Mac Harb

[Fur Industry, November 24th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, we are quite concerned about this issue. Thousands and thousands of people depend on trapping for their survival.

I take this opportunity to congratulate Canada's aboriginal community which worked extremely hard with our government, as well as with governments in Europe, to ensure that our position is well known to Europeans and others abroad.

I assure the member that whatever we do on this issue is going to be in the best interests of the aboriginal people and the best interests of the Canadian industry.

[Fur Industry, November 24th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, we are aware that we have one year within which to work out the proposition. We are quite encouraged by the European Union decision to grant us the extra year. We are going to work with the industry, the provinces and all of the interested parties. We hope to be able to come up with what is believed to be a proposition which is in the best interests of everybody, including the people who are benefiting from trapping in Canada.

[Department Of Human Resources Development Act, November 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-96 does not in any way alter present federal and provincial powers. No matter how you look at the situation, there is absolutely no intrusion in spheres of provincial jurisdiction. This is forbidden by the bill itself.

The time has definitely come for all levels of government-federal, provincial, municipal-to rise above all jurisdictional quarrels and to start finding solutions for working together, pooling their resources and helping the people they serve.

The Bloc would prefer to see us do nothing. On November 9, the member for Mercier served up a fine piece of jargon about jurisdictional issues. Perhaps she might like to come back down to earth and talk to us instead about the people concerned.

Perhaps she might talk to the millions of Quebecers who each year turn to the Department of Human Resources Development for help, to let them know which of them will be abandoned and unable to take advantage of the $ 13.3 billion we spend in their province every year.

Perhaps the Bloc ought to talk to the 164,000 Quebec men and women we helped to find a job last year, to let them know "We will not be helping you any longer". Perhaps the Bloc members could let us know which of the 44,789 students who found summer employment last summer we ought not to have helped.

Perhaps they could tell some 700,000 Quebecers that the federal government ought not to have spent close to three billion dollars for the social aid program they depend upon to live.

Perhaps the Bloc could explain jurisdictional issues to the half million unemployment insurance recipients there are in Quebec every month.

Perhaps they could tell us which of the 400,000 Quebecers who benefit from our employment programs and services we should abandon.

Perhaps they could explain to the 850,000 Quebec seniors why they should not receive their Canada pension plan and old age security benefits.

Perhaps they could explain to Quebecers why the federal government should not invest $1.5 billion in their postsecondary education system.

While some members worry about the imaginary threat of federal power grabs, the Department of Human Resources Development is doing the work it has to do, with Quebecers and the Quebec government. Bloc members say we should not do anything, to avoid encroaching on provincial jurisdiction. I, however, say that, in the name of change, we should find ways of doing a better job.

It is not by erecting walls that we will do a better job. We need a better philosophy. We need the type of philosophy articulated by the minister when he talked about the need to empower the community and the people to make more choices.

What was the hon. member for Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup's answer? No. People should not be empowered to make more choices. This is not the Bloc's philosophy. We need the kind of philosophy articulated by the minister when he talked about new partnerships between the government and the private sector,

between the government and the school boards, between the government and the provinces.

What was the hon. member for Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup's answer? "No, we do not want to work together to bring about changes". The hon. members for Mercier and Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup made much of the fact that Bill C-96 allows us to conclude agreements with Quebec organizations for implementing our programs and delivering our services.

HRDC already has thousands of contracts and agreements with a myriad of Quebec organizations, including agreements with the Quebec government that are important to those people trying to return to the labour force. The existing legislation already allows us to negotiate such agreements. In 1994-95 alone, HRDC signed over 50,000 labour agreements in Quebec, representing a total of $695 million in funding for programs and income support. This bill simply renews these agreements. Nothing has changed.

Is the Bloc telling us that we should stop investing millions of dollars to help laid-off workers, as we are now doing under the program for older worker adjustment? We could not do so without the power to enter into agreements with financial institutions and to buy the pension plans these workers need.

Does the Bloc mean to say that we should stop building new partnerships in Quebec, partnerships that help reduce duplication and overlap and improve service delivery to Quebecers? Because we would be unable to establish partnerships if we no longer had the means of ensuring their smooth running.

Let there be no mistake about it, the partnerships we enter into are indeed effective, and the basic concept of flexible federalism which supports these partnerships is also effective. Think about the many current agreements between HRDC and Quebec, including the interim Canada-Quebec agreement on certain manpower development initiatives, the welfare recipient accord implementation agreement, the Canada-Quebec agreement on employment in the agricultural sector and the agreement on the global transfer of funds to Quebec under the Canadian Student Loans Program, just to name a few.

These master agreements are effective and they have a decisive impact on the lives of thousands of Quebecers.

I submit that we should consolidate these partnerships, further decentralize powers and let Quebecers decide what programs and services are best suited to their needs.

Labour market programs and services are already amongst the most highly decentralized federal measures. They are implemented through a very wide network of local centres that have gained a reputation for reliability and co-operation within the communities they serve.

The government is currently decentralizing by delegating decision making authority back to the regions, all the way down to the local level, where it should rest. Over the past year, we have been leaders and made tremendous progress in this area. We completely redesigned the way the Department of Human Resources Development operates within communities in Quebec and across Canada.

The federal government also undertook to work together with the provinces to afford Canadian maximum flexibility with respect to services. Take for instance the Canada social transfer for health and social programs, which is to replace the Canada assistance plan. The purpose of the social transfer is to help provinces provide the social services and benefits of their choice, which they cannot do at present because of inflexible rules.

Obviously, this is good news. We are making real progress on the road to co-operation, while also preserving our integrity. We are making real progress by putting stable social programs in the hands of Quebecers.

Bill C-96 is about the pursuit of these achievements. It will allow us to continue to work together, to define the roles of the various levels of government, and to create links between them.

These initiatives are certainly better than the alleged usurpations of authority. It is high time we started creating links that will bring us closer together.

This is why we officially asked the Government of Quebec, as well as those of the other provinces, to co-operate with us to decentralize services. Several provinces have already joined us to discuss ways to define our respective roles and promote more effective co-operation. Consequently, I urge all members of the House to encourage Quebec to join us to meet that challenge.

The motion from the Bloc Quebecois is certainly not a constructive move to bring about the type of changes that we all want. Rather, it is yet another obstacle on the way to the future.

What purpose would be served if the House did not go ahead with Bill C-96? None at all. It would not help the Bloc Quebecois to proceed with the type of changes it claims to be seeking. It would not help Canadians to get the services which they expect and which they need.

It would only force the Department of Human Resources Development to continue to work in isolation, outside the simple and consistent framework provided by the bill. It would only maintain the administrative burden resulting from the lack of enabling legislation, since even the simplest operations, such as a transfer of personnel, can trigger a complex, long and costly process.

We can certainly do better than that.

It goes without saying that co-operation is better than confrontation, discord and separation. We have to recognize that, at a time when we are trying to make the best of the resources of federalism, in which Quebecers have put their faith.

Co-operation is better than living in the past, as we are trying to redefine the role of partners which must be fulfilled by governments, that is being partners with individuals and communities, but also partners among themselves.

Such is the philosophy, the vision underlying the establishment of the new Department of Human Resources Development.

Bill C-96 is the foundation of that department. With the approval and support of this House, we will pass this legislation and carry on our work.

[National Child Day, November 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, today is National Child Day, a day when we celebrate our children, a day of happiness, a day when every child should wear a smile.

Children are our future. As a society we must do everything we can to ensure their happiness and their ability to lead full and productive lives. Childhood is a most critical stage of life. It is during this period that we must provide proper nutrition, good health care, complete education and above all encouragement and guidance to our children.

I invite my colleagues to join with me in celebrating our kids and our future at the Cherish the Children Gala tonight at 7 p.m. in Room 200, West Block, here on Parliament Hill.

Also, join with me in wishing all those who are born on this day a very happy birthday.

[Referendum Campaign, October 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc leader seems to be having increasing difficulty in keeping secrets.

In the last two days the leader of the separatists has imprudently let out several secrets which were supposed to have been kept well hidden until after the referendum.

The negotiator on the PQ payroll has no intention of trying to preserve citizenship and the Canadian passport after a yes victory. What he wants is clear: a Quebec passport.

The day after a yes vote, he will be able to guarantee only one thing: Quebec will be a separate country. He wants nothing to do with any proposition aimed at renewing federalism.

Ten days away from the referendum, Quebecers are suddenly discovering what is behind the separatist plan: they want nothing less than to provoke the disintegration of our country. On October 30, the answer they will receive will be no.

[Petitions, October 16th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to table a petition pursuant to Standing Order 36 signed by many people in the Ottawa area and having to do with euthanasia.

[Employment Equity Act, October 3rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to express our reservations concerning the amendment presented by my colleague. Like my colleagues I do, however, appreciate what my colleague and his party, the Bloc Quebecois, are attempting to do with a view to improving Bill C-64.

Examining the motion, I find it goes a bit too far. Its intentions are probably honourable, but if we look at it in detail, the amendment is not practical. What is being proposed in this amendment is to create a prerequisite that both groups, employers and employees, establish equity plans.

This proposed change to the legislation would create a requirement for employer and employee representatives to implement and revise employment equity plans jointly.

I can appreciate that my colleagues believe it is essential to have labour input for the planning and application of employment equity in the workplace. I assure them that within the existing legislation provisions have been made to ensure there will be consultation and collaboration between the parties in the preparation, implementation and revisions of companies' employment equity plans.

The bill was amended by the standing committee as a result of input from the Bloc Quebecois. It was the previous speaker who encouraged the committee to include this provision.

Clause 15 of Bill C-64 acknowledges that collaboration between management and labour is necessary if changes sought by employment equity are to come about. It signals that success in achieving an employment equity workforce requires the active collaboration of labour and employers to eliminate artificial barriers to members of the designated groups. However, we must not confuse representation with responsibility. Collaboration is not co-management for very good reasons.

If implemented this amendment could seriously compromise the prerogatives of management to implement employment equity at the work site as it sees fit.

The employer must have the final say over the way employment equity affects the workplace because it is ultimately the employer who is legally responsible for the act's implementation. Only management is accountable for meeting the obligations set out in this legislation. It would be patently unfair to impose that responsibility on management if it was forced to share all decision making with its employee representatives.

There are several other good reasons why this motion must be defeated. Among them is the fact that the proposed amendment would only preserve the co-management limitations for the initial preparation of an employment equity plan. This provision would be removed for the implementation and revision phases of the employment equity plans. Further and perhaps of greatest consequence, the amendment could lead to a requirement for negotiation between labour and management rather than a consultation.

I can assure the House that we are not prepared to see employment equity used as a bargaining chip in contract talks and negotiations. A bargaining agent might refuse to co-operate, perhaps motivated by reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with the goals of employment equity and thereby bring the implementation of a workplace plan to a halt. We will not have this critical piece of legislation compromised by the vagaries of union-management talks in negotiations.

Another important consideration is that employment equity is an integral part of human resources management. Company after company testified before the Standing Committee on Human Rights and the Status of Disabled Persons and told us what an important tool employment equity has become in their overall business plans.

The sort of regime proposed by the Bloc Quebecois might provide unions with an opportunity to exercise direct influence in areas that remain the sole prerogatives of management, such as recruitment.

I have several other fundamental problems with this motion, which is obviously very flawed. Let us look at the reality that the collaboration requirement cannot be the subject of a direction by the human rights commission or an order by a tribunal. Clearly a true spirit of co-operation has to come about spontaneously. It cannot be forced or coerced.

Aside from that, there is the fact that the primary reason the government decided against making this collaboration the subject of a direction or order is that there is no provision in the act for a tribunal to make orders against a bargaining agent. Collaboration requires two parties working together. It would be discriminatory

to enforce this provision against only one of those parties, that is, the employer. It is worth noting that the proposed amendment will also reduce the consultation requirement that exists in Bill C-64.

In the amendment there no longer has to be consultation about the implementation or revision of an employment equity plan. That consultation requirement can be the subject of a direction by the commission or an order by a tribunal. I must say I find it surprising that the Bloc would recommend deleting these crucial provisions and replacing them with weaker provisions that cannot be the subject of a direction or order.

For these reasons, it simply does not make sense to seriously entertain this motion. The government is satisfied with the clause the way it now stands as amended in committee.

Again I want to thank the Bloc for its contribution in committee in this regard. I believe our willingness to accommodate the Bloc's concerns is testament to the goodwill we see in this House. But we must not be tempted by good intentions to push the process too far. To go further is inadvisable.

Our approach to this issue is not arbitrary nor is our amendment despotic. It is simply realistic. Management has the final responsibility for all employer obligations under the bill and will be answerable to the Canadian Human Rights Commission if the obligations are not met. Therefore final decision making must continue to belong to management.

I trust that this explanation satisfies the House that this motion must be rejected. I urge my colleagues to do precisely that.

[Employment Equity Act, October 3rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to show how Canada is a leader when it comes to employment equity.

Bill C-64 is a made in Canada legislative measure which meets the specific needs of the workplace in our country.

I am proud to say that our government does not follow the American trend of criticizing employment equity. We should not be overly influenced by what goes on south of the border, since many problems arising American law do not occur in Canada.

Given our history, our constitution and our social context, we do not do things the way the Americans do. I should add that the progress made so far tells us that we often make the right decisions.

Let me offer this brief overview of the Employment Equity Act, an act that is unique in the world. It is distinctly Canadian.

Our legislation is firmly grounded in this country's Constitution. In Canada every individual has the right to equality before and under the law, and equal protection and benefit of the law.

As we have said in the red book, the Liberal Party plan for Canada, we want a country where we all see ourselves as contributors and participants, not liabilities and dependants. We are committed to a Canada characterized by integrity, compassion and competence.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms recognizes that special consideration and the accommodation of differences are necessary to realize true equality under the law. Different treatment is not a departure from equality. It is essential however to achieve it.

The Grand Chief of the Assembly of First Nations, Ovide Mercredi, explained it well when he told the Standing Committee on Human Rights and Status of Disabled Persons: "I think sometimes people, white people in particular, forget that this is their society and it is not easy for others to get into it".

This legislation is designed precisely to build bridges between potential and opportunity.

In Canada, employment equity is proactive and positive. It is intended to prevent discrimination. It is designed to eliminate obstacles to employment for disadvantaged Canadians, through intelligent management of human resources making it easier for the new labour force of the 21st century to enter the job market.

Our legislation encourages consultation between employers and workers to find solutions for problems arising at the workplace.

Our approach is based on conciliation rather than use of the courts, because this is the Canadian approach. The aim of the federal government is to educate and help employers by creating

employment opportunities enjoyed by all members of the labour force for members of designated groups.

Another central feature of our system is our firm belief in flexible targets businesses can reasonably achieve. In both our original Employment Equity Act and in the current bill to replace it we have purposely sought the views of employers, unions and members of the designated groups.

We have listened and learned, recognizing we must strike the right balance, ensuring the law will not solve one set of problems for employees by creating another problem for employers.

That is why Bill C-64 has been specifically designed to minimize the regulatory burden. It also makes programs more cost effective and enforcement measures much more efficient.

The bonus for Canadian companies is when everyone's best interests are served there is a direct improvement to the bottom line.

In fact, employment equity is not hard to sell. According to the Business Council of British Columbia in its testimony before the standing committee studying Bill C-64, the four designated groups make up 60 per cent of Canada's population. As employment equity programs are implemented, it went on to say, the labour force will better reflect the diversity of the Canadian people with all the social and economic advantages this comprises. Our experience with employment equity proves that, when a solution is practical for business and protects human dignity, everyone benefits.

Employment equity helps fill the gaps in our economic development and therefore it strengthens our economy as a whole.

The newspapers are full of stories about business executives extolling the virtues of employment equity. For example, Dan Branda, chief executive officer of Hewlett-Packard Canada told a Globe and Mail reporter that diversity:

-is an absolute business imperative because it gives us the edge in attracting the best and the brightest people. It positions us as an employer of choice and will help us in competing in a market that is becoming increasing diverse and global.

The chief executive officer of the Canadian Occidental Petroleum, Bernard Isautier said:

Diversity is a source of competitive advantage. Canada is a country with a respect for differences, for different cultures, for different opinions and respect in general for the individual. That makes Canadians particularly well received when they deal with foreign countries. I think Canada should capitalize more on these capacities.

No one would agree more than the young woman who is able to pursue a career in the trades, the young aboriginal student who sees his post-secondary studies lead to full employment in industry, the Asian engineer who is able to use her skills to improve production processes to make a firm more competitive or the disabled adult who gains financial and social independence, enjoying the dignity and security that comes with a salary.

This legislation is a recommitment of the government to equality for all Canadians. With Bill C-64 we are continuing our tradition of international leadership in the area of employment equity, while choosing to lead rather than be led. In these changing times, assuming our responsibility is making the most of the opportunities that change represents. In the process, we are creating a more united nation and building a more innovative economy.

Most of all, we are putting into practice the very values that make each of us so proud to be a Canadian: fairness, justice and equality for all.

[Petitions, September 29th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to table a petition signed by a constituent who is looking for some money to table a report on the environment, economic and social problems.

[World Summit For Children, September 29th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, today marks the fifth anniversary of the World Summit for Children. Under the leadership of Canada, 70 nations pledged that by the year 2000 they would eliminate illiteracy, reduce malnutrition by half and provide universal access to clean water around the world.

This year UNICEF reports that as a result of the summit four million children in the third world will not only survive but will become full productive members of society. However more needs to be done since 13 million children are still likely to die each year for lack of basic health care and safe water.

I rise today to salute the excellent work of Results Canada which continues to promote the summit ideals. As a government we must continue to step up our efforts to ensure that the basic needs of all children worldwide are met by the year 2000.