Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-96, a bill which talks of partnership, of collaboration between the federal and provincial governments, of the need to develop our greatest asset, human resources.
I know firsthand from my constituents in Saint-Denis that we must develop efficiently this important resource in order to meet the challenges facing Canada in the 21st century.
Questions have been raised about the powers granted to the minister in this bill, specifically with respect to clause 6, which sets out the mandate of the department. They suggest that somehow this clause allows the federal government to intrude on matters of provincial jurisdiction. I find myself puzzled by some of those questions. I wonder if we are all reading from the same bill or do some members opposite have their own private version that they would like to share with us.
In my copy of the bill, clause 6 has a very important and I think very clear phrase that puts definite limits on the minister's powers. It limits those powers to "matters over which Parliament has jurisdiction". What part of that phrase is unclear?
By some kind of hocus-pocus, members opposite read that phrase and it comes out "matters over which the provinces have jurisdiction". That is just plain nonsense. It is not what the bill says. It says just the opposite.
In fact, Bill C-96 does not affect federal and provincial powers in any way. It does not give the minister any extra powers or undermine those he already has. All the powers now granted to the minister under the law will remain the same.
Bill C-96 does not create any new programs or bring any substantial changes to those that already exist. All programs and services in effect the day before this bill is passed will remain the same.
There is no ambiguity in this. There is no doubt whatsoever. Whichever way you look at it, this bill does not grant any new powers. This encroachment exists only in the fertile imagination of those who would like to see such an encroachment.
Perhaps some members would be more comfortable if clause 6 spelled out in laborious detail all of the specific programs offered by the government. That is certainly an option but it is an option the government decided would be ill-advised and counterproductive.
We are dealing with a very large department and with a wide range of programs and services. Enumerating all of those programs point by point would take pages and in the end nothing very positive would be accomplished.
The whole direction of the department, of the government, of governments at all levels and indeed most business organizations is to stay flexible and ready for change. At a time when flexibility,
streamlining and efficiency are so important, it makes sense to set out the responsibilities of the department in a better way. That is what clause 6 does. It sets out the basic objectives of the department: enhancing employment, encouraging equality and promoting social security. These objectives are very clear. They are very important and are within the jurisdiction of this Parliament.
The people who use our programs every day, whether they are in Newfoundland, Quebec, Manitoba or British Columbia, do not want the federal government to shirk its responsibilities. I trust that no one in the House is suggesting that we do so.
At the same time, we all recognize that there is room for more productive partnerships between all levels of government. We recognize the need to clarify roles and responsibilities in labour market development. That is why we have made it very clear that as we proceed with social security reform, as we put a new unemployment insurance program in place, as we develop a new human resource investment fund and the Canada health and social transfer, we are open to change.
We are willing to take a hard look at who is in the best position to deliver programs and services most efficiently. It may well prove that some programs managed now at the federal level can be better managed by others: the provinces, private sector partners or community groups.
The federal government wants to work with Quebec and all provinces with an open mind. We are really not interested in turf wars. We are interested in working with our partners in a constructive way to meet common goals and serve Canadians.
Let us consider the agreements already concluded between HRDC and Quebec: the interim Canada-Quebec agreement on certain manpower development measures; the agreement on the implementation of a deal affecting welfare recipients; the Canada-Quebec agreement on agricultural employment; the block funding granted Quebec under the Canada student loans program, to name but a few.
These umbrella agreements may not be perfect, but they work. They directly affect the lives of thousands of people in that province.
The whole thrust of HRDC activity is to strengthen those partnerships and to decentralize power away from the centre to the local level. Labour market programs and services are already among the most decentralized of all federal programs. We are decentralizing them even further with a new, modern service delivery network firmly rooted at the local level in communities across this country.
The federal government is also committed to working with the provinces to provide the most flexible services possible to Canadians.
For example, the Canada transfer for health and social programs will give Quebec another source of funding for measures such as the parental wage assistance program or PWA, which cannot be funded under the old system; the provincial sales tax rebate to welfare recipients, which does not come under the old system; a nutrition program for disadvantaged children, which cannot be funded under the old system either; as well as transportation services for handicapped people, without having to assess the needs as would be required under the old system.
Because clause 6 of Bill C-96 sets out the department's mandate in terms of general objectives rather than the minute details of existing programs, we will have this kind of flexibility. It provides a basis for a more efficient department and clears the way for continued evaluation and reform down the road.
Diverting the debate on this bill by inventing jurisdictional problems-by finding in clause 6 words that are obviously not there-is doing a disservice to thousands of Canadians across the country who benefit every day from the services provided by the Department of Human Resources Development.
It is doing a disservice to the million Quebecers throughout that province who rely on and use this department's services, to the people who come to our human resources and student employment centres, who register in our employment programs, who receive unemployment insurance, who benefit every day from the $14 million that HRDC spends in Quebec on an annual basis.
Canadians are entitled to the best possible services. They deserve the kind of integrated, focused, practical programs that HRDC is working to deliver, and Bill C-96 is important to that effort.
Let us not sacrifice good, productive service on the altar of rhetoric. In the end all levels of government are striving for the same goal: to help people find and keep good jobs. That is what is important. That is what we promised as a party and that is what we are delivering as a government.
I have numerous examples in my riding of programs that work. Young people who had no future, who had no hope for the future, are now in programs financed by the department. I have the
example of 13 young high school dropouts who are now in a program that is a collaborative effort of the federal government and the private sector. All 13 of them will have jobs the minute that program ends.
We need to consolidate the progress we have achieved in integrating social and labour market programs and sharpen the focus on developing Canada's human resources. More important, we need to clear the way for further progress as we launch the new employment insurance program, as we develop new programs and services under the human resource investment fund, as we work to improve programs for seniors, and as the department continues to re-engineer and streamline services to Canadians.
It is important to clear up the administrative tangles left over from earlier times. It is important to establish a clear identity and coherent mandate for the new organization to function properly. It is important to ensure that as the department looks to the future there is a solid foundation to build on. As I said earlier there are numerous programs by which we want to build a solid foundation for the young people of the country. For instance, the youth services program in my riding has helped a number of young people have hope for the future, as I said earlier.
Bill C-96 provides that foundation. We need to pass the bill and get on with the work of serving Canadians.
