Debates of April 18th, 1996

Department Of Human Resources Development Act

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, who once again has expressed social concerns, and not just for the people in his riding, which is very large.

I obviously support all he said on the attitude of the government, which, despite the message it sent during the referendum promising change and greater sensitivity towards Quebec, spoke gobbledegook.

Unfortunately, we are forced to recognize that it was gobbledegook, that the government's centralizing approach continues unabated. I know he has many more examples of this centralizing approach and of the government's desire to meddle even more in provincial jurisdictions. With Bill C-96, creating the Department of

Human Resources Development, there is the example of training, education. Unfortunately, we can see that it is still not resolved.

I would like to ask the following question, because we have to comment and ask a question. I know I will not bother him at all, but I would like his opinion on the government's alleged decentralization, when we can see in the bill that the Minister of Human Resources Development is giving himself the power to go over the heads of the provincial governments and conclude specific agreements with organizations, even with businesses, in training or other areas. I would like his opinion on that.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, QC]

Mr. Speaker, you will understand that no matter how repetitive and expected this question is, it is still relevant. Allow me to stress the excellent work the member did on the human resources development committee; he was a very vocal representative of the Bloc Quebecois on this issue.

I appreciate his question all the more as there are certain parallels to be drawn between Lévis and Hochelaga-Maisonneuve. We both have in our ridings people who have experienced de-skilling. For the most part, this is the history of my riding. It used to be a thriving city. It is hard to believe that between 1883 and 1918 Hochelaga-Maisonneuve had such a vibrant industrial sector that it was called the Pittsburg of Canada. I know that in his riding too, I am thinking about shipyard workers among others, there has been a de-skilling process.

What the member for Lévis is asking us to realize is that periodically through the history of federalism and through the history of the Liberal Party, we have witnessed a profoundly despicable, not to say shameful, and I believe totally unacceptable manoeuvre on the part of a government refusing to accept the position of a legitimately elected government, its counterpart in Quebec, and instead going through intermediaries.

This was done in the sixties on the language issue, such an outcry was raised that the government had to back down. What is unacceptable in this bill, I believe, is the push toward centralization and the lack of respect for the authorized agencies.

As far as manpower policies are concerned, the authorized agency is the Government of Quebec. So by what authority, what rationale would a government, even a Liberal government, think it has the right to use a CDEC, a municipality or any other agency or corporate entity to ignore Quebec's wishes?

All this must not keep us from seeing-I will try to be brief because I would be most honoured if the member for Kingston and the Islands were to be so daring as to ask me a question-that as long as there will be duplication of resources, some people will not receive training. Mr. Speaker, look at the member for Kingston and the Islands, I think he wants to talk to me.

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

Mr. Speaker, I hope the hon. member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve will not be disappointed, but I will try to stand in for my colleague from Kingston and the Islands as best I can.

I would preface my remarks by saying that as a woman I have often been plagued by the question: What do women want? I could translate that by saying: What does a Bloc Quebecois want?

I listened to my colleague opposite asking for the minister to do away with duplication and overlap and to deal with the province of Quebec, i would answer him by saying that is exactly what this bill proposes.

Mr. Speaker, when the bill now before us was tabled in this House last June 7, and this March 7, a number of us were amazed that the Bloc was so strongly opposed to it. Many of us were amazed at their heroic efforts to delay passage of a bill which has as its sole purpose the regularization of a government administrative restructuring that took place two years before. Amazed yes, but not in the least surprised.

At that point we were on the verge of the referendum campaign and the opposition wasted no opportunity to try and convince Quebecers of the dark intentions of the federal government. Nor did they waste any opportunity to hinder the smooth operations of government, to hold up to scrutiny every little action or statement by members of the government, as a diversionary tactic. It is easy to understand what was behind their actions at that time, but then the referendum came along and Canada remained Canada.

When the bill came back, the opposition began to sing the same tune again, to throw up the same roadblocks, but for a different reason. This time it was a sort of warm up in preparation for their opposition to the employment insurance bill the minister was going to introduce shortly. Here again, their reasons for acting on the federal level to immobilize and oppose any proposed change are easily understood.

The reasons were clearly demonstrated recently, on March 12, when it proposed that the bill on employment insurance be withdrawn even though everyone agrees that the current employment insurance program is in need of reform.

However, one important change has taken place since the last time the bill to establish the Department of Human Resources Development was debated.

Meanwhile, the Quebec employment minister agreed, after meeting with the federal minister, to discuss our proposal regarding employment insurance. Discussions are still going on with Quebec, as well as with all other provinces. Quebec is interested in the formula proposed because it will allow updating the management of worker adjustment programs; because it is consistent with its own goals regarding decentralization in favour of regions; and because the federal government has clearly indicated its intention to withdraw from manpower training.

For a large part employment insurance entails decentralization and partnership with provinces. If clause 20 allows the minister to enter into agreements with a province, financial institutions or similar agencies it is simply because we have taken into consideration, by adapting them, section 7 of the Employment Department and Commission Act, section 6 of the Heritage Department Act and section 5 of the existing Department of Labour Act.

The Department of Human Resources Development Act does not give the minister any powers other than those already being exercised. It does not confer any powers that were not previously exercised, respectively, by the ministers responsible. What is involved, essentially, is internal management. In other words, hypothetically even if the bill were never passed the minister would still continue to do everything he does now. When the bill is passed the minister will not be doing anything more or anything less than what he has been doing until now.

We all know we must invest in our human resources if we want to stay ahead of the world's nations in terms of quality of life.

This bill reconfirms the basic mission given to that department by the Government of Canada by bringing under the same roof all initiatives and programs designed to help Canadians at all stages of life: learning, work and retirement. In fact, as the bill stipulates, the powers, duties and functions of the minister "are to be exercised with the objective of enhancing employment, encouraging equality and promoting social security".

The act to establish the Department of Human Resources Development is especially designed to allow the department to continue helping put Canadians back to work.

To do so, we need a legislation which provides a simple and integrated mechanism in order to clarify the role of the department and the responsibilities of the minister with respect to the Canadian people.

Members of this House have had ample opportunity to thoroughly examine and discuss the bill which will put an end to this transitional phase, a transitional phase not only for this department but for the entire government reorganization.

I therefore believe it is time to put an end to it now and to consider other issues far more crucial for Canadians and the future of this country.

[Jean H. Leroux, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech of my colleague opposite. I want to comment on it and perhaps ask her a question in closing.

As you know, I am the member for Shefford. The main town in my riding is Granby. Granby is an industrial town of approximately 45,000 inhabitants. There are about 90,000 people in the region.

Cuts were announced under both human resources development ministers. This reminds of the dismantling of railways in Canada.

Mr. Speaker, you are a federalist-I have no doubt about that, Mr. Speaker-and I believe that all across Canada, employment centres are considered as a symbol of Canada. They are actually closing them down, doing away with them, so much so that Granby now receives only $36,000 from the federal government in lieu of taxes. Might as well say there is no federal presence in our region.

When our great country was created, the federal government's goal was to distribute wealth fairly across the territory. But now, my region is cut off by this government. Some 50 or 55 people were working in the employment centre, and now the government is considering going down to 12 or maybe 18 employees-no decision has been made yet.

This is sad for my region. It is a heavy blow since the employment centre, as it was organized, was making a significant contribution to the region's development. It is a whole network they are breaking up. This network is important for the regions. It is important for Quebec, for its development. Usually, all kinds of people are represented on boards of trade, people from every political affiliation, mostly federalists.

The Granby Board of Trade circulated a petition that was signed by over 6,000 people to condemn the government's attitude and to ask it to give more consideration to regions. As I said earlier, employment centres are a symbol of the Government of Canada, but this symbol is about to disappear because of the policies of the department and the minister.

My question is this: When the government makes decisions like the one to reform the system, why does it ignore the other governments? I would like to hear the member's comments on that matter.

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

Mr. Speaker, my initial response to the member's question would be the same as the introduction to my speech: What does the Bloc Quebecois want? On the one hand it is saying to keep our nose out of its affairs; on the other hand it is saying to do more for it specifically and do not worry about the interests of other Canadians.

The business of governing this country as a country is to take into account the interests of all Canadians. The minister is taking a positive step forward in doing that. He is doing it in Quebec in the same way he is doing it in any other region of the country. As part of the family, we all share and share alike.

Sooner or later the member opposite will have to figure out what he wants.

[Jean H. Leroux, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what do we want? That is a good question. As I said before, we want the government to behave in an equitable manner. The hon. member says this is done everywhere in the country. That does not mean it is a good thing.

That is not the problem. We know there are structures, we know there is some co-operation between Canadian employment centres and those responsible for employment in Quebec, where there is a tradition of co-operation at the local level. However, what is happening at the present time is that they are dismantling the network, and this will do considerable damage to job creation. It is as if the federal government were withdrawing while continuing to exercise control over programs. It wants control but it does not want to invest in the area, and that is unacceptable.

The federal government has a certain responsibility in that regard and, frankly, you will agree with me that it should give all its support to the level of government best able to decide and closest to the people of the regions.

What I am asking, and I would like the opinion of the hon. member on this, is for the federal government to stop, once and for all, interfering needlessly in our affairs and give back to the regions what they are entitled to.

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

Mr. Speaker, again I think the member is encumbered with a lot of rhetoric and misapprehension of the facts as they exist.

As I said in my speech, it was that member and all of his friends across the way who wanted the Government of Canada to keep its nose out of their affairs during the time leading up to the referendum in Quebec.

In response to the concerns of people in Quebec and all across the country the Prime Minister made a commitment at the end of last year. He stated that the Government of Canada would withdraw from labour market training, apprenticeship programs, co-operative education programs and so on. This seems to be exactly what the member opposite was saying, that we should let the government that is in the best position to understand local needs design the programs. This has been delivered on.

I know the member is full of fuss and bother this afternoon but it has nothing to do with any failure of this government to deliver on those promises.

[Dale Johnston, Reform, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, for the last two and one-half years the Department of Human Resources Development has been operating without a mandate and some would say without any direction or agenda.

Back in January 1994 amid the fanfare of the speech from the throne, Canadians were promised social program reform. One would have thought the government would have quickly given this department a mandate to operate and then tackled the task of bringing Canada's outdated social programs into the 21st century.

The fact that it has taken the government two years and two ministers to get this far is further evidence that real reform will not happen before the next election. No doubt social program reform will turn up as an election promise in the 1997 version of the Liberal red book of broken promises.

One of the most intriguing parts of the bill was the appointment of the Minister of Labour and the deputy minister. When the old department of labour was amalgamated with the new superministry of human resources development, the whole idea behind it was incorporation. At last, we thought, here was a department whose function would be transferred to the provinces and to the private sector. What a step forward for labour relations in Canada. Then along came the Quebec referendum and suddenly we needed a labour minister. At the last minute, to accommodate the member for Saint-Henri-Westmount, this strange reporting structure was included in what was then Bill C-96.

According to Bill C-11 the Minister of Labour may be appointed but if there is no labour minister, the duties fall to the human resources development minister. The question has to be asked: Do we need a full time labour minister, a secretary of state for labour, or just a parliamentary secretary? Maybe the minister was included so there would be no question about the need for a deputy minister.

If labour requires a full minister, should such a position not be designated by statute rather than just simply an optional position? If labour requires a minister other than a junior minister, will it ultimately break away from human resources development and

become a department unto itself? This bill raises a lot more questions than it answers. These are things that have not been debated fully and should have been considered by the author ofthe bill.

By bringing the labour department under the human resources umbrella and its superminister, perhaps the government hoped to get the unions onside and perhaps take advantage of the decline in popularity of the faltering New Democrats.

If the government was really concerned about labour relations, it would not have allowed things to deteriorate to the point where in two years time it would have to legislate grain handlers and railway workers back to work three times. Three times in two years the system did not work properly. If the government was truly concerned about workers in Canada and management, it would have amended the Canada Labour Code or at least looked at amending the Canada Labour Code to include final offer arbitration as a mechanism for solving labour disputes.

The government would be introducing more legislation like Bill C-3. Bill C-3 brings all workers in nuclear facilities under provincial jurisdiction and certainly is a step in the right direction. The labour component of the department of HRD would cease to exist and would not require the services of a minister or of a deputy minister.

If the government had allowed passage of Motion No. 2 as presented by my colleague for Mission-Coquitlam, it would not be presented with the problem of court rulings over who has jurisdiction in overlapping industrial sectors as was the case which necessitated the drafting of Bill C-3.

It is time to move forward with the devolution of federal control in labour matters to the provinces. Certainly there is much support for that on this side of the House. I would encourage members opposite to come to like thinking.

Part I of the Canada Labour Code is currently under review and would be an appropriate starting point for the minister who is anxious to do away with duplication of services.

I would like to remind members that Canada has a $580 billion debt. The minister opposite and certainly the finance minister are very cognizant of that. They are looking for ways in which to whittle down that debt.

The Minister of Labour could contribute to this reduction if he initiates measures to do away with overburdensome bureaucracy and duplication by giving the provinces control over labour standards, labour relations and occupational health and safety. I suggest that he would find that workers and management alike would support his action because both sides want and deserve a level playing field.

Labour and management have the common goal of maintaining a productive workplace. As legislators, we should do all we can to advance that goal. We can facilitate this by relinquishing control over the bureaucratic regulations that stand in the way of sound labour relations.

Reflecting back to Bill C-3, I again say that it is a step in the right direction. Bill C-11 would be worthy of support had it followed along the same path.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to put a question to my colleague after making a few remarks.

The Quebec government, Quebec as a whole and labour confederations would most certainly agree with the total takeover of all the labour sector. However, we cannot talk about this issue without referring once again to the Constitution, since the Privy Council in London established, in a 1925 decision, after a seven year delay, I believe, that labour relation jurisdiction belonged to the provinces, except that all businesses that, one way or another, came under more than one province would come under federal jurisdiction. That is what brought about this duplication that is causing so many problems for workers.

I would like to point out to the member that in Quebec, for instance, the act respecting occupational health and safety provides that women who find out they are pregnant and believe that their work may affect them or their child have the right to ask for a change of position. If the employer cannot transfer them to another position, they have the right to stay home with 90 per cent of their salary. The same thing applies when the mother breast-feeds her child.

You can understand that women work for businesses that come under federal jurisdiction are not allowed the same right, they say it is not fair and the whole union movement has been doing the same for years now. This goes to prove what our colleague just said, except that we cannot deal with this matter without going through the Constitution.

In my speech this morning, I have demonstrated how Bill C-11 calls for a constitutional debate.

The only way provinces disagreeing with decisions taken by the central government, by the Department of Human Resources Development under this bill, can have their way would be to sidestep this decision and manage the money themselves.

This calls for a constitutional type amendment, or the government should agree to recognize the full jurisdiction of the provinces, which it does not, even in the throne speech.

So, my question to my colleague is whether he and his party should not have chosen to criticize more than the labour relation considerations of the bill.

[Dale Johnston, Reform, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question.

My Reform colleague spoke to the bill this morning. Although she touched on some labour issues, she had broader criticisms of the bill.

I would like to address an issue that my Bloc colleague has raised. It is the overlap in provincial and federal jurisdiction. The position of our party is that jurisdiction should be given to the level of government which is closest to the people. Less government is the best government. To decrease the bureaucracy would be of benefit to all Canadians. The bureaucracy would be closer to the people it serves.

As is sometimes the case now with the federal government, there would not be a nameless, faceless entity. Canada is a huge place and the capital cannot be everywhere. For the vast majority of Canadians the capital is a long way from home.

[Osvaldo Nunez, Bloc, Bourassa, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague argues that a department of labour is not necessary, that a minister of labour is not necessary. I totally disagree. As you know, there are labour disputes in several areas still under federal jurisdiction, and a minister is needed to try to settle these disputes.

The labour code must be revamped. Anti-scab legislation is needed, for instance. The union movement needs a full-time minister of labour, and I ask the hon. member why he is against appointing a minister of labour, a position that has always existed in Canada.

[Dale Johnston, Reform, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Madam Speaker, my Bloc colleague suggests that the Minister of Labour is needed because he adjudicates or solves problems that arise between labour and management. I submit to him that I have never seen a labour minister, provincial or federal, who has solved a labour problem.

I would like to cite the three instances in the two and a half years that I have been here when the House voted to force workers back to work, whether they were locked out or on strike, in order for grain transportation to continue. That is not ministerial intervention. That is intervention by the entire House of Commons. The minister does not solve those problems. If he really wanted to do something to solve those problems he would look at implementing final offer arbitration selection so that both groups, management and labour, would have the tools to resolve their problems without involving either the minister or the House of Commons.

All due respect to my friend, just because we have had a minister of labour for years and years is no justification for us to continue with that position.

[Osvaldo Nunez, Bloc, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate at third reading of Bill C-11, the old Bill C-96, an act to establish the Department of Human Resources Development and to amend and repeal certain related acts. I had the opportunity last November to participate in the debate at second reading of Bill C-96.

Only a few minor changes, which increase the number of departments and organizations allowed to consult recipients' files, were made to this bill in committee. This breach of confidentiality is another reason why I will vote against this bill.

I, however, support the motion requiring this department and the department of labour to table an annual activity report. This requirement is not new. The public as well as parliamentarians need to be informed of the actions and decisions taken by the department, the unemployment insurance commission and the national council of welfare.

In essence, this bill provides for the administrative restructuring of the department, merging sections and services from the former departments of employment and immigration, health and welfare, labour and the old secretary of state. At the same time, the bill gives the Prime Minister the authority to appoint a Minister of Labour and a Deputy Minister of Labour. I am all in favour of having a labour minister. We absolutely need one, especially if we want a thoroughly revised Canadian Labour Code, and more specifically anti-strikebreaking legislation, to be submitted to us as soon as possible.

This bill promotes a greater federal presence and gives the minister new powers, enabling him, among others things, to go over the heads of the provinces, and Quebec in particular, and negotiate directly with local authorities and organizations. Under clause 20, the minister may enter into agreements with agencies and bodies other than the provinces.

According to clause 6, the powers, duties and functions of the minister extend to all matters relating to the development of human resources in Canada. He is responsible in particular for enhancing employment, encouraging equality and promoting social security. That is a far cry from what has been happening in Canada for the past two and a half years.

However noble these goals may be, the situation is deteriorating rapidly in these areas. Statistics Canada data show that, while 9.3 per cent of the population, or 1,407,000 people, were unemployed in Canada in March 1996, 10.9 per cent of the population, or 400,000 people, were unemployed in Quebec.

Just last week, Kenworth announced it was shutting down its truck manufacturing plant in Sainte-Thérèse, but this government did not lift a finger to save the 900 jobs at stake. I urge the federal government once again to make every effort to ensure this plant remains in operation to provide employment to its workers.

The new Department of Human Resources Development must increase efficiency and productivity. People often tell me that the processing of claims takes too long. We must shorten the amount of time needed to process unemployment insurance claims, appeals of unemployment insurance decisions, old age pension claims, etc.

Once again, I am strongly opposed to the closure of the Canada Employment Centre located on Papineau Street, in Montreal, which serves constituents in my riding of Bourassa, hard hit by unemployment. By 1997, this office will be closed. People in Montreal North need help, services and resources, but they do not need government cuts when they are going through hard times. My riding is already poverty-stricken.

Given the situation, the federal government should also provide more resources for the Program for Older Worker Adjustment, or POWA.

Other employment centres have closed or will be closed on Montreal Island. I vigorously oppose such measures because they smack of partisan politics.

I took advantage of the Easter recess to invite representatives of community agencies in my riding to participate in a discussion on the changes made in the unemployment insurance system. Once again, I wish to thank all the agencies represented at this meeting, including the local community service centre of Montreal North, and the CDEC in my riding which, fortunately, is starting to receive the necessary resources to carry out its much needed mission. The meeting was also attended by representatives of the following agencies: Maison des jeunes l'Ouverture, Impulsion travail, Rond-point Jeunesse au travail, Centre multiculturel Claire, Maison Saint-Laurent, Fondation de la Visite, Centre d'activités pour le maintien de l'équilibre émotionnel de Montréal-Nord, Association des travailleurs haïtiens au Canada, Entre-Parents, Centre Louis-Fréchette, etc.

Almost all these organizations have clients who receive unemployment insurance benefits, and they often rely on the various programs offered by the Papineau employment centre.

Participants were shocked to see that, once again, the cuts will affect the unemployed. These new measures will intensify the exclusion process and make it worse.

Last March, I condemned the federal government's refusal to include social clauses in the bilateral trade agreement between Canada and Chile. It is officials from the human resources department who negotiate labour issues on Canada's behalf. Thanks to our representations and to the very effective action of the Canadian and Chilean union movements, the government relented and agreed to that very legitimate request. We must congratulate the Chilean government for always recognizing the social dimension of NAFTA and of this trade agreement.

However, the Canadian government is not willing to go further than what is provided in the parallel agreement that is already part of NAFTA but which is inadequate. The agreement should include more effective ways to protect the rights of workers, as well as better labour standards.

During my trip to Chile last January, I was shocked to learn from Chilean workers and union members that some Canadian businesses, including mining companies, do not always comply with basic health and safety standards. Among other things, they mentioned the use of toxic substances which are prohibited in Canada.

I am pleased that the value of Canadian and Quebec investments in Chile has reached $7 billion.

I take this opportunity to send a message of social responsibility to Canadian companies investing in Latin America and other continents.

To conclude, I would like to talk briefly about pensions, another matter the human resources development department is responsible for. I was shocked to learn that some people are considering the privatization of the Canada pension plan. True, other countries have tried that, and it has been a disaster.

I am against any reduction in benefits, and we must have full access to the plan. Universality has to be maintained. However, I would agree to raising the maximum insurable income above $35,000 to collect more contributions. I am strongly opposed to the idea of raising the age of retirement to 67. We need to make room for the young. The existing Canada pension plan should be improved and not reduced.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

Madam Speaker, once again the hon. member for Bourassa has shown that he understands the problems of his constituents, the people he represents. He has shown also that he has a good understanding of the nature and the scope of the Department of Human Resources Development.

It must be remembered that, except for the servicing of the debt, this is the one that accounts for the largest share of the money allocated in the federal budget, more than 40 per cent. It is

responsible for a huge number of programs and services. The hon. member for Bourassa recalled, and rightly so, the closing down of some employment centres, including the one in the district of Papineau, as he mentioned. That happened also elsewhere.

The debate today deals with the legislation establishing the Department of Human Resources Development; we see on the cover that it is Bill C-11, the former Bill C-96, which brings back the previous legislation unchanged. We see that this legislation could be called the law of silence.

I would like to ask my colleague what he thinks about it. This bill will strengthen the powers of the Minister of Human Resources Development. It will give him authority to encroach even further on and bypass provincial jurisdictions, especially in the area of manpower training. It will allow the minister to bypass the provincial government and deal directly with organizations and businesses in matters of training, among others. Therefore, this is something important that raises the constitutional issue. The Bloc Quebecois is not pleased to deal with this issue, but the government is grabbing even more constitutional powers to interfere in areas under provincial jurisdiction.

At the moment, I am asking questions to my colleague, but the answers should come from members opposite. We are surprised to see that members opposite, especially those from Quebec, are not making speeches and not taking part in the debate on the bill establishing the largest federal department, and that members of the third party, who usually deal so meticulously with expenditures, are not interested either in that topic. Where are we? I would like the hon. member for Bourassa to comment on that law of silence that is in force, on yet another operation designed to put Quebec in its place.

[Osvaldo Nunez, Bloc, Bourassa, QC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Lévis, who is doing a remarkable job both in the House and on the human resources development committee.

Of course, I agree with him and with my party that Bill C-11 reinforces the powers of the federal government as opposed to those of the provinces. As I said in my speech, the minister will be able to go over the provinces' heads and negotiate directly with organizations, and that is unacceptable.

There are a lot of community organizations in my riding. These organizations would rather deal with the Government of Quebec, which has a better understanding of the situation and the problems in Montreal and Montreal North in particular, than with Ottawa, which is so far away. This is why I wholeheartedly agree with what the member said. Again, I want to stress that, with this bill, the federal government is infringing upon provincial areas of jurisdiction, especially the labour training area.

[Maurice Bernier, Bloc, Mégantic—Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to take part in this debate on Bill C-11. As my colleague from Lévis mentioned a few minutes ago, it is amazing to see how government members and even members of the third party in this House, the Reform Party, are silent on this subject.

This has to be noted since, as mentioned by the member for Lévis, this is the most important department in terms of its budget and even, I would say, in terms of its repercussions on the lives of Canadians. Forty per cent of the federal budget is allocated to that department.

So we have to wonder why government members are silent on this subject. How is it that only the official opposition, the Bloc Quebecois, wants to take part in this debate to inform the people, to tell them how dangerous this bill is and what could happen if we give so much power to the Minister of Labour. In the few minutes I have, I will do my best to explain what powers the minister is getting in this bill.

To do so I will refer to the legislation itself. Clauses 6 and 7 of Bill C-11 talk about the powers, duties and functions of the minister.

Clause 6 says:

1. The powers, duties and functions of the Minister extend to and include all matters over which Parliament has jurisdiction relating to the development of the human resources of Canada not by law assigned to any other Minister, department, board or agency of the Government of Canada, and are to be exercised with the objective of enhancing employment, encouraging equality and promoting social security.

Everybody should agree with that since clause 6 says that, in creating this department, the federal government wants to enhance employment, encourage equality and promote social security. This is really apple pie; of course everybody wants to attain such goals.

Moreover, it says in this clause that the minister recognizes that he will have to exercise these powers, duties and functions in his own areas of jurisdiction. It is said specifically that his department cannot infringe upon the powers of other federal departments or agencies. Consequently, we could say: "At last, the federal government intends to mind its own business, to play in its own backyard, and, therefore, to respect the powers of the provinces".

In order to understand if such is the government's intent, we must also read clause 7 as well as clause 20, which go together.

Clause 7 reads as follows:

1. In exercising the powers or performing the duties or functions assigned to the Minister under this or any other Act of Parliament, the Minister may

That is the Minister of Human Resources Development. a ) subject to the Statistics Act, collect, analyse, interpret-

And so on. These are all formalities. Paragraph ( b ) reads as follows: b ) cooperate with provincial authorities with a view to the coordination of efforts made or proposed for preserving and improving human resources development.

It is there in black and white, if words mean anything, even in the House: "The Minister may cooperate"; it is not written that the minister must cooperate, but that he "may" cooperate with provincial authorities. Therefore, the minister has all the leeway he needs to accept or refuse to cooperate with a provincial government.

In clause 6, it is said that the minister cannot exercise powers assigned to other federal departments, boards or agencies, but in paragraph 7( b ), it is said he ``may'' cooperate with the provinces. We know that, since its inception, the federal government has used all acceptable and unacceptable means available to it to invade provincial fields of jurisdiction.

We have seen it time and time again in the past, such as in the case of old age security, family allowances and unemployment insurance, which were all provincial fields of jurisdiction. And, over the years, for all manner of reasons, including the depression in the 1920s and then later on the war, the federal government has laid its hands on powers, supposedly temporarily, but the situation then became permanent. Over time, some have been entrenched in the Constitution, as is the case with unemployment insurance.

So there is nothing reassuring about clause 6, when read in conjunction with clause 7.

If I may, let us jump ahead a bit to examine clause 20. What does clause 20 of Bill C-11 say? Since we are still looking at the same bill, it is appropriate to link them up. Clause 20 states:

1. 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

-repeating the wording of clause 7-

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.

So, as the saying goes, the thing has come full circle; we have just grasped that the minister can decide to co-operate with a province, as it says in paragraph 7( b ). So,if by chance the minister does not feel like co-operating with a province, he can pass on it. But what will he do then, according to clause 20? He will go over the heads of the provinces, and negotiate directly or conclude agreements with bodies in each of the provinces.

Clause 20 does not say so because, naturally, the federal government wants to deceive, to hide the truth. Clause 20 does not say that the federal government or one of its agencies will be able to deal directly with a municipality, but it must be understood that provincial public agencies are just like municipalities. Municipalities are agencies, creatures of provincial governments. Therefore, as I understand it, under this clause the federal government is giving itself the necessary leeway to bypass provincial governments and deal directly with municipalities and agencies at the provincial level.

This is the government's, the minister's intention and we know that this minister more than anyone else will not hesitate to push provinces aside, especially Quebec, and to try to enter into agreements which will go against the wishes, goals and policies of the Government of Quebec.

During the few minutes I have left, I want to talk about the common will and consensus regarding professional training policies. This is not the only area where Quebec will stand alone, where it will be a distinct homeland-the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs may wish to use another expression since "distinct society" and "principal homeland" seem to have disappeared; we could perhaps use "distinct homeland" for a few weeks. In Quebec there has been for many years, I repeat, for many years a consensus between all stakeholders, all interested parties. This includes the Government of Quebec, labour confederations and employers. For the first time in the history of Quebec, I would say, a consensus was reached to ask the federal government to withdraw from manpower training, to take its paws off this provincial jurisdiction and to put a stop to the duplication and endless meddling in this sensitive area, not only in economic terms, but in the day-to-day existence of our fellow citizens. We are talking about real people, who work or who need retraining or additional training because of the closure of their place of work.

As my colleagues have pointed out here and elsewhere, how many times do we have to reiterate the need for a clean-up in manpower training? In Quebec, management, unions and government have all said the same thing. When I speak of government, I do not mean the separatist government of Mr. Bouchard currently in power, but the federalist government before it, the governments of Mr. Johnson and Mr. Bourassa, and no one can accuseMr. Bourassa of even the slightest hint of a separatist tendency.

If there was ever someone ready to compromise, I would say to make every concession, in order to keep Quebec within the Canadian Federation, it was the former premier of Quebec,Mr. Bourassa. Yet, even he and his government joined in the consensus, in QUebec, that manpower training should be under exclusive provincial jurisdiction, as already provided for in the Constitution, and that the federal government should be asked to withdraw from this area.

However, when reading clauses 6, 7(b) and 20 of the bill before us, we see that the federal government does not intend to abide by this consensus, but intends on the contrary to continue to do what it has been doing for years, that is to interfere in any way, at any time and with anyone it wants to.

Question period after question period, the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, the former Minister of Human Resources Development and the present minister of this portfolio, have all stood in this House one after the other to state their intention, their firm resolve to decentralize, to withdraw from this area of provincial jurisdiction in order to abide by the Constitution.

That is what they are saying day after day, question period after question period, election campaign after election campaign but, in reality, when the time comes to make a decision, the first thing they do is to write, in black and white, that they intend to do just the opposite.

After that, one hardly wonders at the cynicism-not to call it something worse-of the population with respect to politics and politicians. This is called double talk. One cannot say one thing, then say the opposite, and claim there is no inconsistency.

The federal government says over and over that it is ready to withdraw from manpower training. Why did not they write in their bill that they are leaving this responsibility to the provinces and that they recognize once and for all the consensus arrived at in Quebec? It would have been simple and easy. I am convinced that, for once, the House would have been unanimous on a bill, since that is what all stakeholders in Quebec are demanding.

I think the minister can still act before the bill is passed. Consequently, it is necessary for the Minister of Human Resources Development and his Prime Minister to have a serious discussion as soon as possible and for them agree that this bill is flawed-that is the least we can say. In fact, the bill does not follow through on the federal government's intentions to withdraw from manpower training. The Minister could see to it that the necessary changes are made.

Nothing would do more to prove the government's good will than if it announced during this debate that it is once and for all withdrawing from manpower training. If it did so, it would gain the full support of stakeholders in Quebec and of the official opposition. I think there would be no better way to conclude this debate.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his excellent statement, which illustrates once again the importance of the manpower issue.

Before I ask a question, I want to say that this bill has a greater scope than what we might think since human resources development can mean much more than training and labour adjustment. It can pertain directly to training but it can also concern family policies. In fact, it can relate to anything that affects human development.

He is right in stressing how outrageous it is, for instance, that the manpower training issue has not yet been resolved in view of the fact that the consensus in Quebec is so strong and has been so for so long. This morning, I quoted a 1991 letter in which Mr. Bourbeau, then labour minister, was making the same requests to Mr. Valcourt, the federal minister, and stating Quebec's opposition to any federal action that would bypass the province in that area.

The minister referred to some correspondence between himself and Mr. Valcourt, but reminded him also that he had discussed the issue with Mrs. McDougall and that she had agreed not to bypass the province. He made the following interesting comment on the relation between that issue and the constitutional debate:"Mrs. McDougall told me that the federal government sees a connection between whatever Quebec requests and the constitutional review process. I disapproved of that idea, because even if there was perfect constitutional harmony in the country-which is not the case as we know, especially since October 30-Quebec would still make the same requests, since it is urgent for the economic development of Quebec to make all manpower programs efficient and in line with Quebec's own priorities". This is Mr. Bourbeau, a Liberal minister, a federalist talking.

Needless to say, five years later, when we see that the minister is claiming as his own Bill C-96, which is now C-11, and that he believes he can bypass the province in all areas of manpower development, make agreements with anybody without granting the province the power to opt out of an agreement and to manage the related funds, we can only react with outrage. Why? Because this is not a quarrel between two levels of government. It is of the highest urgency that the little money we have be put to work on behalf of the people; the Quebec government is responsible for the economic and social development of Quebec. The Quebec government is the one closest to citizens. It has the duty and responsibility to provide its citizens with the tools they need.

It is not for nothing that we have the Société québécoise de développement de la main-d'oeuvre cooperating with labour, management and everybody. It is because things are terribly urgent.

I would like to ask my colleague how the need to put all the resources available at the service of citizens can be felt in his riding, in a concrete way?

[Maurice Bernier, Bloc, Mégantic—Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Mercier who, as everyone knows, is an expert in this field and who always brings us down to earth.

I do not want to talk about agriculture, even though this would make the hon. member for Beauséjour happy. Some of the bills passed by this House may be a little "far out", if I may use this term, or have little impact on people's everyday lives. However, on reading Bill C-11, an act to establish the Department of Human Resources Development and to amend and repeal certain related acts, for the first time, members may wonder what impact this bill could have on their fellow citizens' daily lives.

The hon. member for Mercier has just reminded us that the perverse effects of this bill, and to an even larger extent those of the decisions made by the Minister of Human Resources Development, can be seen every day. In fact, in my riding, as in all ridings in Quebec, how many times have we heard unemployed people and owners of small, medium size and large businesses complain about the time-in business time is money-needed to deal with bureaucrats, to meet the requirements of officials from all departments? They also have to deal with other bureaucrats asking the same questions in the same area. There is one official from the Quebec government and one from the federal government.

That is why, as my hon. colleague indicated, the Department of Human Resources Development interferes in a multitude of aspects relating to manpower development, and the same could be said about other areas over which the department has authority. Over time, this has created such confusion that we do not know if we are coming or going. It is a well-known fact that has been stated and demonstrated time and time again. That is the explanation, and it has nothing to do with their generosity of spirit or with the various organizations losing sight of their mandate or clientele. I am thinking of the Conseil du patronat negotiating with the CSN or the FTQ. They do not do so for the fun of it, to take advantage of the CSN, but rather because they believe it is in everyone's best interest to reach a consensus.

The same goes for the unions. I do not think Gérald Larose is crazy about sitting at the same table as Ghislain Dufour, from the Conseil du patronat. But dealing with manpower training and making sure Quebecers receive appropriate training to become not only competitive on the work market but also more efficient in their jobs, which in turn ensures that we produce higher quality products, is good for everybody. That is what the consensus in Quebec is all about.

It is quite simple. We must achieve tangible results. Labour, management, governments, we all have to work together to ensure that our workers are well trained and our plants operating to the satisfaction of the consumers, so that everybody is happy. We must revisit various programs to avoid duplication, implement programs in line with reality, so that where cooks are needed, we train cooks, not engineers.

As my colleague from Mercier mentioned, this affects people in their daily lives. Finally, it is important that the Liberal members who are listening to the debate talk to their colleague and try to convince him, if possible. I wish them good luck, because we are having a hard time trying to convince the Minister of Human Resources Development that he should improve his bill and announce he will not interfere in areas of provincial jurisdiction.

[Jim Silye, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to take exception to the member's speech. In his opening remarks he said that he was quite surprised and expressed disappointment that the government and the third party were very silent on this bill. I take exception to that.

We have not been silent on this bill. I would like him to acknowledge the fact that we have not been silent on this bill. Our two critics stood in this House today and expressed this party's point of view. They expressed it quite clearly and very eloquently. I would like the hon. member to acknowledge that fact.

Just because his party wishes to prolong the debate and wishes to have more people speak on this issue, he should not then put down members of the third party who have spoken to this bill. Would he please acknowledge that?

[Maurice Bernier, Bloc, Mégantic—Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Madam Speaker, my answer will be very brief.

In making these comments, it was indeed my intention to help Reform Party members realize the importance of this debate and take part in it. However, their interest is limited to say the least, since we have heard very few of them.

As for us, our intention is not to unduly prolong this debate, but to make people aware of the importance of this bill and particularly of its dreadful consequences.

[Nic Leblanc, Bloc, Longueuil, QC]

Madam Speaker, indeed I come from the riding of Longueuil, the nicest one in Quebec. Located along the St. Lawrence River, it reflects the history of French Canadians, the history of Quebec. There are some very old houses. I myself own a house built in 1854. It was bought by the Oblate Fathers when they first came to Canada. They settled on Saint-Charles street, in Longueuil. As you know, the Oblate Fathers were missionaries and discoverers. They promoted Quebec's development and we are very proud of that.

As regards Bill C-11, the Liberal government is once again helping itself. It creates a new department, it changes the name of the department so as to give itself more power, much more power as was explained by the Bloc Quebecois members who spoke before me. It seeks to provide the minister with the authority to get involved with the private sector, with the provinces, or some of them, for the purpose of creating a system that will be detrimental to the Quebec employment department.

In Quebec, a manpower development agency was set up a few years ago. This structure reflects the unanimous will of all Quebecers, whether they are from business or labour, and whether they belong to either one the two main parties, namely the Parti Quebecois and the Quebec Liberal Party. There is a definite consensus. All Quebecers agree that the province must have its own way of dealing with the unemployed or with welfare recipients, who had the misfortune of losing their job. There are some who had the misfortune of losing their employment because of the federal government's way of managing.

We know that the federal government, through its policies of concentrating all the powers here in Ottawa, wants to show Quebecers that it is the big leader of this country. It wants to show that, without the federal government, it would be impossible to survive in Quebec. All the measures it has taken have had the effect of bringing about inflation in some cases; after having caused inflation, it increased interest rates, which generated recessions between 1970 and 1980.

Between 1984 and 1986, we experienced the same problem when inflation and recession were brought about. So, the real cause of the social problems we have in Quebec is particularly related to the inappropriate actions taken by the federal government. Today, the minister wants to give himself powers to manage the unemployment insurance program better. But the government is the cause of unemployment.

I want to point out that we cannot have much confidence in this Liberal government. Only three weeks ago, I asked questions of the secretary of state for finance, who was saying that he wanted to set up an unemployment insurance fund, adding that he wanted to use the moneys collected from both employees and employers, some $5 billion a year, to collect even more and then give it back under the new way of managing the unemployment insurance program.

He was saying that this fund could be used to reduce Canada's debt, and that he also wanted to set up a fund to accumulate money for lean years to come. Let me remind him that these are lean years.

If the government wants to build up a reserve during the lean years, how much more money will it collect when prosperity returns? Apparently, it will collect $5 billion during a lean year like this one. How much will it collect when times are good? Will it be $10 billion, or $15 billion? Where will all that money go? In the consolidated revenue fund, to reduce the Canadian debt.

The poor are being squeezed, and the small businesses too. We know that the maximum insured income has been reduced. The higher the salary, the lower the relative contribution will be. Quebec has many have small businesses, and our salaries are lower. That means that small businesses will pay more. In a way, workers and employers will have to pay a new tax to reduce the federal deficit.

It is a strange way to put government finance back in order. They squeeze money out of workers and small businesses in Quebec to reduce the federal deficit. As you can see, we do not trust this way of doing things. This bill gives more powers to the minister, so you will understand why we are apprehensive, and why we worry so much about the future.

My colleagues have already mentioned that Quebec wants to have complete jurisdiction over manpower training. That has been said so many times in the past. There reasons why Quebec wants this. Quebec is a distinct society, whether you like it or not. It is a fact of life.

It is a reality. English Canada has to understand once and for all that Quebec is a distinct society.

We are a distinct society, not necessarily because of our French language. The fact that we speak French is patently obvious, of course. Quebecers speak French and quite a high percentage of French speaking Quebecers do not speak English. For instance, the minister could ask a Quebec worker who just lost his job to take a job in Toronto or in Vancouver. That is what is called manpower mobility.

Any worker who loses his or her job could be asked to move to Vancouver for example or Toronto to get a job. However, a French speaking Quebecer who does not speak English could refuse to take a job in Toronto or in Vancouver, but then he would stand to lose his UI benefits, because a French speaking Quebecer can be forced to

move to an area where he, in principle, cannot work, and where he is not at all interested to go. It is too big a change to ask of him.

Because Quebec is a distinct society, we cannot make the same rules for Quebecers as for the rest of Canadians. This is one of the reasons we believe Quebec should be responsible for unemployment insurance and for manpower training. Everybody agrees with that in Quebec.

Quebec is not a distinct society just because of its language. Quebec is not a distinct society just because of its folklore. Our folk dances are not the only difference. We dance the typical square dances of the Scotch and the Irish. If ours is a distinct society, it is not only because of folklore. We have a distinct culture.

In particular, we are distinct because of our financial institutions. Quebec's financial institutions are distinct, as is again obvious when we deal with amendments concerning financial institutions. This is of the utmost importance.

The Mouvement Desjardins alone, for example, has assets of more than $80 billion. This is quite significant. Why did Quebecers have to put in place their own financial institutions? Because English Canada would not give loans to good French speaking Quebecers who needed money. No loans were given. In Quebec, loans were only for English speaking individuals and for their businesses.

So we had to set up our own financial institutions with Quebec charters and rules. But there is not only the Mouvement Desjardins.

Quebec chartered mutual insurance companies were created specifically to answer Quebec's needs. There is also the Quebec Deposit and Investment Fund which manages more than $50 billion. The money is used to develop our economy, give loans to Quebec businesses and to create partnerships with certain companies. This is what distinct society is all about. It means that we created our own financial institutions, our own corporations and all that.

Now, you will understand that we do not intend to lose what we duly earned by the sweat of our brow. How could we accept that the federal government should decide how we are to be trained, and what rules are to be established even without our consent?

Just look at what the government did our fusion project in Varennes. It decided unilaterally that the federal government's priority was not nuclear fusion.

It acted unilaterally. It did not talk to Quebec, to other investors, and Hydro-Quebec is one of them. It decided unilaterally to pull out of this research.

The great federal master decided on his own to suddenly withdraw or change the rules without taking into account the efforts that we made in Quebec to develop ourselves. We have created many things. In spite of all our efforts, if we succeed in having an unemployment rate no higher than 10 or 12 per cent, we are considered to be top players, extraordinary people. The federal government has never helped us much in terms of economic development, we have had to do it all by ourselves with a lot of hard work.

Do you think we can have confidence in the federal government for our development? When we think that in R&D in 1989, and I have had the opportunity to do a study of this, federal contracts to Quebec using our tax money for R&D-which is somewhat linked to training, because businesses need to develop, as people need to be trained, it is all connected-research and development contracts or assistance from the government, to businesses or educational institutions were $1.2 billion less than to Ontario.

I do not recall all the figures exactly, since it is quite some time since I did the research, but I do remember clearly that the shortfall for Quebec in R&D contracts from the federal government was $1.2 billion. So, if you wonder why there is more unemployment in Quebec than in Ontario, there is the reason.

In the industry committee this morning I asked the people from Statistics Canada who were there testifying what the distribution of Statistics Canada staff was. They said the distribution was good, and relatively representative of the population, but when I asked for details, they told me that there were 4,600 employees at Statistics Canada, and some 3,500 of those were in Ottawa. Now, as far as I know, Ottawa is in Ontario, so when you look at the $346 million spent by Statistics Canada, and think of the relationship between the total of 4,600 employees and the 3,600 Ontario employees, you will see that the repercussions for Ontario are markedly greater, and that is where the difference lies.

The purpose of all that is to say that we cannot count on the federal government to help us develop. We really have no confidence in them. As the saying goes, once burned twice shy, and let me tell you that we have absolutely no confidence in the federal government to look after manpower training, to look after our jobless.

They say unemployment is running at only 10 per cent, 11 per cent in Quebec. Unemployment is still much too high in Quebec compared with the United States, where it is at about 5 per cent. The worst of it is that there are somewhat fewer unemployed than there should be because those who have run out of unemployment insurance are now on welfare.

Welfare in Quebec is very high. Why? Because people are getting less unemployment insurance, because they are working less. Why is there more unemployment in Quebec? For the reasons I mentioned earlier. Because the federal government has never taken Quebec seriously, and we have always had to work a lot harder to achieve economic growth.

That is what the distinct society is all about. Quebec will never agree to let the federal government manage its affairs, unless major changes are made.

On that point I conclude and I thank you very much, Madam Speaker.

[Stéphan Tremblay, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to start my maiden speech in the House by thanking my riding for trusting me since, as you can see, I am the youngest member in the House of Commons. It was not certain, when I first stood as a candidate, that my youth would be an asset. As a mater of fact, I would also like to congratulate the Bloc Quebecois for being an open and forward looking party which is ready to forge ahead with young people and the whole gamut of society. I am very proud of our party.

I am very happy and greatly honoured to represent the riding of Lac-Saint-Jean. A Tremblay representing Lac-Saint-Jean, a riding which does not shy away from innovation, a riding which could be called the heartland of Quebec. My colleagues here are very close to me, but the riding of Lac-Saint-Jean was the first one to say yes to sovereignty along with the area of Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean-I am talking about the 1980 referendum, of course-and which showed the way to the rest of Quebec, as we saw during the last referendum. It is practically the birth place of the Bloc Quebecois thanks to my predecessor, Mr. Lucien Bouchard, who is now the Premier of Quebec.

When I say that it is Quebec heartland, I do not mean only in political terms. Michel Gauthier comes from Roberval, the riding next to mine, which is also part of the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean area; this is truly the heartland of Quebec. People in my riding are warm, welcoming, fun-loving people who are easy to get along with.

Unfortunately, it is a riding faced with some problems, and this is one of the reasons why I decided to enter politics. Like many other remote areas in Quebec, in the rest of Canada, and even throughout the world, it is plagued by a serious problem: young and not so young people are leaving in search of a job.

Another reason is the fact that my riding is the victim of the transition from the industrial era to the era of the small and medium size businesses. We will probably need, and I hope so, the help of the federal government to support businesses.

This is also a riding that, I think, is full of potential, full of natural resources and full of people with great potential. Last September, this riding, this region of Quebec showed it can innovate by developing a regional strategic planning. When they noticed things were going badly, they got all the stakeholders together to establish a guideline. The main element that came out was decentralization.

Which brings me to the bill before us, a bill that goes against what our region and Quebec as a whole, what all Quebecers want, namely decentralization. Ultimately, we want to take matters in our own hands. We want to manage our own business. And the more things will be close to the people, the better it will be.

At the last referendum we lost-we lost it, these are very big words-

[Jean H. Leroux, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

We almost won it.

[Stéphan Tremblay, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Yes, we almost won it. I had a glimmer of hope. I was thinking: Jean Chrétien's government had promised us it would decentralize, it had promised us a new country. But with this bill, it is obvious we were had. Again it is obvious we cannot trust this government, we cannot trust the federalist system.

This bill increases the federal government's presence in many sectors. We must keep in mind the unemployment insurance sector. It is a well-known fact that a region such as mine needs unemployment insurance. The new bill will have negative effects on my region.

There are also income security programs for children and seniors. This bill also affects support to the provinces for post-secondary education, welfare, labour market adjustment, social development as well as student loans. This is a bill that centralizes far too much.

When we travel throughout Canada, people ask us: "What does Quebec want?" I will tell you: we want decentralization, we want to be masters in our own home. There is a wide consensus around managing our own affairs and decentralizing. A simple example is manpower development. Practically everyone is part of this wide consensus: the current Quebec government and the previous one. Mr. Bourassa, the Conseil du patronat, the labour bodies, the education system, the employment fora, they all agreed. We simply wish to manage our own affairs.

I will conclude my maiden speech by saying that I hope the Minister will have the nerve to amend his bill and to listen to his people, who really want that decentralization. Finally, I wish to thank once again the constituents of Lac-Saint-Jean who showed confidence in one of their young people. I can say that I will always be there to represent my riding, which I consider as one of the most beautiful in Quebec.

[An hon. member]

Hurray for Lac-Saint-Jean!