Debates of April 18th, 1996

Department Of Human Resources Development Act

[Roger Simmons, Liberal, Burin—St. George's, NL]

Do not change the issue. I want to focus onthis one.

That stereotype is thrown at me from time to time. The truth is there are more native born Newfoundlanders living outside Newfoundland today than living in Newfoundland. There are 579,000 people in Newfoundland and there are over 700,000 Newfoundlanders living outside Newfoundland.

They have left Newfoundland, almost without exception, to chase jobs. They are good workers. They have good work ethics. We find them on the CP tracks in Saskatchewan or on the tar sands project in Fort McMurray in great numbers.

There are thousands of them working on the Great Lakes. In my constituency alone there are more than 8,000 Newfoundlanders who sail the Great Lakes six to eight months a year. They go home for a week or a month to stay with their families and then they return to their work. They work in the forestry industry in Nova Scotia. They make up a disproportionately large percentage of the Canadian Armed Forces. Newfoundlanders have gone elsewhere because that is where the work is. I have digressed to make a point.

I was talking about some of the concerns I have with the employment insurance legislation. One has to do with the intensity rule. Another has to do with the method of determining benefits, the so-called divisor method. I have made my views known to the appropriate people, including those on the committee.

Eligibility rules for new entrants is another concern.

Another concern is the clawback after $39,000. I have said to both the minister and to members of the committee we have to be careful that in applying that clawback we do not unwittingly introduce a disincentive. If time allowed I would give the House a few examples. However, if members look closely at the proposal they will find that the clawback, as laudable as it seems at the moment, has a disincentive built into it. There are circumstances where it is worth the person's while, in strict financial terms, to sit at home rather than to earn too much money because by so doing they would adversely affect their level of benefits down the road.

I had another concern about the hearings which are concluding today. As far as Newfoundland is concerned, it is the province with the highest rate of unemployment in all of Canada. Yet when the all-party committee decided to call witnesses it called only three from Newfoundland. What is more, all three witnesses were business people. They were from the St. John's Board of Trade and those kinds of groups. They have their point of view, but it is the point of view of the employer. If we are to have an equitable employment insurance scheme when this is all over we ought to have the input of not only the employer but the employee.

In the case of Newfoundland, the committee was to hear three witnesses from the employer side and not a single witness from the worker side. That was changed at the last minute, not completely to my satisfaction, but at least we got the Newfoundland and Labrador

Federation of Labour on the list at the last minute. The decision was made to hear that group this week. There ought to have been others to provide more of a balance.

In fairness to my colleagues on the committee from all parties, I understand that in general if we look at the mix of witnesses who have appeared before the committee from across the country there has been a balance of both worker and employer representation. As far as Newfoundland is concerned, that balance was not reflected. I put that on the record.

I digressed a bit, but nevertheless I wanted to speak generally on the issue of this bill and one of the current active files of the new department, the employment insurance proposal.

I thought I would give my friend the opportunity to speak.

[Darrel Stinson, Reform, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

No, I was listening to you.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

I might be able to provide an opportunity for that member to speak at a later time.

[Roger Simmons, Liberal, Burin—St. George's, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I assure my friend from Okanagan-Shuswap and all other hon. members there is complete harmony between overall government priorities and the priorities of the new Department of Human Resources Development.

As the government made abundantly clear in the throne speech, the policies of the government are aimed at fostering a healthy economic climate, and we are beginning to see some signs of that. Look at the indicators, interest rates, foreign exchange, the trade balance and so on. I think we are on the right road but we are not there yet.

[Darrel Stinson, Reform, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Bankruptcies.

[Roger Simmons, Liberal, Burin—St. George's, NL]

The member wants to talk about bankruptcies. Nobody takes any comfort in the alarmingly high number of personal and corporate bankruptcies in the country. He might want to look at a correlation between the number of personal bankruptcies and the applications of right wing policies. The two go hand in hand. We cannot in one breath decry the number of bankruptcies and in the next keep saying "sock it to them, sock it to them". The two are related.

I remember from grade seven a delightful poem from the old beckoning trail of literature, that blue beckoning trail. It was called "The Big Rock Candy Mountains." The basic thesis of the poem was that everything was free. One of the lines was "prison walls were made of paper and cigarettes grew on trees". I think for the writer cigarettes were supposed to be a kind of morsel to be sought after. The context of the poem was that everything was free, you did not have to pay for anything at all.

My friend from Okanagan-Shuswap said get rid of the tax. Theoretically a government could get rid of all taxes. However, certain consequences would follow. We would not be able to pay the member's salary.

[Darrel Stinson, Reform, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

That would be fine with me. You would not get your pension. If we did not need government, that would be a beauty.

[Roger Simmons, Liberal, Burin—St. George's, NL]

Now is he upset. Now is he listening with his lips. He suddenly realizes that if we cut out all the taxes it might impact on him.

[Darrel Stinson, Reform, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

I would be able to do something useful.

[Roger Simmons, Liberal, Burin—St. George's, NL]

No party in the House, whatever its stripe and however loud its members yell, said if it were elected there would be no taxes.

[An hon. member]

Some said they would eliminate the GST.

[Roger Simmons, Liberal, Burin—St. George's, NL]

If they want, we can talk about some, including the leader of the Reform Party, who said one thing during the election and about three or four things since on the GST.

I have my other speech here. I wanted to give it the day the opposition had the motion on the GST but we ran out of time. I will give my GST speech at the right time. I will lay out how consistent the leader of the Reform Party has been on the subject of the GST. His basic speech goes like this: Get rid of it, keep it, get rid of it, keep it, get rid of it, keep it. That is basically what the gentleman who is the leader of the third party has said on that issue.

If they want to talk about GST, I believe Mr. Johnny Cochrane has something he would like to say.

[Darrel Stinson, Reform, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

That is the Liberal two step. We are all used to that.

[Jim Hart, Reform, Okanagan—Similkameen—Merritt, BC]

What did John Nunziata say?

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

Talk to the Speaker, not to the Reformers. He has nothing to say.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Colleagues, with the greatest of respect to all members in the Chamber, I would hope that the interventions would be made through the Chair. Of course the Chair by virtue of our rules can only recognize one speaker at a time.

In this case, in accordance with Standing Order 74 the first three speakers have 40 minutes without questions or comments. By unanimous consent, if you choose you can ask questions of the

member speaking. In the meantime if it goes on during the discourse of his speech obviously we will all have to question as to how much order we might have in this Chamber.

[Roger Simmons, Liberal, Burin—St. George's, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I might have missed something. I understood I had the right to refer to other members of the House. Each time I have done so, I have done it in the third person by their riding name. If the member for Berthier-Montcalm, our very own Johnny Cochrane, has any problems with that he should rise on a point of order.

If my colleagues from the Reform want to interject, and I am not objecting to it, I understand that is within the spirit of debate in this House. If I need the protection of the Chair from the member for Berthier-Montcalm I should be the first to beg for it, but I did not think I was out of order. If I did not refer to the Chair when I should have, I apologize, but I thought in all cases I referred to the Chair in the third person.

If the Chair gets waylaid by Johnny Cochrane, that is the Chair's problem, not mine. In any event I will try and do it another way.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

It is obviously not my purpose nor my role to engage in debate. I assure you I will defend the interests of the Chair if it should ever be required on behalf of each and every member of the House. This is not a point that is related to any specific member. I am just in a very general way asking for the co-operation of all the members in the Chamber to make their interventions through the Chair and not directly across the floor to one another.

[Roger Simmons, Liberal, Burin—St. George's, NL]

My comment was not directly aimed at the Chair either. It was just to say, Sir, that I thought I was doing exactly that and I asked the Chair if I had strayed somewhere to let me know where it was.

I was trying to assure all the hon. members, the agitated ones and otherwise, that the government and the new department are in complete harmony, as John Crosbie used to say, cheek to cheek, jowl to jowl on this one in terms of the mandate of the government as a whole, its overall priority and the priority of the new department. The throne speech made that clear. I was then digressing in talking about how the economy is in slightly healthier shape than it has been and it is moving along. It is not there yet, but it is moving along.

When I began to talk about how good things were beginning to get, that made my friends in the Reform Party a little nervous and they decided to throw, as we would say in Newfoundland, a red herring into the process and started talking about the GST and that kind of thing. At that point I pointed out to the member that if we cut out all those taxes we could not pay his salary. That is when he had the tantrum and that is where we were when we had the procedural interruptions. Now we can go on from there.

I have a speech. I am on page eight of the speech. I have not read the first seven yet but I am on page eight.

I want to tell the Reform member that page eight begins as follows: "That too is HRDC's number one priority". We have to go back to page seven to find out what "that too" refers to. Aha, "fostering a healthy climate", where I came in just a minute ago. That is clearly HRDC's number one priority. Let him debate that. It is that and maintaining a strong social security system for all Canadians. These are the two priorities of this new department: the healthy economic situation which translates into jobs, jobs, jobs and maintaining a strong social security system for Canadians.

To fulfil those two objectives, the new department is continually developing policies and programs designed to reduce poverty and to help unemployed workers return to the labour force as quickly as possible.

By making the development of all human resources the responsibility of one department, it facilitates an integrated, co-ordinated approach to help Canadians achieve their full potential. It also provides a structure for the Government of Canada to work with its provincial and territorial partners, its partners in business and labour, its partners in the educational institutions and its partners in the community.

HRDC is bringing together the very strands of our social programs to ensure that they meet the needs of individual Canadians and the nation as a whole. Social policy is about investing in people, helping people develop their skills, helping them enjoy rewarding lives and becoming contributing members of their respective communities. Nowhere does HRDC emphasize that policy more than with our youth.

We all recall that creating hope and opportunity for young Canadian men and women was one of the key goals singled out in the speech from the throne. Youth unemployment, Canadians under 25, is around 16 per cent, which is just more than one and one-half times the national average.

I am sure every member of this House will agree that Canadian youth are the nation's greatest resource. They need and deserve our assistance to complete their education and attain that crucial first job. That reason alone justifies creating the Department of Human Resources Development.

HRD is responsible for administering youth services Canada, youth internship Canada, the student summer job action program and the Canada student loans program. I trust that hon. members can clearly see the key roles the department plays in the lives of young people across the country.

By amalgamating all the programs that address human resources, by providing a single, coherent mandate, the government is clarifying the identity and responsibilities of the new department. This is extremely important for the morale of the depart-

ment's employees and more important for the confidence of its clients across the country.

Through further consolidation of social and labour market programs, HRDC will sharpen the government's focus on developing Canada's human resources. Part of that can be seen in the department's responsibility for the reform of the unemployment insurance program. UI is being renewed to address 1990s realities through both income support and active employment measures.

As I was saying earlier, that reform is long overdue. I support the overall thrust of that reform of unemployment insurance. I have said earlier in my speech today that I have certain concerns about particular aspects: the claw back, the intensity, the divisor and the entrance requirements particularly for new entrants. These are matters that have been canvassed pretty fully with the new Minister of Human Resources Development, my friend from New Brunswick, and also with members of the standing committee which will report very soon. We will then have an opportunity to see what amendments are going to be made to the proposal.

Based on my conversations with the minister and members of the standing committee, I am confident the concerns which I and others have raised on this issue have been heard and are being dealt with. I think we will see that reflected in the report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development. The net result is we will have a considerably improved employment insurance scheme over that which was tabled in December by the former minister.

Canadians need and deserve the best possible services from their government which is the crux of Bill C-11. Canadians will get those services through many HRDC initiatives, not the least of which will be the department's new service delivery network. At the heart of the new network will be about 300 human resources centres, now known as Canada Employment Centres, spread strategically across the country. The centres will provide a broad cross-section of client services.

The establishment of Human Resources Development Canada is absolutely necessary if the government is to fulfil its mandate of generating economic growth, job creation and protecting social security programs.

I can only repeat what I said at the beginning that Bill C-11 is essentially an administrative bill. There is nothing earth shattering here. There are no new mandates being asked for, given or taken back. The bill does not deal with substantive issues of reform but with consequential issues arising from the efficient merger of various departments and programs. For that reason I encourage members to support passage of the legislation which would enable HRDC and the government to get on with the task of better serving Canadians.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, despite all of the government's denials and its repetitive tune that it is only a technical bill to establish a department, Bill C-96 in fact broadens the federal government's constitutionally recognized powers.

Bill C-96 broadens the powers assumed by the federal government through its power to spend. For the first time, what the government did in fact do is spelled out on each line of the bill as well as between the lines.

In fact, by establishing this new Department of Human Resources Development, the government eloquently confirms its takeover of the responsibilities and powers that originally lay at the core of provincial accountability under the Canadian Constitution. This core of provincial accountability was undermined only by exceptions that should have been enshrined in the Constitution, be it pensions or unemployment insurance.

Once its foot was in the door, the government threw the door wide open and, through its ever growing spending powers, invaded the place. That is what Bill C-11 is all about.

This bill clearly expresses the centralizing will of a federal government that tries to pass itself off as the chief strategist on human resources development in Canada. It would take over the management, in the broad sense of the word, of the vast area of human resources development.

In a transformed Canada, we can understand the other provinces agreeing to different constitutional arrangements. The problem is that, for Quebec, these arrangements are totally unacceptable; we cannot in any way agree to the wording of Bill C-11 without going against all the constitutional debates that have kept so many generations of Quebecers awake at night.

We respect the fact that the other provinces and the federal government may make different arrangements. Quebec, however, cannot in any way agree to let the federal government assume full control over the area of human resources development, which, in a broad sense, touches on all aspects of social life, including training, youth-as my colleague across the way just pointed out-seniors, children, women, the unemployed and the people with jobs. The fact that it had been made very clear, in an award of the Privy Council for instance, that labour relations comes under the jurisdiction of the provinces did not stop the government from interfering to an extent that considerably exceeded its powers in an area which is the very heart of labour relations, addressing issues such as the hours of work and work week reduction in a study it recently commissioned.

Again, we have no problem with the other provinces looking to make other arrangements, but Quebec, through its deliberating bodies and institutions, unanimously rejected this bill.

Had Kim Campbell, who was the Prime Minister of Canada for a short time, not amalgamated under the same umbrella several social-oriented departments, the federal government would not be in the situation it is today. Probably preparing to launch the kind of reform the Liberal government is carrying out now, former Prime Minister Campbell had acted according to her senior officials' recommendations. I take it that they are the ones who develop policy, because the government has changed but policy has remained the same.

After the former Prime Minister merged several departments, the Liberal government, instead of straightening things out, started where the Conservatives had left off when they were voted out of office, very shortly after the merger took place. It is important to mention this connection.

By merging different departments, none of which had originally been given the powers set out in this act, which was only supposed to make them into one department, the government had the means to carry out its proposed social reform, now abandoned I guess, but whose few aspects that did get implemented certainly hint at the direction the government is taking and will continue to follow.

It is a good idea to read over the main clauses, which caused all the organizations and institutions concerned in Quebec to object. Clause 6 reads as follows:

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.

It is understandable that a country may have a problem with the provinces claiming that they have such powers when the central government claims to have the same powers. This is a mess that clearly shows how inefficient Canada is in these areas as compared to other other countries.

This next clause speaks volumes:

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 agreements with a province-

But does it stop there? No. Earlier bills did provide that the minister could enter into agreements with a province. This makes sense.

However, it goes on to say "or a group of provinces". This too makes sense, but again it should be possible for a province that pulls out get compensation for the funds that it would otherwise be denied. As you can see, this is the stuff of constitutional debates. And I read on: "agencies of provinces, financial institutions and such other persons or bodies as the Minister considers appropriate".

This clause is far reaching. It indicates the government's firm intention to exercise the power to plan, organize, and control, in other words to manage the human resources development in Canada.

I will read another clause, which complements this one, before moving on to the consequences.

The Commission shall exercise such powers and perform such duties and functions

(a) in relation to unemployment insurance, employment services and the development and utilization of labour market resources, as are required by the Minister or by or pursuant to an Act of Parliament;

Apart from the twisted French, which talks about maximizing human means-as opposed to inhuman means, perhaps-there is much twisting of the Cconstitution.

(b) in relation to other matters, as are required by order of the Governor in Council or by or pursuant to an Act of Parliament.

In short, the unemployment commission can get any power it wants besides those included in its original constituent act, because it is being changed.

With this bill, the federal government will have the means to pursue a centralizing policy, in spite of the soothing remarks made, among others, by the youngest and newest minister, recently sent to the House in a byelection, the member for Saint-Laurent-Cartierville.

Reading the description of the main elements of this bill, one can understand why Quebec institutions, agencies, and bodies are very strongly opposed to this measure. It was to be expected.

On the union front, for instance, a communiqué issued by Henri Massé, the secretary-general of the Quebec federation of labour, reads as follows: "We do not want Ottawa to interfere any longer in this issue or to ignore us in setting parallel structures. Quebec has set up its own preferred partnership structure in that sector, the Société québécoise de développement de la main-d'oeuvre. There is a broad consensus to the effect that Quebec must have sole responsibility over work force adaptation and vocational training policies on its territory, and must consequently patriate the federal budgets allocated to these programs. Even the Conseil du patronat agrees with the unions".

A release from the Canadian Institute of Adult Education reads as follows: "With this bill, the federal government shows a blatant lack of respect for the aspirations of the provinces, particularly those of Quebec in the fields of education and manpower training and development. Indeed, clauses 6 and 20 of the bill-the ones I quoted-leave absolutely no doubt as to the centralizing intentions of the federal government in these sectors".

The Société québécoise de développement de la main-d'oeuvre, which includes all the major partners in Quebec, also strongly condemned this bill.

This is not the first time that the central government attempts to set up a structure in that sector that is similar to the one put in place by Quebec. The federalist Liberal government of Robert Bourassa, through its manpower minister, Mr. Bourbeau, corresponded with Mr. Valcourt who, at the time, wanted to reach various groups and organizations through such a network by awarding lucrative contracts, in an attempt to invade Quebec's jurisdiction.

Mr. Bourbeau who, as I said, is a federalist, strongly opposed such an idea. He said, in 1991: "Quebec does indeed recognize the crying need for it to define its own manpower policies, to establish its priorities with respect to manpower development in close conjunction with its partners in the labour market, and then to set up programs tailored to the needs it has set as priorities and to manage them through an agency that would call for input from those partners".

Mr. Bourbeau continues: "Already, Mrs. McDougall-who was Mr. Valcourt's predecessor-would have liked the Government of Quebec to negotiate an agreement with the federal government, in line with the Canadian labour force development strategy. Personally, I have asked that bilateral negotiations be conducted, in the hope that they would lead to an administrative arrangement under which the federal government would have transferred to Quebec the budgets that it normally allocates to manpower programs, including the moneys taken from the unemployment insurance fund, which come from the contributions of employers and workers". Mr. Bourbeau is referring to correspondence that was exchanged before 1991. What did Mrs. McDougall answer? Barbara McDougall indicated that the federal government was linking Quebec's claims with what? With the constitutional review process.

This exchange of correspondence forms the very substance of Bill C-11. The current federal government, instead of respecting Quebec's will, is proceeding unilaterally like none of the previous governments had dared to.

They indeed followed in the steps of the Conservatives, but they did even worse, like in many areas such as in the reform of social programs.

Further on, what does Mr. Bourbeau say about the groups, organizations or persons with whom the central government wanted to enter into agreements? He says this: "I understand now that the employment and immigration commission has decided not to follow up on the agreements I had made with the previous holder of the employment and immigration portfolio. Indeed, your commission is offering to so-called co-ordination groups grants for all kinds of projects directly or indirectly related to manpower training. Those co-ordination groups are employer associations, community groups, chambers of commerce, economic development organizations, educational institutions."

He adds: "These projects are questionable. These initiatives, contrary to the commitments made, contribute to creating new groups or to expanding the mandate of existing groups". And he concludes: "This is doing indirectly what the government had made a commitment not to do directly".

He adds further on: "All objective observers find that Canada and Quebec are falling disturbingly behind compared with our main competitors". That was in 1991; we are now in 1996, and the Liberal federal government, instead of dealing with the problem and solving it, keeps on procrastinating, even after the referendum where, short of 52,000 votes only, Quebec did not achieve sovereignty.

The general outcry in Quebec, far from being surprising, is the result of a historical movement that cannot be stopped. However, how did the human resources development committee react to these pressures from Quebec? Let me give you an example. I asked that major institutions, major representatives of Quebec be heard on this issue. The committee refused. What groups were these? The Société québécoise de développement de la main-d'oeuvre, which includes representatives of the business sector, unions, citizens' committees, municipalities and government. The Canadian Institute of Adult Education was another. The Quebec employment development minister also asked to appear before the committee, and labour organizations, the Association des manufacturiers du Québec, the Fédération des professeurs d'université, the Mouvement Desjardins, among others, have made the same request. The committee refused.

At the second reading stage, I moved an amendment in the House which said this: "That all words following the word 'That' be deleted and replaced with the following: 'this House declines to give second reading to Bill C-96, an act to establish the Department of Human Resources Development and to amend and repeal certain related acts, because the principle of the bill includes no provision requiring the minister, as part of that person's powers, to award full and entire financial compensation to any province wishing to exercise, fully and alone, jurisdiction over human resources development"'.

Had the government been willing to send a positive message in the aftermath of the referendum, it was easy to do so. It could have recognized in this bill the right to opt out in this matter which is constitutional in nature as I have demonstrated.

The new throne speech, the one delivered on February 27, does not leave any doubt about the intent of the government. What does the Prime Minister say in the throne speech? "The government will not use its spending power to create new shared-cost programs in areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction without the consent of a majority of the provinces". Any new program will be designed so that non-participating provinces will be compensated, provided they establish equivalent or comparable initiatives in a provincial area of jurisdiction". Is that what the so-called spirit of decentralization of this central government is all about?

Given the way this bill was drafted and designed, it cannot be effectively amended, since it deals with constitutional issues, except through the amendment that we put forward at second reading and that was negatived by a majority in the House.

We are dealing here with an area of exclusive provincial jurisdiction, but the government flatly refuses to recognize this exclusive jurisdiction. It is turning its spending power into a legal and legislative power in order to interfere without considering the rights of the provinces. Nowhere in the various acts establishing the former departments that were consolidated was the right of the central government to reach agreements with stakeholders other than the provinces recognized. There is something in the vocational training legislation, but the government only undertakes to consult the provinces, nothing more.

That augurs ill. Despite its expressed will to recognize the right of the provinces, the federal government is giving itself a lot of leeway in the bill concerning unemployment insurance reform, except in one very narrow area, that is the vocational training field, which is already under Quebec's jurisdiction.

Time and time again, we have had some very troubling discussions in this House, where the Prime Minister himself, after showing some openness where labour training and adjustment are concerned, changed his mind. He very clearly stated on several occasions that Canada would not eliminate the so-called proactive measures, such as the labour adjustment measures.

It was only during a scrum, after several days of heated exchanges in this House, that, recognizingd the consensus in Quebec, the Minister of Human Resources Development asked to reopen negotiations. But what he had said before did not leave us with much hope.

I would add that, as it is, the bill gives the government the power to do as it pleases in the provinces' jurisdiction with the money collected from workers and businesses and, in some cases, with everybody's money. It will be up to the government to decide if there is an agreement, as we all deeply wish, but also to decide for how long and in what specific area the agreement will apply.

In view of all other areas covered by the name of this Department of Human Resources Development and of the way the clauses are formulated, the central government will be able to interfere in these areas on account of its spending power.

This has not been often stated in this House, but the spending power is not entrenched in the Constitution. I still have to use this word. While the efficiency of this program could be ensured in Quebec through coordination and management, control and planning by our own institutions and maximizing scarce resources, the funds are not used in the most efficient way because, at least in Quebec, the central government insists on being the one to plan, organize, manage and control.

Indeed, the government can say that it will sign contracts with this group, this organization or that person. The government is the one to decide the terms of the contract. This is a most efficient and rigorous way of setting national standards. The government will decide which needy group will get some money, regardless of the strategy, priorities and conditions set by Quebec. This is nonsense.

I read earlier a letter from 1991 referring to discussions with Mrs. McDougall that go back well before that date. As you can see, Quebec is not moving forward but backwards, because, in 1991, Mr. Valcourt did not dare to go ahead in spite of Quebec's opposition. He did not dare ignore the agreement in place.

Unfortunately, we must face the fact that Canadian federalism, since its inception, has always developed in the same direction, that of centralization. Again, it is quite possible and understandable, and we have nothing against it, that the other provinces and the central government decide to do things differently. If the other provinces do not care about what is in the Constitution, as long as they find the agreements adequate, it is fine by us.

I often noticed that the other provinces do not feel threatened by the central government. For instance, they did not feel threatened when the government passed Bill C-28 in 1994. I am sure that this legislation can be challenged under the Constitution because it enables the central government to designate those who will set out the conditions for granting scholarships to students. This has very substantial implications on the type of students that will enrol in

colleges and universities, i.e. those who can afford to study. It is a very serious issue for the provinces, but they did not protest.

The right of withdrawal became much more stringent, new conditions were added to it; the Bloc Quebecois objected to these conditions, but the provinces did not protest. That the central government or a financial institution can designate those who will set out the conditions that the students will have to meet in order to get a scholarship, I can respect that, but in Quebec, it cannot work this way.

In this bill, there was an historical recognition of Quebec's right to opt out with compensation. This right is nowhere to be seen in the bill. In Bill C-96, the government gives itself the power to decide alone how the Department of Human Resources will use the money. With the groups, there is no condition, no consultation. The government decides.

We are even a long way from the situation at the beginning of the 1960s. I have done so already, but I will read one more time the conclusions of a document presented by René Lévesque at the January 1966 federal-provincial conference on poverty. I will go over it rapidly in conclusion.

Here is what it said: "The establishment of a real economic and social development policy is now urgent. This policy must be integrated, flexible in its application and provide for a social security system centered on the family and based on the right to assistance suited to the needs. For efficiency and constitutional reasons, the Government of Quebec is the only one which can and should, within its territory, conceive and implement such a policy. Consequently, Quebec cannot accept that the Government of Canada assume this responsibility. Quebec does not, however, exclude interprovincial cooperation and mutual consultation".

Mr. Lévesque went on to say: "The economic and social development policy that we are developing will integrate a social policy, a regional development policy, a manpower policy, a health policy, a housing policy, a job training policy", and we could say a human resources development policy. "All these policies have not been described in this document, but it is important to indicate in these conclusions that we intend to use them all as a means of meeting our objectives.

"This comprehensive policy will not necessarily be in line, in its spirit and its application, with one the Government of Canada might opt for, but it will not necessarily go against it. However, the advantages that the people of Quebec will get from this policy will at least be equal, for efficiency and constitutional reasons, to those other Canadians might enjoy".

We have gone back a very long way from this statement of principle and from this description of a plan by a federalist provincial government. We have gone back a very long way. Bill C-11 is totally unacceptable, it cannot be amended, and that is why, besides wishing that a new referendum on Quebec sovereignty be held soon, I propose this morning an amendment to the motion for third reading to have the bill withdrawn and the subject matter referred to a committee.

I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word "That" and substituting the following:

"Bill C-11, An Act to establish the Department of Human Resources Development and to amend and repeal certain related Acts, be not now read a third time but that the Order be discharged, the Bill withdrawn and the subject-matter thereof referred to the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development."

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Maybe the hon. member for Mercier could give some clarification.

[Francine Lalonde, Bloc, Mercier, QC]

Yes, I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I have not checked if she is still here, but the member for Laval-Centre and I had agreed that she would second my motion, with the agreement of the member for Lotbinière.

[Jan Brown, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to speak to the amended motion. I have looked forward to this opportunity for some time because what we are looking at is the last piece of enabling legislation for the House to consider.

Certainly after two years and some months of being in the House, it could not be more timely. Also of interest, it is the last piece of legislation to implement what I call the Kim Campbell cabinet.

I oppose the bill for a number of reasons and I will list them. It gives to the federal government powers to circumvent the provinces when establishing programs and initiatives through HRD.

I oppose the cheap partisan reason for the creation of the ministry of labour and I oppose the way the government is attempting to hide information from Canadians by eliminating the provision to create an annual report for the department.

I will spend some time speaking to the specifics. As I mentioned, my colleagues and I have legitimate and valid concerns about the legislation. In particular, there is an area of the bill which we believe provides the federal government with new powers to enter into agreements with agencies, groups or agents and allows the federal government to entertain these co-operative agreements without first having approached the provincial governments.

We have all heard the Minister of Human Resources Development naysay that challenge. We believe that simply put the bill gives the government the opportunity to circumvent the provinces

when delivering social programs or any of the services relevant to the Department of Human Resources Development.

This kind of federal power grab runs contrary to the contemporary federal trend toward decentralization. We have spent many hours in the House in debate and in question period discussing that very point. Remember that the Liberal government promised Canadians during the Quebec referendum campaign that among other things it would move to greater decentralization. There has been zero movement on this front.

In this bill there is a marvellous example of a federal attempt to nationalize powers that did not exist before. This is a very old approach to government. This is the Trudeau approach. It is an approach which began just after the second world war, one which does not suit the needs of people in Canada today.

First year students in Canadian politics learn that Canada has a rigid constitution. It is rigid in the sense that constitutional amendments are not easily made. As is well known, it was extremely difficult to amend the British North America Act. We need not remind anyone that amending the Constitution has not been made any easier by the Canadian Constitution Act, as events since 1982 have so clearly demonstrated.

Amending procedures were not spelled out in the BNA. The result is that we had precious few constitutional amendments between 1867 and 1982. It will also be recalled that the BNA sought to establish a highly centralized union but that various judicial interpretations made it a more decentralized union. In addition, the Fathers of Confederation felt that in turning over responsibility for education, health and social welfare to the provinces they were dealing with jurisdictions that were not important and local in character. It also explains why Ottawa's power of taxation far exceeds its constitutional responsibilities.

The Fathers of Confederation gave the federal government power to raise moneys by "any mode or system of taxation". It is important to bear in mind the role of government in 1867 was highly limited.

The Rowell-Sirois commission pointed out: "The principal functions of the state followed the prescriptions of Adam Smith. Government was thought to have met its purpose when it provided for adequate defence, the enforcement of the general law for the administration of justice and the maintenance of a few essential public works".

In addition, Canadian society in 1867 was still largely a pioneer in rural society. Accordingly, it had clearly an individualistic outlook and a reliance on the family as the unit of mutual welfare.

The Great Depression would change all of that. Franklin D. Roosevelt's new deal would lead the way for governments in western industrialized countries to intervene to soften the sting of economic misfortune. Lord Keynes, a noted Cambridge economist, was quick to provide the intellectual underpinnings for government intervention in the economy to mitigate the lows in economic cycles.

In brief, Keynesian logic provided a basis for counter-cyclical budgeting. It also provided a basis for government programs and measures to stabilize the economy, to promote economic development and full employment. It suggested that with latent demand and no limit in factors of production, governments could actually create the long sought after prosperous and rational societies desired.

Keynesian economics also legitimized government deficits and in time governments would spend more, tax more and borrow more, a great deal more. Does this not sound an awful lot like the fiscal policies of today's Liberal government?

It is this Keynesianism gone wild that causes the Minister of Human Resources Development and his bureaucrats to propose clauses like the ones in this bill that instead of allowing the provinces to manage their own affairs, allows the federal government to grab more power.

The Keynesian revolution captured the Department of Finance in Canada as it did the treasuries of other western countries. Canadians emerged from the second world war determined never to permit another depression of the kind witnessed in the 1930s.

In addition, by war's end, Canadians held a strong belief in the ability of government to intervene and manage the economy. Canadians had learned during the war that governments were able in moments of crisis and when moved by an all consuming goal to lead the country to high levels of economic activity and employment.

Not only did the allies win the war, but governments had managed the war economy well. Unemployment had fallen to zero, yet prices had been held down. Given this, no one was surprised when the Government of Canada presented a major policy paper to Parliament toward the end of the war which was Keynesian in outlook. It said: "The government will be prepared in periods where unemployment threatens to incur deficits and increases in the national debt resulting from its employment and income policy. In periods of buoyant employment and income, budget plans will call for surpluses".

However the expected severe post-war economic downturn did not materialize and the measure that the federal government had prepared proved unnecessary. Still, Ottawa became convinced that it possessed a new arsenal of economic policy to achieve high unemployment and more generally to manage the national economy.

At the risk of stating the obvious, Keynesian economics looks to the national economy and to promoting balance in economic cycles when formulating policy prescriptions and to the national government as the key economic factor. The important point here is that Keynesian economics has a strong centralization bias. It looks to national fiscal policies, national industrial strategies and to national programs to develop the national economy. In short, Roosevelt and Keynesian economics would turn national governments loose on national economies.

Convinced that it had found the holy grail of economic policy, it had only to look to what other more western industrialized countries were doing to confirm their findings. Ottawa nevertheless recognized that it did not have the necessary jurisdictions to manage the national economy and to promote the positive state. The findings of the Rowell-Sirois royal commission had told it as much when it began to table its findings in 1940.

Ottawa also was all too well aware that given the inherent rigidity of the written Constitution, it could not count on constitutional amendments to give life to the welfare state. In addition, in the rare instances when it was able to secure a constitutional amendment, it only served to create shared jurisdictions.

For example, the 1951 amendment to the BNA which gave Ottawa authority to establish the old age security program made pensions a matter of shared federal-provincial jurisdiction. I will not even begin to comment on old age security, which we know as OAS, because as we all know the Liberals ostensibly killed it despite their campaign promises to the contrary.

This bill allows the government to grab more powers in keeping with the Keynesian principles I have already explained within a historical context.

The rigidity of the Constitution led the federal government to find ways to circumvent its provisions and to develop new mechanisms to implement a new economic order. The federal government would identify for itself a role in many areas of provincial responsibility through extensive use of its spending power. In time a whole edifice of federal-provincial programs in areas of provincial jurisdiction was put in place although such programs remain unmentioned in our written Constitution.

The clauses in this bill with which we are concerned will provide the federal government the opportunity to create joint programs with municipalities. This constitutional breach has been circumvented. Ironically municipalities are not even constitutionally recognized entities. These are big questions to ask and to answer.

The written Constitution in the end appears to matter little to federal policy makers. Ottawa in the post-war period attracted some of the best and the brightest determined to build a modern, positive state. Fuelled by tax money from a rapidly expanding post-war economy and convinced that only the federal government could put into practice the lessons learned from Keynesian economics, Ottawa promoted a new constitutional doctrine which ignored the written Constitution.

Donald Smiley, one of Canada's leading constitutional scholars, explained: "According to the constitutional doctrine that came to prevail, the central government might legally spend revenues as it chose, even on matters within the jurisdiction of the provinces, and could at its discretion fix the circumstances under which a potential recipient might receive the federal largesse".

Bill C-11 allows the federal government to enter into agreements now with agencies and municipalities. The reason for this is so the federal government can continue to dole out that largesse and take credit for it. It is simple to understand. The federal government is reducing transfers to the provinces and as a result it is losing its clout, its ability to dictate how the money is spent. Therefore, it is losing its ability to buy votes by proclaiming how it is giving out the dole at the provincial level.

However, the Liberal need to buy votes through empty rhetoric and equally empty promises remains just as strong today as it ever was. In order to be able to buy those votes the federal government is now compelled to deal directly with agencies and municipalities.

The federal government did not wait long after World War II to introduce measures in the areas of health care and social policy. Within 20 years it would put in place a wide array of federal-provincial measures ranging from old age pensions to the establishment of a national health care program. In time the federal government would introduce its own programs and carve out for itself a powerful role and presence in virtually every sector in the economy.

When it opted for conditional grants it essentially intervened in provincial fields on its own terms. In the end it was able to carve out a role for itself in the provision of welfare assistance, in assisting the unemployed, in post-secondary education, in medicare, in energy, in industrial development, in economic development and so on.

The desire and ability of the federal government to intervene in areas of provincial jurisdiction did not wane in the 1970s. In the early 1970s the federal Department of Regional Economic Expansion introduced a new approach to economic development. In doing so, Ottawa signed a series of general development agreements, known as GDAs, with the provinces.

The GDAs were enabling documents in that they cleared the way for the federal government to support whatever measures were regarded appropriate to local, provincial and regional economic circumstances. It is not an exaggeration to suggest that the GDA approach essentially tossed aside our written Constitution to enable

government to support whatever it felt was necessary to promote economic development.

A cursory look at the activities sponsored by the GDAs and their replacement agreements reveal an incredible array of measures and initiatives. No economic sector was considered off limits.

One corollary of this blurring of the constitutional lines is to confuse not just at the government level but more important at the level of the citizenry exactly which level of government is responsible for which service. The clauses in this bill which give new and greater powers to the provinces do nothing to redirect the constitutional blurring of the jurisdictional lines. In fact it only contributes to more blurring as now we can add another layer of government to the confusion.

As well, it has also given rise to overlap and duplication in government programs and to a costly government overhead. Try counting the number of units in the federal government sporting the labels of liaison, co-ordination, federal-provincial relations and intergovernmental relations, to describe what they do. Now we will have to add yet another level to this red tape insanity.

Countless meetings are held every month to administer federal-provincial programs and agreements. We should bear in mind that Ottawa spends over $20 billion a year to pay federal public servants and to provide them with office space and other administrative arrangements. I can only imagine just how much more money this bill will end up costing Canadian taxpayers as it adds another layer to that already overburdened bureaucracy.

My colleague from Mission-Coquitlam moved an amendment to redress the offending clauses to which I have been referring. She moved an amendment that before the federal government enters directly into agreements with agencies or municipalities of a province that it first consult with and receive the approval of the lieutenant governor of the province in question.

The amendment was reasonable. It would still have allowed the federal government to enter into such agreements, even though of course we oppose them, but it would only have then required that the federal government inform the provinces of the actions about to be undertaken. However, the Liberals needed so badly to implement their vote buying clause that they refused to entertain this reasonable amendment.

I used to think that we were here in the House to work together. However, cynical partisan moves like that cause me to be circumspect. They cause me to believe that the Liberals are not really here for the betterment of our country. They are really only here to maintain the status quo, to hold onto power at all costs, even if it means willingly and knowingly doing the wrong thing and implementing vote buying policies just as those in this bill.

I have great concerns that Bill C-11 will go another step down the road to giving the federal government greater powers, despite what it says. Not only will it create overlap and duplication, it will probably cost us billions of dollars all for the sake of buying Liberal votes.

Speaking of buying Liberal votes, that brings me to my second concern over this bill, which is the creation of the Ministry of Labour. This bill finally enables the last of the Kim Campbell cabinet departments.

In 1993 when the Prime Minister named his cabinet he did not name a minister for labour. Not a single Liberal complained then that such a position was necessary. Why was that? Because the job can be accomplished within the Department of Human Resources Development. We do not need an expensive portfolio for an issue that can be covered by other ministers. For almost two years the Liberals agreed with us on this point. Why did they change their minds? What caused the epiphany?

When the Liberals took power in 1993 they did not see a need for this individual or the assignment of this ministry. We did not hear a peep from anybody. However the Prime Minister changed his mind in February 1995. In order to entice the so-called star candidate from Quebec to run in a Quebec byelection, the Prime Minister promised her a new cabinet seat if she agreed to run. She agreed and they created the Ministry of Labour for her.

Let us face facts. The Liberals only created the job to satisfy their partisan backroom interests. Their focus was not labour; it was about their own job creation formula to entice a so-called star candidate.

During report stage on Bill C-11 we heard a lot of sanctimonious talk from the Liberals. They pretended to be the friends of labour. We know the truth, do we not?

The Reform Party has nothing to learn from the federal Liberal Party when it comes to labour relations and how to treat people. Our policies clearly state that we recognize the right of workers to organize unions, to strike peacefully and to carry out the business of collective bargaining.

The Liberals cancelled the federal public service workforce adjustment directive. I wonder how many Liberals campaigned on a promise to fire 45,000 public service workers. How many of them were honest enough to tell their constituents that as part of their job, job, job program they meant to fire 45,000 civil servants? I wonder how many of these Liberals campaigned on a promise to allow collective bargaining except, of course, when there is a strike in the port system. They were all very quick to force labour back to work, were they not?

I wonder how many in the labour movement know that the Liberal Minister of Human Resources Development refuses to meet with the head of the Canadian Labour Congress. Over and over again in committee there have been complaints regarding this very action, or lack of action, on the part of the minister. This is what Liberals mean about being open to the concerns of Canadians. They refuse to even meet with labour leaders.

Also how many on that side of the House campaigned for quota based employment equity legislation like the kind they rammed through the House? The Liberal record speaks for itself. When it comes to labour issues, this government should be ashamed.

The Reform Party has clearly and honestly established its position regarding the existence of the job of Minister of Labour. Reform favours smaller, less expensive government that effectively provides services for Canadians where they cannot provide for themselves. To this end we believe that labour issues should be managed by the Department of Human Resources Development. As the Liberals first believed in 1993 there is no need for this position. The difference is that Reform is consistent on labour issues. Our Liberal colleagues appear not to be. They have flip-flopped all over the place on labour issues.

My final disagreement with Bill C-11 pertains to the fact that the government is trying to hide from Canadians both its performance and its future plans. It is doing this by eliminating the requirement for the production of an annual report. Indeed, this is really quite alarming when it is taken at face value. Colleagues on the other side of the House will say that it is just because they are really trying to reduce costs but this is a matter of financial accountability and certainly in terms of performance standards in any corporate sector would be an obvious expectation from a board of directors.

We had proposed an amendment that would require the Minister of Human Resources Development to table an annual report to the House. Typically the Liberals rejected this proposal. Anything that appears to promote open and honest government they oppose.

Bill C-11 as presented does not require an annual report to be made from the department. I am concerned that this may be just another way for the government to withhold information from the House of Commons and the people of Canada. I believe it should be mandatory for all government departments to publish annual reports and for the purpose of accountability they should be placed before Parliament.

As part of the new program review, the federal government is changing the production of the estimates. It suggests that in a few years it will make the estimates more user friendly, whatever that means, and that more useful and practical information will be included in the estimates. The government suggests that annual reports are so general that they border on being useless.

Every bill that has been introduced to create a new department has had the annual report component deleted. The government has deleted the requirement for the production of departmental annual reports. Our amendment would have required the government to continue producing that annual report component for each of those departments.

We are sceptical of the process for improving the estimates. At minimum, until such improvements have been made, annual reports should be continued. Until the estimates are improved, the lack of annual reports will result in the Canadian public receiving less information from government. In effect the Liberals are trying to hide, at least it appears, information from Canadians about the workings of their government.

We all know that the red book promises more open government. This is open government? No more annual reports is open government? I do not think so.

Reform exists to change government. Liberals had an opportunity to demonstrate to Canadians that they were willing to open up government and to allow Canadians greater access to all information regarding how it operates. It should not be a secret. What is the government trying to hide? It had the chance to open itself up to greater public scrutiny and it chose to hide.

It is taxpayer money that the Liberals are spending, my money and yours, Mr. Speaker. Canadians should know how and where their money is going.

The government, by opposing our amendment, proved to Canadians that it does not give the appearance of caring about accountability or openness. I ask the question again: What is the government trying to hide? Is this just another way for the Liberals to address their dismal failure on the deficit fight? They will not make public or even produce an annual report for this department, one of the largest spenders in the government.

This department is huge. Canadians, thanks to the Liberals, will not be able to keep track of its developments. The government says its estimates will be improved but it also said it would scrap the GST, and we know where we are at with that right now. Who are we to believe? Is this a case of what we do not know will not hurt us? Maybe that is why the government did not mention the debt in the budget speech. Ignore it and perhaps everyone else will too.

The Liberals should talk about it. They should admit that they have been responsible for the growth of the debt since 1968 and honestly attack the debt problem. We are seeing no action.

I insist that we need an annual report for this department. I believe with the inclusion of the amendments the Reform Party suggested, Bill C-11 would be a much better bill. The amendments would make the department more forward thinking in its approach to problems and certainly more accountable.

If the Reform amendments had been approved and passed in the House we could have supported this bill. However, we have attempted to improve the bill and yet again the government has resisted.

Given that the government has clearly made a substantial new power grab in this bill and given that it refused even to listen to Reform's reasoned compromise, we cannot support it.

[The Deputy Speaker]

That concludes the first stage of the debate.

We will now proceed to the next stage of debate where members will be entitled to 20-minute speeches, subject to 10 minutes of questions or comments.

[Brenda Chamberlain, Liberal, Guelph—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-11, the act to establish the Department of Human Resources Development.

This legislation is part of the overall efforts of this Liberal government to get government right, to reduce program overlap and to control costs.

The government prides itself in not forgetting the human element in all that it does. I find it important that the first word in the new department is in fact "human". Guelph-Wellington is a community where people care for one another. We are strong because volunteers and other caregivers reach out to assist those in need, the vulnerable, the aged and the many people in our community who need a hand during a difficult time.

We are fortunate to have such organizations as Block Parents, Change Now, Seniors Peer Advisory, Stepping Stone and Wyndham House that provide assistance, information, life skills and, most important, a smile for people in times of crisis.

The dedicated staff and volunteers of these and hundreds of other organizations in my community want government to assist them as they assist others. They want us to improve efficiency. This legislation brings together parts of several former departments in order to focus on human resource programs.

Portions of employment and immigration, health and welfare, secretary of state and labour have been gathered together in order to focus on employment and income security matters. By focusing, the government can offer one coherent approach to the fundamental issues of dealing with Canadians in need. That really is what governments need to be about.

Guelph-Wellington uses its resources to build the greatest community in Canada. Therefore I am pleased that the second word in this new department is "resources". We often speak of natural resources, wood, coal, water and minerals, when we describe our country.

The government knows that its greatest resource is its people. The central question for the government has been, how do it use the resources to better serve the Canadian people? All around the country, individual Canadians as well as private industry, have had to reorganize in order to provide service in a different way. Canadians must be encouraged to think differently about how government relates to them. That does not mean that inadequate or poor service should be offered to the taxpayer.

The people who rely on the government for pensions, income support programs, unemployment insurance and labour market and employment information deserve the best service that they can get. However, the deficit crisis means that services must be provided differently.

One of the more unique ways is the new service delivery network. This includes conventional offices, electronic information kiosks, on-line services and community partnerships. This new information service will also offer two-way communication with clients across Canada. Its goal is to reduce costs, something the Reform Party should be pleased about, and to improve and expand client access, again, something I would hope all parties would be pleased about. The new service delivery network, like the Department of Human Resources Development, is using its resources to better serve all Canadians.

The final word in the department is perhaps its most interesting "development". We are talking here about many of the social programs that were developed by Liberal governments.

Whether it was the first Department of Labour established in 1900, the first Veterans Pension Act in 1919, Old Age Pensions Act in 1927, Unemployment Insurance Act in 1940, Family Allowance Act in 1944, universal pensions in 1952, the Canada pension plan and medicare in 1966, or the Canada Health Act in 1984, Liberals have had a long and important tradition of developing programs that provide assistance to Canadians.

This is nothing new. This is what Liberalism is. This is what Liberals stand for in this House today. Liberals have always had to fight off the naysayers, just as I hear from the Reform Party right now, who reject efforts to help each other through difficult times, to

provide extra assistance in raising families, in our senior years or when we are sick.

Let us not forget, especially as there are members in the House of Commons today who want to take away these programs, that it was the social support programs that have made Canada the greatest nation on the earth. The opposition parties, in particular, should always remember that it was by the development of programs like unemployment insurance and universal pensions that Canada is respected in every single corner of the world.

Liberals know we have to continue to develop resources, to provide better service to Canadians. Like many service based agencies in Guelph-Wellington, we are learning on a daily basis to do with less.

Regrettably, that sometimes means busy signals and longer waits. I am proud that the local Guelph Canada Employment Centre offers and provides good service to the people of my community. Its downtown location offers a central place for clients who require service from the federal government. I am proud because the most important element of any human resource provided by government is service. In this legislation, a department has been created that reduces administrative expenses while improving services.

My constituents would be unhappy if I opposed this legislation. I would be curious to see if, like so many times before, Reformers, the self-proclaimed protectors of taxpayer dollars, will oppose the legislation.

Liberals cannot listen to those who say it cannot be done. It was heard in 1900 when the labour department was created and it was heard again in 1940 when unemployment insurance was created. In 1984 we heard again that it could not be done when we created the Canada Health Act. The ghosts of the naysayers are alive and well in the House today and they have found a home on the Reform benches.

It is time to exorcise those ghosts, time to stand with the Liberals and build a department that does not forget the human element and uses resources to their full advantage and develops on all of the great programs of the past. We must use the past to build the future.

I remind the House of the important issues before us. The people of Guelph-Wellington want us to create jobs and stimulate economic growth. They want us to co-operate with other levels of government and the private sector to build practical solutions for their benefit and for the benefit of all children.

The people of Guelph-Wellington are interested in this from the federal government. They have told me to get on with building the country, create jobs and growth and invest in the Canadian people.

The reorganized Department of Human Resources Development is giving Canadians innovative, cost effective programs and services. Once again we will rise to vote on this legislation. We will be asked to vote for legislation which builds on successes of the past and which helps create new successes. It helps us to go ahead.

I challenge the opposition parties to let go of the status quo. Do not be defenders of what has gone by and has not worked. Abandon the narrow political view of Canada they hold and stop holding on to the old way of doing this.

This legislation deserves the support of every member in the House of Commons today.