will not really save anything. These cuts are not well thought out; they are not planned; they are not part of a global vision for development. In fact, if this government really cared, if it really had a vision for rebuilding the country, it would have reduced overlapping and duplication. It would have opted for decentralization, instead of centralization.

Once again, the reforms proposed by the Department of Human Resources Development show that, in the future, there will undoubtedly be even more duplication than before. This will not result in savings. Duplication means not only that money is wasted, to the tune of hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars, but also time, energy and even human lives.

When we really get down to talking about client services and the efficiency of programs managed by the Department of Human Resources Development, we have to conclude more and more that they are not efficient. The department tries to put job creation or training programs in place to enable people to hold jobs. The department, the federal government itself, acknowledges that these training programs are inefficient.

One has to actually be there, hit the streets, the towns and the countryside to really take stock of the current disaster, the mounting frustration people are venting; people are becoming more and more concerned about what is going on because they are under the impression that politicians are not doing their jobs. And how right they are that this government is not doing its job.

And the reforms they are proposing for the Department of Human Resources Development are nothing more than expensive deviations from which no good will come. Who will ultimately pay? Now that the Liberal Party is no longer a Liberal Party in the traditional sense, but much more like a Conservative Party, there is no difference between the current Liberal Party and the Conservative Party that preceded it: their policies are identical. Inertia rules. But who actually pays for this lack of leadership, concern and good policies? The poor, the sick, seniors, students, the unemployed, welfare recipients, all of the classes in society which have no voice. They will be the ones who will have to pay. In fact, they are always the ones who pay for a government's slip-shod work.

But these people will not always be ignored. We can say this because they are a majority. A storm is brewing in the country, it is brewing because there are no jobs and no training is available. Therefore, if the patronage and the scandals like Power DirecTv or other shady issues clouding this government do not bring it down, its inertia, lack of vision and the public's dissatisfaction will. Their system is doomed to failure.

The current federal government in Ottawa has no vision. It is doomed to failure. One thing is sure, it is going to crumble under the weight of its own debt and of its shortsightedness. In fact, in Quebec we want to get out of this system because we can do a better job. One does not have to be a genius to realize we can do better than the federal system we have now.

The Department of Human Resources Development, as I said before, illustrates what is wrong with the whole federal system. This department has made presentations and introduced cutbacks, but is misleading in the way it presents its budget. It is hard to pinpoint what they are trying to do. We know the minister is confusing the issue. He would have people believe he is improving the system, but that is not the case. They talk about increasing the number of programs and the amount of money available for training or job creation, although we know there have been drastic cuts in the amounts available.

Confusion reigns in this department. As I said before, all you have to do is go down the street, go to the cities and towns and employment centres and you will see what is happening. The department's employees no longer know which side they are on, whether their job is going to disappear, how much money they have for which programs and which programs will be abolished. This is not a department with a clear vision, a sense of purpose. Confusion is spreading because people do not know where they are going.

There is some kind of trickery afoot, but I am afraid they underestimate the public's intelligence. The auditor general has often said that budgets are mainly an exercise in camouflage. It is an attempt to prevent people from finding out exactly how the money is spent. You practically have to be an expert, and even the experts cannot agree.

Cover up and concealment seem to be the order of the day. The Auditor General of Canada singled out the Department of Human Resources Development as a case in point. Confusion is rife, especially in this department. As I said before, the department is at the heart of the federal system that is collapsing under its own weight, through its own inertia and lack of vision.

How the money in the Unemployment Insurance Fund is used is another example of this now you see it, now you don't, attitude. Everyone in Canada or at least a large percentage of Canadians has the impression that the federal government is putting money, their tax money, into the unemployment insurance program to subsidize training programs and other programs provided by employment centres.

However, the federal government, as I said before, is withdrawing from unemployment insurance. The money in the Unemployment Insurance Fund comes out of the wages earned by workers. We all contribute to this fund, but the federal government is contributing less and less. However, the government still gives the impression it contributes, and it uses the money to set up training programs and job creation programs for young people. This is a very economical way to give the impression you are doing something.

Obviously, this is one way to give the impression of doing something, but not necessarily a successful one. The greatest confusion is to be found in the new programs set up in the past 12 months, particularly those announced with the greatest noise-programs for youth, young trainees or the youth service corps.

In my riding, just by talking to people in the street, who have anything to do with these programs at all, you realize that they do not know where to turn anymore. For example, in Québec-Est, 38 projects were submitted in response to the youth service corps program, because people had heard there was lots of

money in it. The youth service corps proposed 36 projects, good projects, and only two were approved.

These two projects will go through a whole slew of checks, not only locally, but at the Montreal office and, eventually, at the Ottawa office. It seems they even had to be approved by the minister himself. This is a first. Even the officials are wondering why. This is a sort of politicization. I do not think it is economic, particularly. It is a reflection of the government's desire to centralize, once again, at the very heart of the Department of Human Resources Development. Why this attempt to centralize? It is not economic. It does not even make any sense.

This streamlining the Minister of Human Resources Development is talking about is, obviously, not streamlining. Anyone taking the slightest look at the thing will realize that there is no streamlining; it is confusion.

You just have to talk to the head of the employment centre in your region; he will tell you. He does not know if he will keep his job; he does not know whether the programs he currently administers will be extended. Furthermore, he will admit to you that the existing programs funded by the federal government from the unemployment insurance fund are not working out. There is no guarantee that someone taking training at an employment centre will find work. Oftentimes, even, people taking training at employment centres have less chance of finding a job.

This all makes sense, I suppose, in the mind of certain federalists, but, in my mind, it does not. There is no streamlining, only confusion and waste.

In Quebec we are concerned because we want to create jobs and put people to work. We want to improve our society. We are not asleep. We are not sitting on our power on little green chairs thinking that everything is fine. We know there are more and more poor people, unemployed and people on welfare. There are 808,000 in Quebec, alone. It is a catastrophe. This is a lot of human misery.

It is important, for example, for Quebec to have power in the area of manpower training. The struggle has been going on for a long time, and we consider it very important. The former Quebec minister and current federal Minister of Labour sitting across from me is aware that the Quebec government has fought for full control over manpower training for a long time, even when the Liberals were in power.

Manpower training is central because it lies at the heart of this whole game being played by the Department of Human Resources Development. It is at the heart of all societal problems. The issues are job creation and training. And education is at the heart of any society. That is why Quebec is right to stick to its guns. Not only because it is important but because it is under provincial jurisdiction. Education has always been under provincial jurisdiction. The federalists in Ottawa do not understand this. They have never respected provincial jurisdiction. Furthermore, the government has never respected its own constitution. Both training and education have always been under provincial jurisdiction.

The federal government is once again using this centralization policy. The fact that the Department of Human Resources Development is increasingly trying to exert control over manpower training provides further concrete evidence of the federal government's intention to centralize powers.

Quebec-not only the Parti Quebecois but also the Liberal Party-has always unanimously expressed the need to repatriate all manpower training powers. All manpower training stakeholders, union members, even the employers' council and the president of the Business Council on National Issues, Thomas d'Aquino, a man of some renown, have argued very strongly in favour of decentralizing manpower training powers throughout the country.

Unfortunately, we still do not have that power, which clearly shows once again the impossibility of reforming the current system because of increased centralization by the federal government. The impossibility of reforming the system is one of the reasons, if not the main reason, why Quebec must achieve sovereignty so that it can take control of its own destiny as soon as possible.

[Leon Benoit, Reform, Vegreville, AB]

Mr. Speaker, on the hon. member's statement that the federal government is trying to centralize powers in Ottawa even more than past governments, that statement is absolutely correct.

He went on to say that federal governments over past decades have taken over powers which are rightfully provincial powers. The hon. member is 100 per cent correct.

Reform's vision of a new Canada includes a much smaller federal government, with much less power centralized in its hands, and with provincial powers returned to the provinces as they were laid out in the original Constitution. I can understand the hon. member's frustration, which we feel in Alberta, to the continual movement on the part of the federal government, particularly over the last 30 years, to take over powers which are rightfully those of the provinces.

I want to make those comments to the hon. member and to the people of Quebec, acknowledging this is a problem which must be reversed. If that happens, as the Reform Party has laid out in its vision of a new Canada, Quebecers will be happy to be a part of the country. If that does not happen, as it certainly will not

under this government, Quebecers will want to leave. I can understand that.

[Jean-Paul Marchand, Bloc, Québec-Est, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if it were possible to decentralize Canada it would be very interesting. I do not believe it is possible to decentralize the federal government because it is part of the federal history to centralize power. That has been the case ever since the second world war. The federal government has taken more and more power. It has assumed more and more of the provincial jurisdiction.

Today the situation is catastrophic in the sense that the federal government has no place being there any more. It is a useless political institution in the broadest terms. It is a wasteful institution.

Now its role is basically to maintain itself, to keep itself alive. It is like this absurd institution that suddenly finds itself alive and now will do everything to maintain its life in spite of the fact it is taxing provinces and creating problems all over the country.

We can criticize this system inside and out completely. It is wasteful, it is not economical, it gives no guidance to the country. Its primary goal right today is to do everything to maintain its life. This is what the government is doing. It is trying to maintain the operation of this federal institution in Ottawa in spite of the fact it is a totally useless institution.

[Leon Benoit, Reform, Vegreville, AB]

Mr. Speaker, after the last couple of months here, after seeing the corruption across the floor with regard to the patronage we have been talking about in question period over the last few months, and after seeing a lot of really bad legislation like the budget, Bill C-68, Bill C-41, the MP pension reform which really does very little to reform, I understand the member's frustration.

I have to admit the federal government is not working properly but it can be changed. If it could be changed, if the proper powers were returned to the provinces, that would be interesting.

[Jean-Paul Marchand, Bloc, Québec-Est, QC]

Mr. Speaker, let us say that we gained experience in trying to change the present system on several occasions: in 1990, 1992 and even before that. Numerous attempts were made to reform the system, but it is just not reformable, especially as viewed by Quebec.

For example, Western Canada, and Alberta in particular, was cheated of billions of dollars under the Trudeau regime. In fact, it is estimated that the government collected in excess of $100 billion from Alberta with Trudeau's energy tax. I have seen estimates ranging anywhere from $60 billion to more than $100 billion in oil taxes collected from Alberta alone. All that to maintain the federal system based here in Ottawa.

Other provinces had different problems, but in Quebec the main problem comes from way back. For one thing, it comes from the fact that we are French-speaking and have never been recognized in Canada as a different, distinct people, unique in North America. Everyone agrees that it is quite obvious though, but the fact remains that recognition has not been forthcoming in this system. Really, that is crucial for Quebec and the future of its society, because as long as we do not have the powers to develop as a French-speaking nation, as unique among North American nations, we will do all we can to try to gain these powers.

We will never have the necessary political and administrative reforms carried out within Canada. We will certainly not succeed in getting Quebec recognized as a people. We tried on several occasions but learned that it is just plain impossible.

The only difference perhaps between the Reform Party and the Bloc Quebecois is that we, in the Bloc, have realized that the federal system is not reformable, while our Reform colleagues believe it is still possible to reform this federal system.

[Martin Cauchon, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, during the last 30 minutes, I listened with great interest to the hon. member from the official opposition. It is rather strange to see how a parliamentarian protected by the privilege of Parliament can distort the facts in what I would call an almost shameful manner.

The member made several allusions to Houdini in his speech. Let me tell you that Houdini must be spinning in his grave right now.

In any case, I am pleased to address this House on the issue of the government's main estimates. Since taking office, the Liberal Party has met several major challenges. I am proud to point that out because, if you look at the history of our country, you see that each time a major change of direction occurred, it was invariably with the Liberal Party at the helm. We have always been the ones with a vision, the ones paving the way for future generations of Canadians. Indeed, I am proud to stress that fact this evening.

We were elected at an important time in the development of our society. Canadians then put their trust in another Liberal government because they knew that we would rise to the challenge.

[Jean-Paul Marchand, Bloc, Québec-Est, QC]

They were wrong.

[Jean-Guy Chrétien, Bloc, Frontenac, QC]

Look at Ontario.

[Martin Cauchon, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

We have risen to the challenge so well that you can hear the other side howl and scream, precisely because we are doing such a good job that it hurts them.

It hurts them because Canadians are starting to see the positive results of our policies. It hurts them because the federal government is implementing a true decentralization which the public understands and accepts.

It hurts them because, when they see the government administration make these adjustments, they realize that it is the end of their dream. Once again, we are showing that federalism is not static: it has always been in constant evolution and it will continue to change.

I want to take this opportunity to discuss regional development. Canada is a very large country and we often see disparities within a given region. A responsible federal government must keep control over regional development.

However, the whole regional development policy must also be reviewed, just as we have already reviewed the government machine. Some members opposite say: "Use the simple approach. We have problems with the debt and the deficit, so just make cuts in regional development".

Their policy is irresponsible. I have heard members opposite say: Withdraw from the area of regional development. This is yet another policy that, in addition to being unrealistic, fundamentally goes against the opinion and the will of the people.

[An hon. member]

They are out of touch.

[Martin Cauchon, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Ever since this government was formed, we have been repeating that we want to get the government machine back on track in order to lead Canada to economic prosperity, an economic prosperity which will allow us to create jobs and make us competitive, not only on the Canadian scene but also internationally.

Two principles underlie this vision of prosperity and govern all of the changes to regional development policies. The first thing that the government wanted to do, and did in fact do-I again stress for the benefit of the House that the people across the way keep on hollering because hearing the truth hurts, but Mr. Speaker, thank God for the House of Commons, a wonderful democratic forum in which we can express ourselves freely without fear and tell the public the truth-now back to the two principles underlying the reform of the government machine and the reform of regional development policies.

There is the issue of the rationalization of public spending. I think that the Minister of Finance's budget eloquently makes the point that the first steps towards rationalizing spending have already been taken. The Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs conducted a major program review which will eventually lead to program cuts, programs which will more effectively target the public, programs which will meet their real needs. This rationalization of spending shows that this government is responsible and can manage the debt and the deficit.

The second underlying principle is the rethinking of the state's role. When they say they are rethinking the state's role, that means that they are going to take a sharp turn. In the past, not only in Canada but throughout the world, we have had governments that were very interventionist. Today, with all the problems with public finances, government has to play a different role, a role business people have asked us to play. The government has to fine tune its decision making to reflect the needs of various sectors, and it must also consider partnerships.

While we are on the subject of regional development policies, perhaps we should mention a splendid tool for regional development that is part of the federal apparatus, and I am referring to the Federal Office of Regional Development for Quebec. If we consider the two principles I just mentioned, the issue of scaling down spending, well I must say the FORDQ has done its share. For instance, its budget will be cut by 70 per cent over three years, which means from $487.5 million to $142.9 million in 1997-98. This is a significant reduction, and I think we can say that the FORDQ is doing its share.

Well, I think the changes announced quite recently by the Minister of Finance and the Minister responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development (Quebec) are a clear indication of this desire to make some real changes and rethink the role of government so that we can fine tune our response to the needs of Canadians. In this respect, our first conclusion must be that from now on, regional development will be the job of small business.

Small businesses in Canada create 85 per cent of the jobs. They are a very dynamic tool that should be encouraged in every respect. And the government should be there to act as a partner.

Before going ahead with the restructuring of FORDQ, the minister consulted the business community.

[Jean-Guy Chrétien, Bloc, Frontenac, QC]

At $2,000 per plate.

[Martin Cauchon, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

If I may, I will try to convey, over the shouts of the official opposition, the messages sent to the minister by members of the business community.

The message from small businesses regarding regional development is clear. They told us: "First, cut government spending; second, stop subsidizing businesses; and third, eliminate overlap; reduce the paper burden and the red tape; and give us the

strategic information we need to meet the challenges of technological change and globalization of our markets".

Now that is progressive. That is the new approach to regional development. This is what the Federal Office of Regional Development intends to do. It will work in partnership in order to target promising development sectors. I must point out that the office has already taken action on a number of occasions in Quebec and throughout Canada. We target small and medium high tech business and, when we target high tech in partnership, we are targeting an area of the future. We are targeting an area that will mean the creation of quality, worthwhile and long lasting jobs, which will improve Canada's economy and make us a strong competitor both nationally and internationally. This is basic for small and medium size business.

I was listening to my colleague earlier talking about training. I find it hard to believe today that people can talk about isolating themselves as regards manpower training. In an era of free trade when there is talk of a World Trade Organization, we should be looking to band together to better train our labour force, make it a quality one. This is what Quebecers want. A quality labour force is a dynamic one that puts Canadian business at the peak of competition. As a dynamic labour force, it also attracts investments. This is the plan of the present government and this is what we will continue to do.

We are talking about a dynamic approach attuned to what people want. I was listening to my colleague earlier attacking reforms to social programs by the Department of Human Resources Development. You will permit me to say that I find such comments disgraceful, given that the new direction the Minister of Human Resources Development is taking is fundamental not only for workers, but for Canadian society.

Let us take the example of the human resources investment fund, which will come into effect in April 1996.

This fund, which in my opinion is quite a marvel, meets the very needs of the public. During several months, Canadians told us: "We want training programs that are firmly grounded in reality. We want training programs which are much more flexible". Again, I would point out to the Chair that I am trying to be heard over all the hollering of the Bloc Quebecois members.

Canadians want training programs which are much more flexible and truly in tune with their needs. The Human Resources Investment Fund meets all of their expectations. It really reflects the real situation out there. When I hear the Bloc Quebecois and the Parti Quebecois telling Quebecers that these parties should have control over manpower training so that they can hide what they are doing, I cannot help but think that they are not realistic and are ignoring what is going on at the international level.

We must train our workers in order to become extremely competent. This requires partnerships, team work and co-operation with the private sector, which is exactly what the Human Resources Investment Fund is all about. Earlier, some members said that the Canada social transfer would lead to decentralization. I do not know which way to turn anymore.

When we were considering social reform, the members of the Bloc Quebecois hailed the Canada social transfer as a miracle. They wanted us to decentralize and transfer everything to the provinces. That is what we did in the finance minister's budget. Through the Canada social transfer, we handed a number of programs over to them. Now that this has come to pass, they are trying to distort the truth by saying that the Canada social transfer is tied to the unilateral setting of national standards by the federal government.

I think that we did not read the same document. We live in a country, and I think it is normal to have national standards across the country. During the consultations on social program reform, people in Quebec and throughout Canada also told us that we should indeed have national standards. The people also told us-in Quebec, too-that they did not want these standards to be set unilaterally by the federal government.

The Canada social transfer is a classic example of progressive federalism, of co-operative federalism, of a federalism that does not represent in any way the status quo advocated by members of the official opposition, members of the Bloc Quebecois.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[Martin Cauchon, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

In conclusion, what is unfortunate about the official opposition-I am trying once again to be heard above the ruckus raised by Bloc members-is that, instead of allowing us to work hand in hand to develop a federation that will reflect the vitality of people in Quebec and throughout Canada, they are trying to ensure that the system will not work. All this, incredibly, just to protect their separatist philosophy instead of serving the public interest.

Our government's goal is to help the people and look after their interests, and we will continue to do so. That is why I am especially proud to support the main estimates.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Outremont is wrong; I did not utter a word during his presentation, but I will speak now. I wonder on what planet the hon. member lives.

We have 800,000 people on welfare in Quebec today, and there are 1.2 million in Ontario. Quebec sovereignists are certainly not responsible for that; the federal system is. One of the main reasons for this state of affairs is the manpower issue. The very brother of the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi, a minister in the Johnson government and now the member for

Westmount-Saint-Henri, was among the government members who asked that the issue of manpower be returned to Quebec.

These are not sovereignists, but federalists, people who have realized that, if we want our manpower to be trained adequately, training has to be provided in an acceptable regime. The facts contradict what the hon. member for Outremont said. At present, the public cannot find its way around the 27 federal and 25 provincial programs available.

As for concrete measures, the federal government recently announced that only UI recipients will have access to job search clubs from now on. A fine move to create a single window no doubt. And so logical.

I would like to tell the hon. member for Outremont a thing or two about the real world, through you of course, Mr. Speaker. In our regions, many workers are unskilled and need adequate training. We are talking about regional development. Well, I come from Quebec's eastern region, which could be called the stumbling block of federalism.

The federal government tried all kinds of things in our region, this in addition to Quebec's initiatives. Today, our region has the strongest migration movement. That trend, which started 30 years ago, is the result of your actions.

I want to say a word about the FORDQ. I agree with the member for Outremont: you did turn that office into an empty structure. This is obvious. All the investment budgets targeted for small businesses were cut. Businesses employing only a few people do not need to have access to the international markets. Quite often, they simply need a little help to build a warehouse, etc., but you let them down. One of the reasons is that federal Liberals from Quebec did not speak up. They let the Minister of Industry do his dirty deed, so that Ontario would regain control.

I will conclude with a question on the Human Resources Investment Fund. Instead of creating an artificial fund and using the money contributed by employers and employees to interfere in Quebec's fields of jurisdiction, why did you not reduce the contributions of employers and employees? That way, you would have put the money directly in the industry, in the workplace, instead of spending it on the bureaucracy, and you would have achieved true job creation, instead of making systematic cuts.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

I would remind the House that debate is to end at 10.00 p.m.

[Martin Cauchon, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think my colleague is confused at this point. He should call the PQ's 1-800 number so he can understand. The member opposite spoke of a very important and very serious matter-that of the unemployed in Quebec, and not only in Quebec, but in Canada as a whole.

Last year, we created 430,000 new jobs. The Minister of Human Resources Development is changing course in response to the wishes of people-be they welfare recipients or receiving some other form of public support-who want access to training without running head on into inflexible programs. This is what we are trying to do with the human resources investment fund.

It is unfortunate, but the truth is that we are working alone at the moment. The federal government is working alone, because the Government of Quebec, instead of working in partnership with the federal government to serve the public interest and develop a labour force in a rapidly changing economy, is talking about separating. It is a shame, and the cost, in the end, will be borne by the people of Quebec.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

It being 10 p.m. it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 81, to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply.

The question is on Motion No. 1. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.