Madam Speaker, there is considerable mischievousness going on here today. I want to correct a couple of flagrant errors.
The Prime Minister said in the House on a number of occasions that the pensions of seniors, those who have them now, would not be cut. He did indicate it may be necessary to look at the amount being contributed at this time for future pensioners.
For the Reform to suggest that is what the Liberals are doing, that is what the Prime Minister is doing, shows it has not been listening. It is unfortunate it would stoop to that. Reform members are trying to put their party and their leader in front of Canadians. That is what that kind of remark does. That is what it suggests.
It is not unlike the remarks made during the referendum campaign. I have here over 30 some quotes from newspapers throughout the country condemning their behaviour, indicating quite clearly they were playing politics. They were putting their party, their leader in front of Canada. I would be delighted to share those comments with them if necessary.
For that member to suggest pensioners will trust Reformers, Reform policy to protect them is really dreaming in technicolour. I doubt it very much.
With respect to the official opposition I shall try to prove the bill is an administrative bill. It is putting the pieces together so that the job can be done. It is the kind of bill that will still require co-operation and partnership, those very elements required in order to make Canada work.
There are no new powers in the bill. My colleagues in the official opposition know it.
Clause 20 of Bill C-96 raises concerns for the Government of Quebec as well as for certain members of this House. It is the one authorizing the minister to enter into agreements with provinces and financial or other institutions.
Some members are concerned more specifically that this clause gives the minister too broad a discretionary power for entering into agreements with local organizations, which might lead to encroachment on provincial areas of jurisdiction.
To clarify the situation, it might be worthwhile to examine the exact wording of clause 20. This clause states very clearly that these agreements are expressly intended to facilitate the carrying out of programs, and I quote, "-relating to the powers, duties and functions referred to in section 6-"
This clause sets out the mandate of the department and, let me repeat, without introducing new elements and without creating new powers. This is, obviously, what limits the discretionary powers which could be conferred upon the minister.
These powers are restricted by the very mandate of the department, which the bill clearly defines as restricted to all matters over which Parliament has jurisdiction. Moreover, it has been repeated on numerous occasions in this House that Bill C-96 assigns no new powers to the minister. The bill makes no change in federal areas of jurisdiction, no change whatsoever, nor in those of provincial governments. In this connection, the bill makes no change whatsoever in the present situation. Clause 20 does not, therefore, in any way authorize the minister to encroach upon areas of provincial jurisdiction. Is that clear, now?
The purpose of clause 20 is very simple. It allows the department to sign contracts with other organizations, which is normal. The department could not continue to function without that power. HRDC has signed hundreds of contracts and agreements with a broad range of Quebec groups, I might add, including agreements with the Government of Quebec, which are important to Quebec workers seeking to obtain training and get back into the work force.
The existing legislation already allows this, the bill merely picks these agreements up again. Nothing is changed. In 1994-95 alone, HRDC signed more than 50,000 contracts relating to manpower in Quebec, representing in all $695 million in program financing and income support.
These contracts break down as follows: 9,600 contracts with non-profit organizations; 9,300 contracts with businesses in the private sector; 2,800 contracts with public sector institutions such as municipalities; 3,200 contracts with the Government of Quebec and 25,000 contracts under the program for independent students, which provides income support for unemployed workers while they are receiving training.
I am sure that, all things considered, no one would suggest cancelling the agreements made possible under clause 20. Think of the consequences. It would mean the end of shared-cost agreements to help welfare recipients back on their feet. It would mean the end of funding for groups like the world famous Cirque du Soleil in Quebec City, which has carried out HRDC training and
job creation programs since 1987, programs that really make a difference in the lives of people who need help.
It would mean the end of our partnership with two Quebec government departments which support youth training and job search programs through the Relais des jeunes adultes du sud-ouest de Montréal. It would mean the end of our partnership with the Société québécoise de développement de la main-d'oeuvre, which helps new businesses get established through the Société d'aide au développement des collectivités de Sorel-Tracy Inc.
It would mean the end of our agreement with the SQDM to help workers affected by the closing of the Hyundai Plant in Bromont, last March. It would mean the end of our agreement with the local Human Resources Canada Centre and the Société de développement économique in Jonquière on the collection and exchange of labour market information. It would mean the end of agreements on one-stop services, like the agreement involving HRDC, the industrial commissioner and the Office de tourisme de Témiscamingue on providing services to promote industrial, rural and tourism development.
It would mean the end of the partnership in Gaspé between HRDC, the SQDM, the Fédération québécoise des rivières à saumon du Québec and other groups that are working on upgrading the skills of salmon fishing guides. It would mean the end of the Older Workers Adjustment Program, a federal-provincial agreement that provides $54 million in assistance to displaced workers in Quebec.
In fact, the Older Workers Adjustment Program is a prime example of why it is so important for the minister to be able to enter into agreements, not just with other governments but also with financial institutions, for instance.
Thanks to the Older Workers Adjustment Program, the federal government purchases annuities on behalf of older workers. During the past three years and up to now, we have spent more than $111 million on purchasing these annuities and have helped nearly 5,000 older workers to face the future with a measure of security.
We would not be able to continue this practice without clause 20, which simply gives us the power to keep helping these workers.
These agreements and thousands like them in communities in all Canadian provinces are what clause 20 is all about. We have no intention of using clause 20 to bypass the provinces or get involved in areas of provincial jurisdiction. No intention at all.
For example, clause 20 gives us the power to enter into agreements with financial institutions providing student loans under the Canada student loans program, which is bigger and more flexible. As it is clearly entitled to, the Quebec government chose to withdraw from this program in favour of block funding.
Clause 20 will preserve this kind of flexibility, which fully respects each province's powers and priorities.
The department's ability to conclude this kind of agreement will become even more important as the department continues to streamline operations and decentralize programs.
For example, the minister is testing various ways of ensuring local integration by establishing decision making and service development at the local level. We must move away from the highly centralized and compartmentalized programs imposed by the central administration and give local authorities a much greater latitude in making decisions. It is then easier to develop an integrated range of programs and services meeting the needs of the various communities.
This will be impossible if we cannot enter into agreements with the people and organizations with whom we must work. Impossible.
It would be impossible to build on the real progress we are making in integrating more effectively the federal government's resources with those of our partners. Local CRHCs are already learning to form more effective partnerships with schools, colleges, businesses, unions, and community organizations.
In fact, many programs are now designed to integrate public and private sector resources. For example, the department has created 16 sectoral councils to co-ordinate the management of human resources needs in the private sector. These councils now affect nearly 36 per cent of Canada's labour force, and many other councils are being created.
In each of these councils, both labour and management in a given industrial sector work together to develop a master plan with respect to their human resources needs. This co-operation constitutes the basis for some truly innovative partnerships. Under the internship program for example, sectorial councils developed training courses to allow young people to gain experience in areas as varied as electronics, horticulture, tourism and knowledge based industries.
In this partnership, businesses and unions set criteria and develop curricula together. Then, they make arrangements with local high school, community colleges and cégeps. In fact, they themselves give the hands-on portion so that the young people get an adequate mix of academic and practical training.
By integrating governmental and private sector resources this way, we end up with a more effective and efficient program. In fact, not only do our private sector partners manage the program, they also invest in it.
This kind of forward-looking initiative attracts a great deal of interest. Other countries are looking into possible scenarios to involve the private sector and local communities in developing internship programs.
Without clause 20 of Bill C-96, all these innovative initiatives would simply boil down to nothing because there would be no mechanism to govern all the administrative arrangements involved.
There is nothing catastrophic about clause 20. There is no need to read between the lines. Clause 20 is straightforward.
I know that some believe that it goes further, that it will give the minister the power to dismiss concerns expressed by provincial governments. The minister has already given these people the assurance that provincial governments will continue to be consulted, as they were in the past, about the kinds of agreements that HRDC will be making.
He even went as far as stating that he would not enter into any agreement without the prior consent of the appropriate provincial government, if that is what the province wants.
I do not know what more those who oppose clause 20 could ask for. Instead of trying to find in Bill C-96 examples of usurpation of power which simply do not exist, we should get on with the real tasks of creating partnerships, co-operating, and providing jobs to Canadians. This is indeed the purpose of Bill C-96 and clause 20.
We all know that co-operation between the federal and provincial governments could be improved in matters of labour, as well as in any other sector.
Federal-provincial agreements and partnerships would help find better ways to fulfil our respective mandates. There is no doubt about that. The issue must be carefully examined, and this is why the minister sent a direct invitation to the provinces to start discussing it.
However, if we really want these discussions to be productive, we must pass this bill now, in order to continue shaping a new department and a new era of flexible federalism.
We must pass Bill C-96 to continue providing effective services to all Canadians.
