House of Commons Hansard #23 of the 35th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was labour.

Topics

Department Of Human Resources Development ActGovernment Orders

12:50 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Department Of Human Resources Development ActGovernment Orders

12:50 p.m.

Some hon. members

No.

Department Of Human Resources Development ActGovernment Orders

12:50 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)

All those in favour will please say yea.

Department Of Human Resources Development ActGovernment Orders

12:50 p.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.

Department Of Human Resources Development ActGovernment Orders

12:50 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)

All those opposed will please say nay.

Department Of Human Resources Development ActGovernment Orders

12:50 p.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

Department Of Human Resources Development ActGovernment Orders

12:50 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

Department Of Human Resources Development ActGovernment Orders

12:50 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)

Call in the members.

And the division bells having rung:

Department Of Human Resources Development ActGovernment Orders

12:50 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)

The recorded division on the motion stands deferred.

We now go on to Group No. 2, Motion No. 3.

Department Of Human Resources Development ActGovernment Orders

12:50 p.m.

Reform

Daphne Jennings Reform Mission—Coquitlam, BC

moved:

Motion No. 3

That Bill C-11, in Clause 20, be amended by replacing lines 8 to 16, on page 6, with the following:

"20. For the purpose of facilitating the formulation, coordination and implementation of any program or policy relating to the powers, duties and functions referred to in section 6, the Minister may enter into an agreement with an agency of a province, after obtaining the approval of the lieutenant governor in council of the province, and may enter into agreements with a province or group of provinces, financial institutions and such other persons or bodies, other than an agency of the province, as the Minister considers appropriate."

Madam Speaker, we are now on group no. 2, Motion No. 3, an amendment to clause 20. The clause as presently written gives the federal government the power to bypass provincial governments, giving grants and so on the emanations of these governments, without first seeking approval of the provincial governments. This is unacceptable. The minister should not be able to circumvent provincial governments.

If this government believes in decentralization, as it says it does, it should be willing to consult with provincial governments rather than be involved in asking for legislation which allows it to give provincial governments the bypass.

Under such a clause the minister may choose to privatize or to contract out certain human resources department services. If this is to happen it should happen in direct relation to provincial governments, not leave open a door to go to some other agencies. Power should go directly to provincial governments and not through a roundabout route to one of these agencies as the bill would allow.

Therefore my amendment would change clause 20 to read:

For the purpose of facilitating the formulation, co-ordination and implementation of any program or policy relating to the powers, duties and functions referred to in section 6, the minister may enter into an agreement with an agency of a province, after obtaining the approval of the lieutenant governor in council of the province, and may enter into agreements with a province or group of provinces, financial institutions and such other persons or bodies, other an an agency of the province, as the minister considers appropriate.

I believe this amendment is a reasonable compromise. Is it not? The federal government has direct input into the lieutenant governors of each province. Surely consulting them is not too much to ask. I believe again this is more than a reasonable compromise.

I also believe the government is misleading Canadians and not dealing honestly with the provinces. I remind the government of a recent visit by the new minister of human resources to metro Toronto. The minister bypassed the provincial government, went straight to an agency or a group and announced a $4 million grant to child care. What is the federal government saying to the provinces? "We will give you less in transfer payments, but we still

want to look like the good guys so we will independently bypass provincial governments and play Santa Clause. Rather than work with our provincial governments, we will portray them in a very poor light. We will portray them as Scrooge".

Even worse, the appropriate minister involved in the Ontario government, Mr. Tsubouchi, did not even know about this. He read the announcement in the newspapers.

The government is always making great noise about how it works with the provinces, how it gets along so well and how it discusses things. I wonder if Mr. Tsubouchi would agree.

This clause, which allows the minister to bypass negotiating with the provinces for services delivery and enables him to deal with lower level agencies, should be changed. We are not asking for anything unreasonable from the government. The lieutenant governor is very closely associated with the federal government. This is most reasonable. This a compromise we could work together.

The Reform Party wants to work with the government when it can. If the government has legislation we feel is good, we will work to pass it. If it is legislation we feel needs to be amended, we will work to amend it and still pass it. The government must show that it too is willing to work with the elected representatives of the people of Canada. To date we have not seen that in the House.

As it stands, this clause amounts to a federal tax grab, a power grab, if you will. We believe power should be left in the hands of the provinces. This clause allows the government to avoid dealing directly with provincial governments, especially those that may not be sympathetic to some federal initiatives. Therein lies the problem. I do not think the government is being honest. If there is a problem with some governments, and it knows ahead of time that the governments may opposed federal initiatives, this is one way it can get around that problem. I do not think that is being honest. It is something we should address and the compromise addresses it.

If the government is adamant that it does not have this intention and that they are more than willing to work with all provincial governments, not worried that some provincial governments may disagree with it and therefore not go ahead with the legislation, all it has to do is go along with the Reform Party on this good amendment. Go along with the compromise and show provincial governments that it does trust them and that it does want to work with them and that it will not attempt to bypass them in such a shoddy method.

Department Of Human Resources Development ActGovernment Orders

1 p.m.

Kenora—Rainy River Ontario

Liberal

Bob Nault LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Human Resources Development

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to have the opportunity to speak to this motion.

I will start out by asking where the member has been. She must have been away for the last number of weeks since the speech from the throne and the budget which outlined the commitment of the government as it relates to negotiations with the provinces in areas of provincial jurisdiction, for example in training and education. Not too many days ago we sent every member of Parliament a copy of a letter that we sent to every province which indicates what we would like to get into negotiating about as it relates to these agreements which help men and women get back to work.

It seems passing strange that the Reform Party presented the previous amendment under the first grouping which dealt with the issue of trying to save money. Its argument to get rid of the Minister of Labour and the Deputy Minister of Labour was that they were a waste of taxpayers' money.

Under the next amendment, the Reform Party wants to create a whole new bureaucracy under the lieutenant governor in council. This means that some committee or group of bureaucrats being paid by the provincial governments will have to get together to review every single agreement, which are in the thousands, by the human resources development department that we enter into with agencies in provinces across the country.

I am not quite sure I understand where the Reform Party is coming from. That party believes in the elimination of duplication and overlap. That party asks why it is taking so long. Reformers keep telling us: "You take so long to do anything no wonder we do not get anything done". The Reform Party wants us to be very quick about what we do and then it presents an amendment that would take us months and months to try to get any discussion going on an issue. Obviously, this adds another step to the process and I hazard a guess it would be a very lengthy one to negotiate certain agreements on almost every issue. The member should clarify this.

We said in the speech from the throne, and the Minister of Human Resources Development has been very clear in his letters to the provinces, that we will be entering into framework agreements. These framework agreements would be for those who are not in the labour movement and who may not have had the opportunity to enter into an agreement that has a broad general consensus of the provinces and the federal government to deal with issues and either transfer the responsibility to the province or to allow the federal government to enter into an agreement with agencies on an ad hoc basis based on a particular framework agreement.

That is what we are proposing to do. That is how we save money. That is how we allow governments to work more efficiently. If the member and other members of her party are suggesting that we will create a whole new bureaucracy and a whole new level of duplication because of somebody's mystical belief that the federal government is trying to shaft the provinces or does not care, that it

is trying to get political mileage out of an issue, I do not think they have been listening to the debate.

I really want to emphasize that I am having difficulty today listening to the Reform Party's arguments. As mentioned before, the first amendment said that we should get rid of some of the costs and the Minister of Labour, that he does not do anything. We know how important he is to the overall workings of government and to the Canadian men and women who fall under federal jurisdiction.

Then we get an amendment that suggests we should put a whole pile of money into a process which there is no need to have. Once we are finished negotiating with the provinces-and we agree that each province will be different and we accept that-then we will get on with the job we have been given, which is to help people get back to work, to give them the tools and abilities to be successful.

I want to emphasize that we enter into literally thousands of agreements every year in every province with different agencies. Imagine the kind of bureaucratic nightmare the Reform Party is suggesting we create with this amendment. I suggest we totally reject the amendment.

The fact remains that the speech from the throne and the letters that have been written by the Minister of Human Resources Development to the different provinces speak for themselves as to the intent of the federal government in regard to its relations with the provinces. We do not need another level of bureaucracy to help us do that job.

Department Of Human Resources Development ActGovernment Orders

1:05 p.m.

Bloc

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

Madam Speaker, the Reform's amendment is not so much intended to create a nightmare situation, as has just been suggested, but rather to maintain an existing nightmare. If we look at it carefully, the first part appears worthwhile; they want the minister to be able to enter into an agreement with an agency of a province after obtaining the approval of the lieutenant governor in council of the province. One's reaction is: "Fine. That will respect provincial jurisdictions, and the jurisdiction of Quebec".

But then comes another part, "may enter into agreements with a province or group of provinces, financial institutions and such other persons or bodies, other than an agency of the province, as the Minister considers appropriate". This, then, is an agreement aimed at concretizing the current muddle that exists where manpower training is concerned. All is does is offer a snapshot of what the federal government is already doing. It is a somewhat useless amendment.

Now, for some concrete examples. This would mean that an organization such as the Société québécoise de développement de la main-d'oeuvre, a public provincial body, could not enter into an agreement with the federal government without the authorization of its province. This can perhaps be defended, but it also means that a financial institution, such as the Bank of Montreal or the Mouvement Desjardins, or any other, could also sign this type of agreement without necessarily having Quebec's agreement.

This would recreate exactly the situation that currently exists. All kinds of organizations get involved in training, with more or less recognition, with criteria, paying more or less attention to the objectives of the education department. This creates the chaos that we have now with two levels of government being involved. The government responsible for manpower training and education does not have control over how training is provided.

Some people arrive on the labour market with a senior matriculation in office technology, for instance, while others have taken a course of one name or another that is not officially recognized by the department of education. When these people arrive on the labour market with their credentials, they are often in for a shock. They were told they were getting an education that would give them access to the labour market, but all of a sudden they discover that something is missing. Since they do not have the training required by the department of education, they cannot get equivalent certificates or diplomas, which creates all kinds of problems.

This is exactly what the Reform Party is proposing with the amendment before us, especially where it says: "financial institutions and such other persons or bodies-".

Nothing would prevent the federal government from signing a contract with an individual, whether or not the training to be provided is in line with the priorities of a Quebec region regarding manpower development. Such is the situation now. Quebec set up manpower committees to plan manpower requirements in each region, with a view to maximize job creation.

By contrast, under the current situation, which would be formalized under the Reform Party's amendment, the federal government can award training contracts to people in a given region, even though this initiative may not be in line with the priorities set by the region's stakeholders.

This will result in the useless spending that currently exists in that sector. A federalist minister from Quebec, as well as the Quebec Liberal government that preceded the Parti Quebecois in office, both recognized that $250 million are wasted in this fashion. This money is lost because two different networks are set up to train people for the same labour market. The result is that, in the end, we train people who have no jobs.

Everybody acted in good faith, including the people who purchased the federal program and those who received the training. The latter attend classes for a year full time and when they try to find a job they are told: "It is unfortunate, but we have decided to give priority to other applicants who completed three years of vocational training." The opposite is also true, but many times we have provided training for people who, in the end, have no job opportunities.

This is today's harsh reality. There are so many jobs available and people out of work, but we do not seem to be able to match them. According to a study made by the OECD, an international organization which enjoys a certain credibility when it comes to employment, Canada does not have a good manpower training system. This is one of the main reasons why we have a lot of trouble competing against other countries.

In our day-to-day lives, we also have to face this situation. If you go to an employment centre and say that you are unemployed and wish to get some training, you are invited to join a group of people with the same goals. You register, attend classes for a year and, in the end, find yourself in a dead-end because the training you got did not give you the qualifications you need to re-enter the labour force.

This also leads to undue competition between workers. This is why it is important to find another way to deal with this situation. The type of amendment put forward by the Reform Party will not solve the problem. The problem could have been solved if the current federal government had accepted the referendum results and come to understand what even the Director General of the Conseil du patronat du Québec told them, which is that the federal government should withdraw from manpower training and realize that Quebec's federalists and sovereignists all agree that the provincial government should be the only one responsible for any proactive employment measure and the only one empowered to act in this field.

So, we will need more than this kind of amendment to solve the problem, especially since this amendment only reflects what we have already. This is why we will vote against this type of amendment which is only a smoke screen. We would ask the government, instead, to reconsider its position and finally recognize the consensus in Quebec in terms of manpower training, to realize that the only efficient solution is to have the government closest to the people provide the appropriate training so that, in the future, we will no longer make a difference between welfare recipients and the unemployed, between those who get a government cheque and those who do not, but we will have instead an overall proactive employment policy.

The first thing to do is to ensure that we do not have two levels of government involved in the same jurisdiction. This is why we will vote against the Reform amendment.

Department Of Human Resources Development ActGovernment Orders

1:10 p.m.

Bloc

Antoine Dubé Bloc Lévis, QC

Madam Speaker, I want to echo the very relevant remarks made by the member for Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup because what we are studying today is the bill that officially creates the Department of Human Resources Development.

I have to remind members that this bill has been around for quite some time, since it was before the House last fall as Bill C-96. Today, because of the prorogation, it is Bill C-11. In fact, it is an old bill that has already been discussed in Parliament. Members will recall that, halfway through its mandate, the government wanted to give the impression that it had new projects, new programs to offer to Canadians.

It shuffled the Cabinet, came in with a new speech from the throne and made a lot of noise to create the illusion of a change when in fact there is nothing new in the bills we have been discussing since the beginning of the new session. They are all old bills. The one now before us has even gone through clause by clause study in committee-and I remember it well since I am a member of the human resources development committee.

We, in the official opposition, had fought hard at that time because we felt the government was taking the opportunity to make official its new Department of Human Resources Development, which brings together services that existed previously in other departments and which will manage half of the available budget once the interest on the debt has been paid. The Department of Human Resources Development is huge. What is worse, and the reason why the opposition criticized it, is the increased government meddling in areas of provincial jurisdiction. The Reform amendment reflects part of our objective but not enough, because it leaves the government with the possibility of yet again meddling in provincial affairs.

I am the training and youth critic, so the educational sector interests me. We know that vocational training is the subject of a big discussion in Quebec, and especially of a consensus. There is nothing in this bill, however, even with the proposed amendment, to prevent the Minister of Human Resources Development from intervening in vocational training. As the bill says: "-may enter into agreements with a province or group of provinces, financial institutions and such other persons or bodies-" and then they talk about "agencies of provinces- as the minister considers appropriate". It still gives the Minister of Human Resources Development too much latitude to intervene in areas of provincial jurisdiction, especially in vocational training.

So, of course, we expended a lot of energy during clause by clause consideration and we are continuing to do so today, because these amendments give us the opportunity to discuss this issue and to tell the people of Quebec clearly that we must object. For us, education is of the utmost importance, as is training, and we realize that, if these debates drag on and excuses are found to waste time, a kind of lassitude will set in. People say that it is always the same debates, always the same things. We let time go by, and, in the end, people get tired; they get fed up with this sort of debate.

However, this is vital. We do not want to talk constitution, and the government said the Bloc just wants to talk about the Constitution. But by presenting this bill, by continuing to work for its passage, the government is drawing us into a constitutional debate, because it wants the support of Parliament and the House of Commons to meddle further in provincial affairs. We oppose that.

Recently, someone took stock of the vocational training programs. Altogether, there were 108 different ones-both federal and provincial. Thousands of people are waiting for vocational training courses. Because resources are dispersed, there are people who may not be entitled to vocational training, because the money available in a province, in Quebec, in a sector or in a region has dried up.

In the meantime, the federal government is continuing along opposite. Despite the fact that there are those who are excluded or who fall between the cracks. The present system is a double system. The federal government wants to cut the number of UI recipients. It then looks at vocational training or job readiness programs to get people off unemployment insurance without guaranteeing them a job.

During this time, the provincial government saw the consequences of cuts in unemployment insurance, to name just one area, which lead to an immediate increase in the number of people on welfare. As a result, the government finds itself performing a sort of balancing act. It must come up with training programs that will get employable welfare recipients off welfare. Sometimes this helps them to find a little job, something part time, but then they find themselves back on unemployment insurance. This is what happens in many cases.

A constituent in my riding told me of his personal experience over a period of five years, how he was caught in an endless cycle of job training, unemployment insurance, welfare and uncertain employment. That is one thing.

There are also those who now fall between the cracks, between the various levels of government, and do not qualify for assistance. I am thinking here of women who want to get back into the labour force, after staying at home for years with young children, who have had two or three children and, in their forties or earlier, would like to return to work. Not having drawn unemployment insurance benefits latterly, they are not eligible for these courses.

The system excludes many people. Once again, we in the official opposition are fighting for something that is extremely important. We are trying to explain to the people of Canada, to government members, that they should not go so far, that the government should not keep trying to interfere in something that does not concern it, because it is not in the Constitution, and then go directly against the Prime Minister's promises. At the time of the referendum, he said he was withdrawing from manpower training.

Despite what we saw last week, not only the members of the National Assembly, but important representatives of the socio-economic sector at the Quebec City summit, despite the people representing the Conseil du patronat-the motion was even presented by Ghislain Dufour, the president of the Conseil du patronat-despite all that, the federal government continues along its merry way, counting on the lassitude of Canadians and of the media, who are giving this debate less attention. It thinks that, over time, people will be lose interest. It is just as dangerous for the future of Quebec.

That is why we in the official opposition are joining forces and we hope that organizations will express their opposition to this, while there is still time. Despite the efforts of the Reform Party, the amendment will not reduce the federal government's meddling. On the contrary. The federal government has just said, through those of its members who spoke earlier, that it intends to continue in this area by making the Department of Human Resources official. In my opinion, it is almost a monster. It includes vocational training along with employment services; it has a say in old age pensions, child and family benefits and day care services. It is considerable.

Department Of Human Resources Development ActGovernment Orders

1:20 p.m.

Reform

Jay Hill Reform Prince George—Peace River, BC

Madam Speaker, quite frankly I find it incredible that the Bloc is opposing this motion.

Reform members have looked at this clause and feel that our motion is very appropriate and quite reasonable. I will go back over this clause so that the people back home who are watching can understand exactly what it is we are talking about. Clause 20 states:

For the purpose of facilitating the formulation, co-ordination and implementation of any program or policy relating to the powers, duties and functions referred to in section 6, the Minister may 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.

On the surface it would seem quite reasonable to allow the minister to have that type of power and authority. However, as has already been articulated by my hon. colleague, we felt-call us a bit gun-shy or perhaps call us paranoid at times-we would like to see, especially in areas like this, as the Bloc has been articulating, that these are primarily areas of provincial responsibility. There has to be a proper check and balance put into place.

My hon. colleague has proposed a quite reasonable amendment to this clause merely by inserting "after obtaining the approval of the lieutenant-governor in council of the province". That is all we are talking about, not some lengthy legalistic mumbo-jumbo but just a very basic amendment that would see the government held in check by the provinces. I might add it is the provinces that the government is always saying it is consulting and in ongoing discussions, and with which it has excellent working relationships.

My party has difficulty with that. Unlike the member for Kenora-Rainy River, Reformers have very strong recent memories of some of the bills that this government has enacted over the course of the 35th Parliament, just one of which is Bill C-68, the gun legislation.

I would question whether the government had the support of the provinces when five of the provinces and both territories were very outspoken against that legislation. I need not remind the House that legislation is going to have a direct impact on the financial well-being of the provinces when they are called on by the federal government to enact the registration scheme for all long guns in this country.

That type of program has a very strong and definite economic impact on the provinces. Yet the government just arbitrarily declares it law and forges ahead. That is our fear in this area as well. The minister, when he runs up against some resistance from certain provinces, may just by-pass them and just forge ahead, putting the programs in place expecting the provinces to pick up the administrative costs or what have you.

Another incident of note for members of Parliament from British Columbia is what happened last November and December. This government decided to bring forward a constitutional veto for the regions of the country. In its wisdom it decided, arbitrarily once again, on very short notice that British Columbia did not constitute a region. The government was just going to lump British Columbia in with the three prairie provinces, in with the west, when it was doling out this constitutional veto.

Therefore, the provinces are more than a little gun-shy when it comes to these types of clauses, clauses that on the surface seem quite reasonable. Reformers feel that some appropriate check is necessary. We do not understand in this particular case at least why the Bloc Quebecois would not support it.

This is the party that is always concerned about the provinces having some authority. This amendment would see that before the minister could forge ahead and enact certain programs that would have a definite impact on the provinces, the minister would have to clear those programs with the lieutenant-governor. Obviously it would have to be cleared with the lieutenant-governor of Quebec where that program would be a bilateral agreement between Quebec and the Government of Canada. Yet a couple of members from the Bloc have indicated they are going to be voting against this amendment. Quite frankly I find it amazing that a party that is always seeking to have more control for its province is going to vote against an amendment that would do exactly that.

Department Of Human Resources Development ActGovernment Orders

1:30 p.m.

Liberal

George Baker Liberal Gander—Grand Falls, NL

Madam Speaker, I have a couple of words concerning this amendment and the assumption that the Reform Party of Canada is the party that will protect provincial rights, that it will promote the non-intrusion of the federal government into provincial rights.

It is very strange to hear the Reform Party of Canada chastising the Liberals and chastising the Bloc on this question. In its policy it interferes with provincial jurisdiction. Reformers are the ones who claim in their bible, in their budget of last year, that not only would the air and airports be privatized, not only would the ocean, the seaways be privatized, but also roads and bridges. If that is not provincial jurisdiction I would like to know what is. That is not only an intrusion into provincial affairs but an intrusion into Canadians' affairs.

Imagine, as they suggest in black and white, having large businesses build highways; they would have to be large to build roads. Then we would have to pay to drive on those highways. That is their policy.

The party that says it does not want the Government of Canada intruding into provincial jurisdiction is the same party that suggests in its policy booklet to cut equalization by 35 per cent. Imagine, coming from Atlantic Canada, what kind of intrusion that would be to the provincial governments; that 35 per cent cut in the bible of the Reform Party of Canada, in its so-called taxpayers budget.

Imagine the cut of 34 per cent the Reform Party advocates to the Canada assistance plan. Is that not an intrusion into provincial jurisdiction? That is the plan the provinces use to pay for their own programs, 50:50. The Reform Party of Canada says slash that by 34 per cent and slash equalization by 35 per cent.

That is not all. Look at the intrusion into provincial jurisdiction when Reform Party members attack our medicare system. We know what words they use on medicare. The words used in reference to Reform Party policy are "intolerably expensive and unnecessary". Those are the words used in its policy booklet, in its

so-called taxpayers budget, its bible, not the authorized version but the unauthorized version because nobody apart from the Reform Party would authorize it.

Is it not an intrusion into provincial jurisdiction to be telling the provinces that medicare, the very thing we depend on, is intolerably expensive and unnecessary? Is that not an intrusion into provincial jurisdiction, then to say misrepresentation? That is in its policy booklet, the taxpayers budget. I look at it almost every day. I have it right here.

Reformers say they would have private enterprise build the roads and the highways and charge the public for it, build the bridges and charge the public for it. Is that not an intrusion? They would cut equalization by 35 per cent and CAP by 34 per cent. They say our medicare system should be thrown out the window because it is intolerably expensive.

Then they turn around and do what? What do they approve of? What they approve of are all the big tax breaks they can give to the biggest corporations operating in the country.

They jumped up and down with joy when the Senate sent a bill here recently which talked about a 50 per cent tax cut for the largest foreign controlled multinationals in the country. They jumped for joy when there was a 30 per cent tax cut on interest that flows out of the country across the border. They said: "Come on, Senate, give us some more because we love this. We loved to do away with the royalties on all the taxes that go out of the country".

Here they are cutting things from the provinces, cutting things in provincial jurisdictions. Then they stand up in the House of Commons and say this bill is really an intrusion into provincial government jurisdiction. They should go back to their own handbook, to their own policies. They should have a little charity when they think about Canadians.

Department Of Human Resources Development ActGovernment Orders

1:35 p.m.

Bloc

Francine Lalonde Bloc Mercier, QC

Madam Speaker, the Reform Party's amendment is surprising. I would have supported it if it had preceded any agreement drawn up by the Minister of Human Resources Development with respect to a province. This is not the case.

This bill is an illustration of what ails Canada. Canada suffers from the application of more than one strategy to the same people and the same areas of the country. There is a human resources development strategy, a development strategy period, because there can be no development unless human resources are developed. Quebec has one strategy and Canada has another for the same group of people, and that does not work. This is no surprise. You cannot have two separate strategies involving the same people and the same objectives.

A business with two different strategies would not last long. A public body with two strategies is doomed to failure. A couple using two different strategies to raise their children will also run into insurmountable problems and is guaranteed to fail. You cannot have two different strategies.

The bill before us further institutionalizes these two conflicting strategies, each with the same objectives for the same people. How can we sort out these powers the minister assumes for himself, by using an expression that is not defined anywhere, that encompasses human resources development? Human resources means people, as long as they are considered to be resources, that is as long as they contribute to development.

The Minister of Human Resources Development is giving himself jurisdiction over the development of human resources in Canada with the objective of enhancing employment, encouraging equality and promoting social security.

What is left for Quebec? Nothing. The minister is giving himself all related powers, the power to develop policies, to make regulations, to delegate responsibilities to whomever he wants, and to extend his ability to enter into contracts with any organization or any financial institution in the pursuit of these objectives.

The Minister of Human Resources Development becomes the minister of total human resources development. He leaves no room for anybody else. He is the one who will negotiate. And his main instrument of negotiation is the fact that, with the cuts he made in the unemployment insurance program, he has accumulated a surplus which, by the way, without Bill C-12, will be $10 billion next year. However, he has made cuts in education, health and welfare programs, which will force the provinces, including Quebec, to make drastic cuts this year and next year.

It is no surprise that the minister, using his powers, through the UI reform project, plans to get involved in providing assistance, training grants, what we call active measures, to self-employed workers, and do people who have already been on UI for three years. This broadens his client base. In five years, let me tell you, this will involve a large proportion of people needing UI, and so his jurisdiction will keep on spreading out.

What is involved here is not a little squabble between levels of government but, far more tragically, those governments' inability to attain their objectives. That is where the real problem lies. The

real problem lies precisely in what action the federal government considers it should be taking.

The federal government does not trust the provinces. That is obvious, and because of that lack of trust, it is trying to take over from Quebec. In Quebec, however, the consensus on a large number of issues, and the will of the majority on a large number of others, is that we are far from trusting the federal government to attain our objectives for us.

On October 30, as you well know, we came very close, within 52,000 votes, to attaining Quebec sovereignty. For a large number of Quebecers, the reason they wanted sovereignty was the necessity to organize ourselves so that, for once, all of these resources needing only to be developed, all of these people with needs, will have the means of doing so.

This bill is, unfortunately, the expression of an inability to adequately divide the work up for the well being of the people. The federal government decides it is going to do something or have the final say and at what cost and in what way. The Government of Quebec, with the people behind it, feels that, as a people and a nation, it must decide these things and how they are carried out.

I would have hoped that, after October 30, the government would understand, regardless of what the future brings, that the welfare of the ordinary folk and the people as a whole, in Quebec, requires that limited resources be put to good use.

For them to be put to good use, there cannot be two strategies for their utilization, because it would mean significant waste, waste in terms of public servants. They may have to administer programs that run at cross purposes, that go in different directions. They can waste an enormous amount of time just getting things co-ordinated, instead of having money help people and provide them with clear support.

I would have hoped this would be possible, regardless of the outcome. I would not think that the Government of Canada could play with people's welfare in order to give precedence to political and constitutional imperatives. Unfortunately, what has happened with this bill has shown me that government cynicism is widespread and that government decisions come before the welfare of the people.

Department Of Human Resources Development ActGovernment Orders

1:45 p.m.

Reform

Monte Solberg Reform Medicine Hat, AB

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to address Motion No. 3 on Bill C-11. In particular, I wish to discuss the Reform Party proposal that would allow the provinces to continue to have a say in how things are administered at the provincial level when particular policies issue forth from the federal government.

I also wish to discuss and answer some of the concerns from the member for Gander-Grand Falls who made some rather hysterical remarks about the Reform Party and what it would propose to do should it become government. I feel we must set the record straight in addressing Bill C-11.

The hon. member and many members from Atlantic Canada are frightened after the showing of the Reform Party in the recent byelections, and they have good cause to be. They saw a party that had little support there in the 1993 election and now all of a sudden it is threatening the members across the way in their seats. They have good cause to be concerned because the people in Atlantic Canada know very well the system has not served them well. They are tired of having 20 per cent and 25 per cent unemployment. They are tired of not having prosperity. They are tired of not having the infrastructure enjoyed by the rest of the country.

The member for Gander-Grand Falls stood up and talked about how the Reform Party wanted to put tolls on all the roads. That is an absolute fairy tale. I think he is getting mixed up with trolls under the bridges.

What our party has said is that the people in Labrador should have a decent road. Instead of sending money to countries around the world so that they can build roads, we are saying the people of Labrador deserve a decent road between their two biggest centres. We are saying that the federal government should not spend money on sky boxes in hockey arenas, that it should not be building bocci courts for ministers in downtown Toronto. We are saying that when we have infrastructure money we should spend it on infrastructure. That is not so radical.

I want to set the record straight on some of the remarks the member for Gander-Grand Falls made with respect to the Reform Party approach to reducing spending. The hon. member said we would gut health care. Let me remind the House and the hon. member that the government is cutting four times as much out of health care as our party ever said it would cut. The government is cutting $3.2 billion in health care. It is closing hospitals and hospital beds across the country today because it did not have the nerve to act in its first budget and reduce spending. Had it, we would have a much healthier economy today. We would have sustainable social programs.

I also want to address the issue of higher education. Not only would the government cut far deeper in health care but far deeper in higher education. It would cut six times as much as the Reform Party when it comes to higher education, 600 per cent.

In our taxpayers budget in 1995 we said we would cut $200 million. The government is cutting $1.2 billion. That is unbelievable. Again it points to the cost of delay. Had it attacked the deficit more aggressively, it would not have to make those cuts today.

Now people across the country are paying the price in a very heavy way for its delay.

I also want to address what the hon. member for Gander-Grand Falls has said recently about banks. We had a debate about that this morning. He touched on that issue. He talked about the need to hold financial institutions accountable.

Why did he not mention that he has sat idly by while his party took $250,000 from the banks? Why did he sit idly by when that was being done? I do not recall his speaking out against his own party's taking all that money. Where is his sanctimonious attitude when that happens? I did not see it.

I did not see him standing up and speaking against the Reform Party motion the other day when we proposed to set things right in Labrador, when our party moved a motion to revisit the agreement on Churchill Falls so that the people of Labrador could enjoy some of the fruits of their own labour as opposed to sending it into Quebec.

I did not hear the member for Gander-Grand Falls then. Where was he? Why was he not standing up for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador? He claims to be somebody who defends his province. Where was he? He was absent. He had absolutely nothing to say.

On the issue of defending the provinces, the member has nothing to boast about. He has let his people down. That was reflected in Labrador the other day. It was also reflected in Humber. We are starting to see some hon. members opposite panic about the next election.

Frankly, it looks good on them. It is time people in Atlantic Canada were served well. That is not happening today. To the hon. member opposite, stand up and be counted the next time. When people come to the defence of his own province, next time vote with Reform.

Department Of Human Resources Development ActGovernment Orders

1:50 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)

Is the House ready for the question?

Department Of Human Resources Development ActGovernment Orders

1:50 p.m.

Some hon. members

Question.

Department Of Human Resources Development ActGovernment Orders

1:50 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Department Of Human Resources Development ActGovernment Orders

1:50 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Department Of Human Resources Development ActGovernment Orders

1:50 p.m.

Some hon. members

No.

Department Of Human Resources Development ActGovernment Orders

1:50 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)

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

Department Of Human Resources Development ActGovernment Orders

1:50 p.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.

Department Of Human Resources Development ActGovernment Orders

1:50 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)

All those opposed will please say nay.