Antoine Dubé

[Department Of Health Act, April 19th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in this debate on Bill C-18, given that I am a new member of the Standing Committee on Health. I have just come from the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development where, today, discussions were continuing on the bill establishing the Department of Human Resources Development. In my first speech on health, I have to recognize that the debate is of the same type.

Unfortunately, Quebecers' health care system is not entirely the product of political decisions and choices made in Quebec. The federal government has meddled in Quebec's affairs on a number of occasions. We must remember that the Constitution establishes health as a provincial matter.

To begin with, it should be remembered that the Quebec health care system existed long before the federal government intervened. The Government of Quebec set up the system and has always ensured its smooth operation. There are those who will claim that socialized health care was developed in Ottawa, but that is not the case.

The federal government simply passed the legislation justifying and providing the means for seizure of provincial jurisdictions. Every intrusion by the federal government through its legislation has brought a reaffirmation from the Quebec government of its control over and desire to exercise its jurisdiction over health care.

In 1987, Thomas Dupéré, of the Commission d'enquête sur les services de santé et les services sociaux du Québec, wrote that the implementation of federal programs had simply moved to the federal arena a debate which had begun at the provincial level and would have led to the same results in the same time span.

Intrusions started in 1943, when the Federal Department of Health established a national action plan on medicare. In 1945, it even proposed the implementation of a national program under full federal jurisdiction. And the federal government had the resources to realize its ambitions.

I have some difficulty concentrating on my speech because of the noise around me. Now, that is better.

So, from 1942 to 1947, Ottawa received more than $2 billion from Quebec which in return got only $100 million, in other words a pitance.

It is very clear that the federal government wanted to go even further in its determination to control and to give back to the provinces, not the tax powers they had before the war, but subsidies tied to the implementation of programs set up by the Government of Canada. That is what happened.

This was the beginning of a long centralization campaign by the federal government. In reaction, the provincial government of Quebec created its own income tax, Ottawa having refused to withdraw. Thus was born dual taxation from Quebec and Ottawa.

Successive Quebec premiers-among them Maurice Duplessis, with his famous slogan "Give us back our due", Jean Lesage and Daniel Johnson Senior-constantly tried to thwart this intrusion from the federal government and this seizure of some of the provincial financial powers.

This is how the federal government took upon itself the responsibility to finance, to some extent, the cost of health care and services. In so doing, it also grabbed the power to oversee the development and administration of the health care systems established by provincial governments.

Provinces wanted to improve their systems, but they had to organize and finance them at a time when they had just been stripped of some tax fields. As a result, they had to beg money from Ottawa. It is still the same today. The federal government may launch new ideas, but the provinces must find the money to fund them.

Let us turn to constitutional powers.

The federal government has violated the Constitution of Canada and still does so today. This is why the Prime Minister does not want to discuss the Constitution. He wants to proceed without discussing it.

However, the government itself admits that health and welfare are areas of provincial jurisdiction. Consequently, the ever growing federal structures and programs in these fields constitute a form of interference which periodically sours federal-provincial relations.

More precisely, the Constitution Act of 1867 gives the provinces complete authority in matters of health, and section 92.7 gives the provinces jurisdiction over the whole field of health and welfare. It is in the Constitution.

In order to bypass what was perfectly clear in the Constitution, the federal government invented a roundabout way to interfere and called it its spending power.

The federal government cannot interfere directly in areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction. So, it uses an indirect mechanism. It gives provincial governments grants with strings attached; the provinces must abide by certain conditions for fear of losing these contributions.

Instead of using its lawmaking power, the federal government uses its spending power in areas of provincial jurisdiction. In our opinion, it amounts to financial blackmail using our own tax money.

In addition to this manufactured power, the federal government is using some legislative powers which should be limited in scope. A case in point is legislation derived from the criminal law such as

the Food and Drugs Act, and the Narcotic Control Act. The government provides services to or pays for the medical expenses of specific clients such as military personnel, RCMP officers, inmates, natives, immigrants and refugees. The federal government tries to increase its responsibilities and to look important by passing legislation in all these minor areas.

Moreover, the federal government sometimes justifies its interference in areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction, invoking an ill-defined concept interpreted in a very broad sense, that of national interest.

Managing the Department of Health and all the small programs we described earlier which come under Ottawa's responsibility uses up only a small part of the budget, but constitutes the bulk of the administrative activities of the Department of Health. Without federal interference in areas of provincial jurisdiction, the department would be small and would only manage residual federal powers.

In fact, the largest part of federal expenditures is comprised of amounts paid to provinces through transfer programs. The federal government gives back with one hand part of what it took from provinces with the other. This is an example of very costly duplication which sustains the conflictual situation with the provinces and exists only because Ottawa is proud to be the one to sign the cheques. Meanwhile, there is less money for health.

Let us see how this money is distributed to the provinces. In theory, the Canada Health Act passed adopted in 1984 establishes the conditions for the allocation of federal grants in the health area. In fact though, these contributions are paid pursuant to the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and Federal Post-Secondary Education and Health Contributions Act, what we now call established programs financing. Transfers to provinces do not come from the health department's budget, they are made by the Department of Finance.

This creates a bizarre situation where the Department of Health establishes national objectives and standards that provinces must abide by if they want to receive transfer payments, but the finance minister is the one distributing the money and determining the amounts. That mechanism makes a financial issue out of one which concerns only federal-provincial arrangements in the health area. In reality, the health minister is virtually a minister without portfolio as for the majority of the federal health budget.

This splitting of authority between the establishment of standards and financing results in a lack of cohesion between the development of the health policy and its implementation. On the one hand, the health minister wants to impose higher standards and closely monitor their application, which results in cost increases for the provinces, and on the other, the finance minister wants to reduce his deficit at the expense of the provinces and thus is cutting payments.

In the Spring of 1995, the National Council of Welfare, an organization whose mandate is to advise the health minister, cautioned her to beware of such a situation by saying, and I quote: "It would be extremely hypocritical to reduce contributions to the provinces -while increasing the requirements they would have to meet".

Despite fiscal arrangements, the transfer act is a federal statute establishing payments to the provinces unilaterally and without any consultation. Since 1977, these amounts have either been reduced, frozen or de-indexed. Their evolution no longer follows the real costs of provincial programs. In that regard we can say the federal government has broken its commitment to health care.

For over 10 years, the federal government has paid lip service to health care while at the same time continuously reducing its spending in this area.

Through established programs financing or EPF, the federal government transfers money to the provinces for health care and post-secondary education. The amount given to the provinces through EPF is paid partly in cash and partly by transferring tax points from the federal government to the provinces.

In reality, the federal government only spends the amount in cash that is accounted for in budgetary expenditures. Under the tax point transfer, a portion of federal taxes goes to the provinces. This is a way for the government to give back to the provinces some of the taxation powers it took away from them in the 1940s. How generous.

As a result of repeated cuts, Quebec will soon stop receiving cash payments and have to make do with the tax points it already has. Paradoxically, the federal government will soon stop spending anything out of its own pocket but will continue to impose its own standards on Quebec.

Since it was put in place in 1977-78, EPF has led to a unilateral withdrawal on the part of the federal government. When EPF came into effect, federal spending on health care was based partly on the national average and partly on the provinces' actual expenditures and accounted for some 50 per cent of total health spending.

Contributions to EPF were based on spending during the 1975-76 reference year and indexed to the GNP average per capita in the three previous years. This clearly showed a commitment to

ensure a relatively stable increase in the federal government's contribution based on the growth of the Canadian economy.

Since 1986, the federal government has made repeated cuts to EPF for health care, thus weakening, then severing the agreed upon link between the increase in federal contributions and economic growth. In fact, Liberals have continued to reduce financing, a practice they had vigorously condemned when the Tories were in power.

In 1986, the federal government announced a 2 per cent reduction in the EPF indexing factor, which meant that health transfers would follow the increase in the GNP, less 2 per cent.

In 1989, the indexing factor was once again reduced by 1 per cent, which meant that health transfers would follow the increase in the GNP, less 3 per cent.

In 1990, per capita allocations were frozen for two years supposedly. While health costs kept rising, the federal government stopped factoring in inflation. The freeze imposed by the federal government did not stop people from falling ill. This is one area where magical thinking does not work.

In 1991, this so-called temporary freeze was extended until 1995. In 1995, the current government announced a new program, the Canada social transfer, which entailed further cuts totalling $4.5 billion over two years. There is no guarantee whatsoever that more cuts will not be made in the future.

As regards the calculation of the federal contribution, the National Council of Welfare had this to say in its spring 1995 report: "No formula is provided in the budget to calculate the amount payable. Based on recent events, the federal government should impose a formula or an arbitrary amount".

So, actual health care costs are not taken into account at all when calculating federal funding. The government only pays what it is willing to pay, depending on its mood and on the amount of its deficit. The national council was right in asking for a formula that would take into account the actual needs of people, instead of the best interests of the federal treasury.

As for the Canada social transfer announced in the 1995 budget and now in effect since April 1, the National Council of Welfare, which is a federal organization whose role is to give advice to the Minister of Health, said: "The main aspect of this financial tool is that federal funding for all these programs will undergo major cuts".

Prevention programs in the health sector will be the first ones to be cut by the provinces, in an effort to solve their immediate financial problems. In the long term, this will endanger the health of Canadians.

All these cuts have already had harmful consequences. It is estimated that, between 1982 and 1994, Quebec suffered a shortfall of $8 billion because of underindexing, freezes or cuts affecting federal contributions. This is a large amount. This shortfall is partly responsible for the increase in Quebec's debt and income taxes, since the province refused to reduce its health care budget at the expense of Quebecers' health.

The proportion of Quebec's health care expenditures paid with federal transfers went down from 45.9 per cent in 1977-78 to only 33.7 per cent in 1994-95, a 12.2 per cent drop. Even though the federal withdrawal triggered a tax increase at the provincial level, the central government still maintained the same taxation level.

According to a study conducted by the C.D. Howe Institute, while transfer payment expenditures levelled off between 1988 and 1992, spending related to the other federal programs increased by 25.5 per cent. Transfers to the provinces for the health sector thus absorbed part of the federal deficit. While the federal government was spending too much, it was telling the provinces to tighten their belts.

The federal government could have found and still could find the money it needs for the social programs by eliminating or reducing its expenditures and closing some tax loopholes. This would make for a fairer tax system and would help bring in more money to maintain and improve the services and to reduce the debt. However, the federal government does not dare to cut the perks enjoyed by the good friends of the finance minister, the backers of Liberal party and the family of the Prime Minister.

Based on these figures and on the actions, and not the empty promises, of the federal government, we have to realize that the only real threat to the health of Quebecers and Canadians stems from the irresponsibility shown by the central government.

The 1984 Health Act was passed to ensure that the provinces affected by the economic recession of the 1980s would not tinker with the health system, even if, at the same time, the federal government was reducing transfer payments.

All of the provinces protested against this act, because the Canada Health Act contained new conditions above and beyond those already in effect. These new added responsibilities contrasted with the decrease in federal contributions resulting from the 1977 financial arrangements.

On the use of financial pressure tactics, allow me to make a few polite comments about the blackmail used by the federal government to force the provinces to totally support the federal vision. In 1983, Monique Bégin, the Liberal Minister of Health of the day, cautioned us: "The total amount of the contributions paid by the Government of Canada to the provinces for health services is very significant. Any province that constantly refuses to meet the conditions will lose the federal cash contribution and will probably be hard put to compensate for this loss. If the total contribution were to be withheld, health services in that province could have to

be suspended. This is the last thing the Government of Canada wants for Canadians. This option could create a situation worse than the problem it set out to solve".

What this means is that the confrontation strategy and the will of the federal government to control the provinces is, in fact, harmful to the health of the citizens themselves.

The dual initiative by the federal government, that is the creation of a national forum on health care without consulting the provinces and the stricter criteria and conditions contained in Bill C-18, has drawn a lot of criticism not only from the Government of Quebec-and this may be of interest to the new Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs-but from other provincial governments as well. He may want to watch this situation closely.

Let us see what the federalists have said about that. On September 19 of last year, the Conservative health minister of Ontario, Jim Wilson, criticized the federal government's lack of flexibility. I would like to apologize to the Speaker for my poor pronunciation in English, but I will go ahead anyway and do the best I can. I would add that I am taking courses to improve my English.

"I think it shows inflexibility on behalf of the federal government".

He also stated that we should not let the federal government dictate its interpretation of medicare to the provinces.

"The federal government be fought on principle for dictating its interpretation of medicare to the provinces".

The same day, Ralph Klein, Conservative premier of Alberta, also criticized the federal government's lack of flexibility.

"Marleau does not send a good signal to Quebec. It says there is no flexibility within the confederation".

The NDP health minister of British Columbia, Paul Ramsey, added that Mrs. Marleau-who held that federal portfolio at the time-had to change her approach. He stated that if medicare was threatened by the actions of the provinces, it was because of the $7 billion cuts over two years made by the federal government in the areas of health, welfare and post-secondary education. I will try another quotation in English.

"Last February's federal budget, which cut transfers to provinces for health, welfare and post-secondary education by $7 billion dollars over two years, has forced provinces to look at unpalatable cuts that threaten medicare".

In a joint communique issued at a health ministers meeting, the provinces stated that the federal government's will to make unilateral decisions with regard to the funding of health care, the interpretation of standards or the setting of arbitrary deadlines for consultation would not help in solving the problem.

"It is not helpful for the federal government to engage in unilateral decisions regarding funding or interpretations and arbitrary deadlines".

Concluding this section on the forum, it is obvious that reducing federal contributions causes a serious problem. Federal intervention was justified only by spending power, so any change to the federal health legislation without changes to the financial aspect runs the risk of having an absurd outcome.

Any increased provincial obligation without a corresponding increased federal contribution is tantamount, not to the exercise of federal spending power, but rather to the creation of a federal power to make the provinces spend money for it, and under its conditions.

In fact, the federal government's main objective is to lessen its financial burden related to the huge debt it has accumulated, at the cost of the provinces' fiscal health. In other words, the central government pushes a portion of its debt off on the provinces. By thus increasing the tax burden of the provinces, Ottawa lessens their manoeuvrability and forces them to make difficult, agonizing choices in its stead.

Because the federal government is not capable of respecting its commitments and because, all its fine words and the standards it claims to be setting unilaterally notwithstanding, it is the one threatening the health system with all these cuts. The federal government ought to decide to withdraw from the health field, one in which it ought never to have set foot to begin with. In this case, it ought to assume responsibility for its decisions and transfer tax resources to the provinces, in order to allow them to take over.

I have attempted in these past few minutes to establish this position, which in all aspects reflects the position of the various governments of Quebec over the years and the constitutional demands of the Government of Quebec. As I pointed out just now, since the new government has been in place, I have been a member of the standing committee on human resources, and in my daily work on that committee, particularly as the critic for training and post-secondary education, I have seen the same phenomenon at work there: an attempt to interfere-more than an attempt, constant interference, ongoing, and increasing.

Despite the promises of change the Prime Minister made in the last referendum campaign, when things were getting close and it looked like the referendum might go to the yes side, in the final days, he made promises. Before he became prime minister, we heard him speak for the no committee, stating time and time again during the referendum campaign that the federal government should and would agree to change its centralizing attitude so frequently criticized by Quebecers. We thought there would be a change. No chance.

Again yesterday, I spoke on Bill C-11, the old C-96, which dragged on at length and is now being re-introduced. Although these are old bills in new clothing, there has been no change to the federal government's centralizing attitude.

An attitude based solely on the government's grasping for increased powers.

Here is a parallel. We passed a resolution on the distinct society and what happened? In all of the government's actions, in matters of health and human resources development the government went from the notion of distinct society to the simplistic recognition of Quebec as the principal homeland of French language in North America.

This is a widely known historical fact, but it adds nothing. I am not the only one to say it. So does the leader of the Liberal Party, who is a full-fledged partner of the no side and of the present Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. This full-fledged partner said that this gives nothing more to Quebec since it cannot lead to a transfer of powers, increased responsibilities, further clarification nor a greater clarity.

There are some grey areas with regard to the government's residual powers. We, Quebecers, we, the official opposition, had hoped to see the federal governement deal with this aspect in its new effort to decentralize. We had hoped it would clarify matters and put an end to the remaining grey areas. But on the contrary, it perpetuates them.

What is worse in the case of the bill making the department of Human Resources Development official as in this one, is that we can see that the government has adopted a soft pedal approach, a go slow approach, a slow combustion approach. You put a little bit of wood in the stove, you let it smoulder all night, and then you add a little bit more wood, hoping that Quebec's emotions will simmer down, that Quebecers and their national feelings will cool down and, with time, journalists and the media will pay less attention to the issue, which has been so long on the front page; if there is less coverage, people will not hear about is as much. This is the soft pedal approach .

Yesterday I said Bill C-11 was the law of silence. Today being Friday, I will be kinder. I notice a silence which is probably more understandable. Yesterday, when the government was passing a bill to officialize something that has been in existence for two and a half years, a bill creating the Department of Human Resources Development, I was explaining that if you exclude the servicing of the debt, the budget of that department was the largest item in the total federal budget, with more than 40 per cent of all expenditures.

At the Department of Health, they tried to reduce the figures by every possible means. When you look at the budget allocated to the Department of Health this year, you no longer find transfer payments for health, because they are listed somewhere else. Therefore, the budget of the department is only $1.8 billion. This is not much. But most of the spending is elsewhere, in other sections.

For example there is some in the Department of National Defence. There are many interventions. The federal government is there, but trying to hide the fact; it would have us believe it is giving way to the provinces, letting them manage their own business.

The very last amazing brainwave of the federal government is the famous Canada social transfer, which has been in existence since April 1st, although few people know it. What is it? Let us remind people. The Canada social transfer is a merging of all federal transfers for health, post-secondary education and welfare.

From now on, provinces will supposedly be able to set their own priorities. However, all this comes with a $7 billion cut. They are transferring to the provinces the cuts the federal government did not dare make. And so they should, in a way, but at the same time, the federal government is withdrawing from its financial commitment. And that is unacceptable.

The insult-the parliamentary secretary confirmed it this morning-is to attach to health transfers five principles, five inescapable conditions with thinly disguised threats. The government is saying to the provinces: "If you do not accept national standards, in the Canadian sense of the word, you may be penalized by cuts in funds allocated for health or post-secondary education, but especially health".

I heard excellent speeches in which it was said: "The health of Canadians is a concern to us". The former minister was particularly eloquent in the House; every time someone would ask her a question, she would start by saying: "Mr. Speaker, you know I am very concerned with the health of Canadians. That is why we will intervene here and there". She was asked why she had not consulted with the provinces, like she did with the health forum. She would then answer: "But you know, the health area is very important; there are stakeholders in it. We had to know their views".

Mr. Speaker, you are signalling me my time is up. I will conclude with that. I could go on and on. I will have the opportunity to come back on the matter since I will now sit on the health committee.

[Quebec Bridge, April 19th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, on December 20, 1993, the Clerk of the Privy Council, Jocelyne Bourgon, wrote to Quebec's Deputy Minister of Transportation, Georges Lalande, that the Government of Canada's title over railway property would be transferred over a five year period. This seems to indicate that complete ownership will be transferred to CN by 1998.

Based on the foregoing, does the Minister of Transport recognize the facts stated in the letter written by the Clerk of the Privy Council and could he at the same time recognize that, until the property transfer has been completed, the federal government is still fully responsible for restoring the Quebec bridge?

[Department Of Human Resources Development Act, April 18th, 1996]

It is interesting, Madam Speaker. After total silence this afternoon during this debate on the creation of an important department, the arrival of a new member, a young member who has shown some enthusiasm, has finally waken up this House, and I am very happy about that.

I would like to ask him what he thinks about young people moving away to find work. Does he thinks it is important that this responsibility be given to the Government of Quebec to ensure consistency and is it possible to finally put an end to the duplication of programs? Does he agree that Quebec should regain control over all its tools? He has already talked about that but, in the few minutes he has left, I would like to hear him say a few more words about his concerns for youth.

[Department Of Human Resources Development Act, April 18th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I wanted to make a comment because, when the new member for Lac-Saint-Jean arrived in this House, my duties as training and youth critic were transferred to him. I agreed that this duty should be given to him since he is the youngest member in the Bloc Quebecois and indeed in the House of Commons. I was once a young man myself,

of course, youth comes with age, and I think the member showed us in his maiden speech, which was very eloquent, that he has a lot of heart.

He expressed his concerns, and I think I have heard him talk about his concerns for youth before.

He talked a lot about his riding and he talked about youth. I would like to ask him this question-

[Department Of Human Resources Development Act, April 18th, 1996]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Department Of Human Resources Development Act, April 18th, 1996]

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

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

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

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

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

[Department Of Human Resources Development Act, April 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I note yet again that my colleague for Châteauguay is very much attuned to the reality of Quebec and of his riding.

The SEA program, it must be said, is an active employment measure, which the federal government intends to continue. Those of us forming the Quebec consensus would prefer the money currently invested in this program be given to Quebec to permit more consistent management of the various activities involved in job development.

My colleague is absolutely right in the present context. He has given me the opportunity to point out that there is a problem with the program. There can be no appeals. The officials on the committee reach a decision after looking at a business plan and, in the case my colleague mentioned, had an appeal been possible, the individual in question might perhaps have won his case, particularly because the appeal is not heard by the same people.

This is what the people of Action-chômage told me: "When appeal is possible, 75 per cent of the people win their case". I am not saying the existing legislation is perfect or that it ought not to be improved, because this is a specific case, but it would have to be amended or improved to provide for an appeal mechanism. This is the sort of solution we must look at.

We must remember, as the member for Châteauguay rightly pointed out, that this program must not be seen as a way to resolve all the problems. We must understand that those who have access to this program are on unemployment insurance and therefore, by definition, people who have lost their job. Not everyone has the means to set up a business. There could be a trap. I am not saying that it is the intention of the officials, because they carry out the programs chosen by the government.

But there is a trap. If the business works, that is fine. However, if, because of a lack of money it does not, and the unemployment insurance benefits run out, the individual, because he has a business and is independent, is no longer entitled to unemployment insurance.

If his business got financing from different people, friends, or banks or elsewhere, he may not be eligible for social assistance. You know, to be eligible for social assistance, your assets must be limited. Without being wealthy, someone could have a house or some possessions. There is a trap.

Furthermore, not everyone is destined to be a business person. People think you just start a business, but you need training and resources. It has to be done with the support of the community.

Other members may have questions for me.

[Department Of Human Resources Development Act, April 18th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, there are rules in this House which keep me from mentioning certain observable facts, but we are now dealing more with the unobservable. What we can observe though is an incredible attitude on the part of the government during a debate on the new authority being delegated to the Minister of Human Resources Development. We, the Bloc Quebecois, the official opposition, seem to be the only party in this House that cares about this issue.

Rather surprisingly, the federal administration has been operating for over two and a half years without this legislation, which officializes the consolidation of various services that used to be part of other departments. The government is trying to tell us that this is a minor change of little consequence.

Those who follow politics might think that, indeed, this is a minor change. However, the hon. members for Mercier and for Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, who spoke before me, both sit on the human resources development committee and they strongly emphasized that this is not a minor change, but a major one.

The government wants to increase the authority of the Minister of Human Resources Development. This comes barely a few months after Quebec was promised it would decentralize and provide for greater flexibility, so as to avoid duplication between the federal and provincial governments.

If the bill reflected that commitment, I would be the first one to recognize it. However, if you read the bill you quickly realize that it goes in the opposite direction, toward greater centralization and control by the federal state regarding areas which do not come under its jurisdiction.

This allows the federal government, and particularly the minister, to be even more involved in manpower training. The government refers to decentralization, and we can see in this bill that it would be possible. This bill gives the minister the authority to bypass provincial governments regarding manpower training, even though there is a consensus in Quebec to do just the opposite. That consensus calls for leaving all the necessary tools, including active employment measures, in the hands of the Quebec government, which should be the only level of government involved, to ensure greater consistency and avoid duplication and waste.

Instead, when the federal government talks about decentralization, it means that the process would be achieved through its employment centres dealing directly with community groups, businesses and perhaps even municipalities. The minister is being given full authority. This is the government's idea of decentralization.

However, it is just the opposite of what Quebecers were told shortly before the referendum, when the federal government said it would fulfil their wish for change.

This is another example of double talk which is ultimately tantamount to telling a falsehood. Why? Because the government means exactly the opposite of what it says.

Another thing bothers me. You have to remember that we are now dealing with Bill C-11. This bill is identical to Bill C-96 which was introduced in this House in June 1995 and which the government left hanging throughout the pre-referendum period in order to avoid stirring things up.

Now the government comes up with a new throne speech. Usually, after prorogation, a speech from the throne contains some new ideas. Yet, except for the measure implementing the budget, all the other bills, including Bill C-11, are old pieces of legislation left in abeyance. Is there anything new? We do not think so. There is nothing new, just another smoke screen.

While delivering a new throne speech, stating some great principles and using a lot of rhetoric, the government is in fact just carrying along and acting as usual. Nothing has changed. It is just chugging along.

Today, the party across the way has decided not to have any of its members take part in this debate on a bill that will officialize the most important federal department. When I say the most important, I mean financially. If we set aside debt servicing, we realize that almost 50 per cent of the budget, that is between 40 and 50 per cent of program expenditures go to the human development resources department. That is a lot of money.

But what do we notice here, in the House? No backbencher has spoken in the House for a while now, as if nothing was going on. I can maybe understand the behaviour of hon. members from other parts of Canada, but how can the members from Quebec remain quiet when this bill will officialize greater centralization and intervention by the federal government in provincial areas of jurisdiction?

The members from the province of Quebec read the newspapers and meet the people. They are aware of the consensus on this issue. They know that the Société québécoise de développement de la main-d'oeuvre is what can be called a group of organizations or a consortium that is trying to implement job creation measures. Let me remind the House of who belongs to this Société québécoise de développement de la main-d'oeuvre. There are, of course, the unions and central labour bodies, but also the Conseil du patronat, the Institut canadien des adultes, the Mouvement Action-Chômage and a lot of community organizations. The Société brings together all the organizations who are concerned about the employment situation and who have given their support. They are members of the Société québécoise de développement de la main-d'oeuvre or they have supported it by submitting briefs. I am sure all Quebec Liberal members have received those briefs.

Unfortunately, we cannot help but see that they do not seem to be moved by that. The contradiction between what the government says officially and what it does is obvious. Nevertheless, they remain silent, they stay away from this debate as if this matter had no significance whatsoever.

We are talking about Bill C-11, that will officially establish this department. What does the government do in the meantime? It uses the same approach with human resources development. It tried this approach with the unemployment insurance reform. It tried to avoid any direct contact with the people during consideration of that bill.

The committee is sitting at this very moment and it is using video technology to hear evidence. One organization at the time, and they are hand picked. And because of its majority, the government can invite practically whoever it wants. It is trying to do this very quietly. Oh the unemployment insurance reform will not change a lot of things; it is being done very quietly in committee.

But hundreds of organizations have asked to be heard, and they are being told that it is not possible, that time is of the essence, that July 1 is coming soon. This is exactly how this government operates. I have also noticed recently, especially during question period, that it is difficult for the opposition to attack the government because the Prime Minister is often away or a particular minister is on a tour somewhere. It seems that we are fighting I would not say ghosts, but people who are less and less visible in Parliament.

We, in the official opposition, find it deplorable that the third party also finds this issue insignificant, since its members are not concerned about this bill that will create a department that will administer an enormous amount of money. Almost half, or between 40 and 50 per cent, of the government's total budget is allocated to this department. That does not seem to be of any interest to the third party, nor to certain independent members, nor to the leader of the Conservative Party. The leader, who aspires to become Prime Minister one day, is not concerned about a department whose budget represents almost half of the government's total budget. It is unbelievable.

What will it take to wake them up, to change this law of silence? For Bill C-11 is a law of silence, a law making silence official. I am almost tempted to stop for a minute of silence, since that would so aptly symbolize what is happening here. I am almost tempted.

I did keep silent for five seconds, but my convictions and beliefs prevent me from staying quiet, for this is so important. I would like the people watching us at home to realize what is happening here in terms of social programs. They are trying to make cuts, vigorous cuts, but ever so quietly. And our viewers will be affected.

Without any demagoguery, let me just say this: "Fellow citizens, take care, be even more vigilant than before, because this government is trying to make us adopt changes in a new way, through a quiet approach, or in other words by not attaching any importance to subjects that in fact are very important".

I have been on the Human Resources Development Committee for two and a half years now. When we take the trouble to go out the consult the public, when we go into the field to meet with organizations, when members of Parliament take the trouble to meet with the people in their ridings, no matter what region they are in, there is one reality which strikes us, independent of the statistics.

Officially, the unemployment rate has dropped a bit, but if the Statistics Canada figures are examined more closely, we realize that the drop is not because more people are working, but because more are giving up looking for work. These statistics do not include employable welfare recipients who cannot find work. We cannot let this pass without comment.

I am sure that the hon. members see people in their riding offices every time they are back in their ridings, and hear from them that things are not getting any better. There are no more jobs than before.

What we see in the labour market at the moment is that, through globalization, government cuts and deregulation, the number of part-time jobs is increasing and the number of full-time jobs is decreasing. Companies are trying to re-open collective agreements, citing competition, in order to cut back working conditions in some cases. Salaries are on the decline at the moment.

I have just come from a meeting of the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development. People were talking about change. They were saying that more than a third of jobs right now are part time. And who holds these jobs primarily? Women. Women hold 70 per cent of jobs that are mostly part time, threatened, ill paid, insecure and non unionized. There are young people in such jobs too.

What is this government doing with its unemployment insurance reform at the moment? It is trying to tighten unemployment insurance eligibility requirements. It is making unemployment insurance less accessible especially to young people and to women who want to return to the labour force after raising their children. These are the two main population groups affected.

The method of calculating by weeks is being changed to a method of calculating by hours. With the hours system, two part-time jobs may indeed be combined, but this arrangement will create increased competition, a race, a marathon, a sprint for the latest little job on the market. Even workers in full-time, but seasonal, jobs for a short time will be tempted in the tourist season, for example, to find some little job or a part-time job and thereby increase competition for such jobs. This will be the case especially with young people.

People do not realize we can no longer rely on unemployment statistics. I even heard a Reform member say yesterday that unemployment insurance was the cause of unemployment and that, if we abolished unemployment insurance, there would be no more unemployed. I can understand most people taking even the meanest of little jobs anywhere to avoid starving to death, but this sort of approach has nothing to do with reality.

We need more than just jobs, we need quality, well paid, stable and affirming jobs. We are no longer in the industrial age when children were made to work and when people worked six or seven days a week. This is an age, according to the sociologists, of quality of life.

The Canadian government was delighting in the fact that Canada was one of the countries with the highest quality of life-I have a hard time accepting that.

Representatives of Campaign 2000 have said on a number of occasions that 20 per cent of children are poor. When we talk of 20 per cent of children being poor, it is not the children who are poor, but their parents. Sometimes the families are single parent families and very often the single parent is a woman.

We do not see the social change taking place today. Nobody can do anything about it, but, increasingly, we are seeing very poor families and low income single parent families.

We are supposed to believe that everything is fine, that we can rejoice, that we can afford to cut help to the poorest members of society in an effort to bring the deficit under control, and to make UI eligibility criteria three times as strict for new claimants on the assumption that once they try UI they will become addicted to it, as to a drug. What a warped view of society!

The other day, the Minister of Human Resources Development told me that there were 125,000 UI abusers. I checked with agencies working in this area, such as Action chômage Québec, and I was told that 75 per cent of people who appeal, who ask for a review of their case, win in the end. If you win, does this mean that you abuse the system? I do not think so.

You are motioning to me that my time has expired. I hope that I will be asked questions so that I can go on.

[Quebec Bridge, March 29th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, as the member for Lévis, I am one of those who cross the Quebec bridge regularly to come to the federal Parliament.

One of the bridge's piles is in the riding of Lévis, the other in Louis-Hébert. This explains why my colleague and I sponsored this motion together. He was lucky in the draw today, and I fully support his motion.

I have already detected a positive impact of discussing the Quebec bridge for one hour. I have noticed, for example, that a Reform Party member showed a certain interest in the subject, also a certain ignorance. This has allowed us to make certain clarifications, and to more fully inform all the members of the House.

I have also noticed that the members across the floor have been forced to ask about the respective positions of the Department of Transport and the Department of Canadian Heritage since, two days before being relieved from his duties, the former Minister of Canadian Heritage had recognized the Quebec bridge as a national historic site-national, in the Canadian sense, of course.

Let me review the historic significance of this structure. This bridge has been the subject of a long debate that dates back to the very beginning of the Canadian Confederation. I remind the House that, at the time of Confederation, the railway issue was important. All regions had to be linked. At that time, trains ran along the south shore. They did not serve Quebec City which was a capital. No service was provided to those who wanted to cross over from Quebec City to get to the Maritimes.

This issue was discussed at length, and one could say that Sir Wilfrid Laurier, who declared it an important issue, was it main champion. Since history was to be made, he wanted this bridge to be a symbol. He had said-I do not have the exact quote-that it was the symbol of federalism in Quebec.

The coalition wrote this week to all the members opposite, in fact to all members of the House of Commons. They sent them an envelope with a little piece of the bridge enclosed, to show that any member concerned about Canadian heritage has reason to be worried. This symbol of federalism is now becoming a symbol of collapse, of disintegration. This is a signal, a warning sign.

It is very important; it is history. If Sir Wilfrid Laurier was here, I am sure he would agree with me. He would say that it is critical to save this historic structure.

Unfortunately, Canadians do not judge it at its true value. The member for Louis-Hébert told us earlier that the members of the transport committee did not show any interest, when they met the coalition's members. One member, whose name I will not reveal, said that, all told, CN owned some 6,000 bridges across Canada. He compared this bridge to any structure that crosses a stream or small river.

We are talking here about the St. Lawrence River, and the longest railway bridge in the world. It is also the first cantilever bridge in the world. Later on, there was one built in Scotland, which is also recognized as part of the world heritage.

The member for Pontiac reminded us earlier that the American Society of Civil Engineers had recognized the bridge as a masterpiece of engineering. As for folk culture, everyone remembers that the bridge of Quebec was considered to be the eighth wonder of the world. But absolutely no one is filled with wonder by it anymore; on the contrary, many are afraid of it.

I invite the people opposite, all those who still have some interest in the Canadian national heritage that is symbolised by the Quebec bridge to respond as soon as possible to the letter of the Quebec bridge coalition's president by saying: I am convinced that the necessary efforts should be made and I support the federal government in doing so.

But since my time is almost up, I would like to remind the House of some numbers. First, I listened to the hon. member for Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle when he said 25,000 vehicles a day are now using the bridge, that is, more automobiles than trains. That is true. And that because of it, the owner, the CN, should make the leaseholder pay more.

I would inform the hon. member who announced his government's position, which is that CN will spend the necessary amounts, that the Quebec government agrees, and in writing. Not just orally but in writing. It told the president of the coalition they were ready to spend $1.5 million a year over 16 years to review the contract, provided, of course, that the owner first undertakes to do the work. A tenant does not pay the rent on a new apartment in advance before the work is done.

Then, the government replies, like Pontius Pilate: "Oh, but you know, it is not really our responsibility. CN is now a private company". I remember, I was one of those who took part in the debate at the time. We wanted the new Canadian corporation, CN, which has since become a private company, to exclude the Quebec Bridge, as it did the CN Tower in Toronto. This, however, was not done. The government did not exclude the Quebec Bridge. Although it recognized, six months later, that it was of national patrimonial interest, it left the matter in the hands of CN.

They are now content to say that CN will do its part, that it is a private company, that, in 1993, an agreement was reached to transfer the bridge to CN, but the members did not read everything. It may take me a while to find the article, but there was a land transfer worth $35 million, provided CN did the work.

Well, the work would cost around $63 million. I was listening to the hon. member for Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle earlier. In the end, only $22.5 million to $24 million would be spent, although the work would cost $63 million. The announcement is made, and the people listening think: "My God, the federal government is saying it will be done, that CN will do it", even though this amount represents only half the cost, even less. Of the $63 million needed, $40 million is still missing. Where will it come from?

Again, the Quebec government is prepared to contribute $1.5 million per year for 16 years, for a total of $24 million.

The federal government recognizes the heritage value of the bridge, but there is still $14 million missing. The federal must do one of two things: either provide the $14 million missing, or force CN to do what was provided in the agreement. After all, a contract means something.

Article 4 reads as follows: "Canada shall transfer the Quebec bridge to CN as part of the first land block transfer of CGR lands". This is what is worth $35 million. "CN shall undertake to fund a major maintenance program on the bridge, including the installation and maintenance of architectural lighting, which shall restore this structure to a condition which shall ensure its long term viability and ensure it is maintained in this state. Without limiting CN's obligations described above, CN will attempt to reach an agreement with the Province of Quebec to co-fund such a maintenance program", etc. That was done.

So, we ask that articles 4 and 13 be applied, because even if CN is privatized, it cannot elude its obligations. Let the federal government force CN to pay the missing $14 million.

[Quebec Bridge, March 29th, 1996]

It bought out MIL Davie.