Antoine Dubé

[Supply, December 5th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of the motion by the hon. member for Mercier.

Before going on, I would like to thank the member for Calgary Southeast for her vigilance, her attention and especially for having raised the matter. I appreciate the intention, because the member for Mercier indeed participates a lot in our work, she is very much present in the House. I think the remarks in question were inappropriate.

The debate is on a motion which reads as follows:

That this House condemn the government for choosing to reform unemployment insurance in a way that maintains overlap and duplication in the manpower sector and thus prevents the Government of Quebec from adopting a true manpower development policy of its own.

I listened to the arguments by the member for Calgary Southeast on the amendment she is proposing. I shall reserve my comments on it for the moment, but I would like to thank her for her attention. Her remarks indicate that other provinces would like to take charge of manpower training.

However, after touring the country with the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development last year, I felt that some provinces, such as the Atlantic provinces, were less keen, were not necessarily fuelled by the same desire. They wanted the federal government to remain very visible in this area, because they felt that their province was perhaps experiencing economic difficulties in this regard.

I simply want to say that the amendment proposed by the member for Calgary Southeast would not be easy to apply, because there does not appear to be a consensus, unlike in Quebec. This has been shown very clearly. I say this to the member for Calgary Southeast, I will discuss it in my speech, I will recall the historical background of this claim by Quebec and the reason it is so important to us.

To us, manpower training means education. Under Canada's Constitution, education is a provincial matter. This is particularly

important to Quebec, because education is also a cultural concept, very close to our culture. It is a treasure to the people of Quebec.

All those involved in this area agree. I would point out that yesterday the Quebec National Assembly passed a motion to again remind the federal government of its position. When I speak of the Quebec National Assembly, I am not talking just about the members of the Parti Quebecois, but also the members of the Quebec Liberal Party.

Yesterday's motion was passed with a vote of 96 in favour, none against and no abstentions. It was therefore passed unanimously.

What does this resolution say? It says:

"That Quebec must have sole responsibility for policies pertaining to manpower adjustment and occupational training within its borders and patriate accordingly the funding allocated by the federal government to these programs in Quebec; "Within the current constitutional framework and in order to improve services to customers, Quebec must take over the control and management of various services pertaining to employment and manpower development and all programs that may be funded through the Unemployment Insurance Fund within Quebec's borders, and must therefore receive the funding appropriate to such responsibilities;

"The Government of Quebec and representatives of business, labour and the co-operative sector agree to oppose any initiative by the federal government that would constitute an invasion of Quebec's prerogatives".

Therefore, it asks the government and the Minister of Employment to immediately undertake formal discussions with the federal government in order to ensure the respect of the consensus and the promotion of the interests of the Quebec people.

I stress that this motion was adopted unanimously.

A while ago, as I was shaking my head at something he said, the minister introduced a historical dimension to the debate. I had mentioned 1941 a bit earlier when answering a colleague's question. I must make a correction, I was wrong by one year. The constitutional amendment which enabled the federal government to set up and run the unemployment insurance program was passed on July 10, 1940. It was the British Parliament-as you know we had to ask its permission-which amended section 91 of the British North America Act, making it possible for the federal government to set up the unemployment insurance program.

It would be useful at this point to summarize Quebec's claims. Stakeholders in the labour market have recognized unanimously the need to patriate to Quebec all responsibilities and federal funding in the area of manpower training. The Liberal Party and the Parti quebecois are in agreement on this.

It is also worth recalling that, in 1991, the former minister in charge of manpower, income security and manpower training claimed, in a policy statement from the Government of Quebec about manpower development: "For many years, Quebec has claimed control over policy instruments affecting the work market. In other words, the Government of Quebec and its economic partners want laws, budgets, institutions, programs and services concerning manpower or the operation of the work market to be under one authority. Partners on the Quebec work market are almost unanimous in recognizing that manpower policies must be prepared by authorities as close as possible to the various work markets".

This request for devolution of manpower training goes back a long way. In 1989, the job forum was a critical step in the advancement of this cause. This is when the job market partners, that is unions, employers and government, agreed to asl that Ottawa hand over full responsibility for manpower training.

With such a consensus, the Government of Quebec officially requested, in December 1990, that any federal moneys for manpower programs be handed over to Quebec, including money from the unemployment insurance fund used for that purpose. In December 1990, the Liberal Party was in office, not the Parti Quebecois, and Robert Bourassa was premier. The Liberal Party of Quebec claimed exclusive jurisdiction not only over manpower training, but also over other aspects of manpower development, such as placement, employment assistance, job creation support, etc.

To back up this demand, the Quebec government created the Société québécoise de développement de la main-d'oeuvre, or SQDM, which was to serve as a link between all labour market stakeholders and manage all manpower development programs in Quebec.

The Quebec Liberal Party went even further, asking for an administrative agreement allowing Quebec to manage the unemployment insurance program within the province. It was asking for a return to the pre-1840 situation. Quebec wanted to be given jurisdiction in this area.

Otherwise, the federal government would have to maintain a rather cumbersome administrative structure in Quebec. To make UI benefits and related services accessible to the Quebec people, a whole network would have to be maintained with all the inconveniences of this kind of duplication.

In concrete terms, this agreement would have resulted in the UI program running the SQDM.

This happened under the liberal government led by Robert Bourassa, a true blue federalist. Now, you will ask, what sort of problems is this situation creating in Quebec? At the same time, one must recognize that there is a problem with vocational training in Canada. In 1993, Canada was ranked 22nd out of 22 developed countries for on-the-job training.

According to available statistics, the federal network runs 27 training programs-the minister said earlier 38-and the Quebec network 5. The federal government-which has started cutting down-operates close to 100 Canada Employment Centres in Quebec, while Quebec set up the SQDM to replace the former Commission de formation professionnelle.

The original mandate of the Société québécoise de la main-d'oeuvre was to work towards the creation of true single windows in every Quebec region. Today, it acts more as a mere manager of federal funds, without much of a say.

I would like to point out that in 1993-1994, transfer payments accounted for 56 per cent of the SQDM budget, or $150.7 million out of a total of $269.5 million, a true description, if ever there was one, of Ottawa's control over manpower. The lack of co-ordination between the two networks results in the unemployed being ill served by the various manpower training programs.

An internal memo of the federal government did reveal that in the spring of 1993-this is a federal memo, remember-nearly 25,000 unemployed people referred to a training program could not register for lack of sufficient available places.

The policy statement of minister Bourbeau described how two different manpower training networks could cause problems. It said: "We understand how hard it can be for an uninitiated person or business to find its way among the multiple service centres like the Canada Employment Centres, the offices of the Commission de formation professionelle de la main-d'oeuvre, Travail Québec centres, school boards, colleges, universities and the Department of Manpower, Income Security and Skills Development."

Minister Bourbeau, a liberal federalist, estimated at $275 million the cost of these overlaps and duplications in manpower training programs. The minister who said that was not a PQ member, not a BQ member, not a sovereignist, but a federalist.

Both governments agree that manpower training programs must change. The Minister of Human Resources Development said, in his discussion paper on improving social security in Canada: "Unfortunately, existing programs don't do this well enough. Too many people end up in programs that have little to do with their needs, aptitudes or opportunities. Many get training for jobs that don't exist locally. Many are shunted from one program to another. There are too many mismatched programs, with inconsistent rules and too much red tape. Programs offered by different levels of government are often not coordinated."

According to him, the system had to change. The federal government is not alone in adding to the mess of manpower training programs. We must recognize that, at the time, there were too many manpower training programs. The present minister has merged a number of programs, but she is having problems because the federal is ever present and nothing leads us to believe that it will willingly leave the field, since it is actually introducing new measures. Yes, it says that it is offering them to the provinces, but it intends to keep imposing guidelines. It intends to keep control.

The minister said a while ago, in his presentation, that we cannot do away with controls because certain provinces-not Quebec but others- had used the program's money to build public buildings. He feels this is enough to justify a permanent control by the federal government.

Basically, what he wants to do, what he would like to see is the provinces, Quebec included, manage the programs listed in his bill. He would like the provinces to do what he wants them to do. He is treating the provinces has mere pawns. For us in Quebec, this flies totally in the face of the established consensus.

I will quote someone else. The president of the Business Council on National Issues, Mr. Thomas d'Aquino, added his voice to the voices of those who recommend that the federal government hand over manpower training to the provinces as fast as possible. On October 28, 1994, Mr. d'Aquino said: "There is no doubt in my mind that decentralization in this area would be beneficial for the Canadian economy. The sooner the politicians come to an agreement on this question, the better".

Last year, members of the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development travelled throughout Canada. When the minister suggests that he is implementing recommendations that the committee heard, let me say that I disagree with that. I travelled to all the provinces of this country and to all the large cities of Canada while travelling with the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development-the parliamentary secretary knows that, he had to suffer the consequences. On some occasions, I had to admire his courage in facing those who opposed his reform. But when he tells us later that this is what Canadians want and wish, after what I have seen and heard, when I know that 75 to 80 per cent of briefs were against what the minister is now proposing, that is, cuts of some $2 billion in unemployment insurance, I know that is not what Canadians wished for.

People who came to testify before this committee said that what is missing today is work, job opportunities. They wished that the government would follow the policy outlined in its red book. The Liberal slogan during the last election campaign was even "Jobs, jobs, jobs". But we see that, in fact, there are not more jobs today. But worse still, the proposed changes will create two kinds of unemployed.

As critic for training and youth, I see that a young person will now have to work 910 hours over 52 weeks in order to qualify for unemployment insurance. That represents 17.5 hours of work per week in one year, every single week, in order to qualify. Otherwise, he will not be eligible. He must reach this minimum number of hours. So, it is now twice as hard for newcomers on the labour market to qualify for unemployment insurance.

And what do they do to unemployment insurance? They create a fund and make it available to the provinces, and tell them: "You can help yourselves to some of it, but only under certain conditions because we want to keep control over it, or else we are going to take it away".

But this fund the minister mentioned is made up of money contributed by employers and employees. Why is the federal government messing with this fund when, as everybody knows, it has not contributed a single penny to unemployment insurance since 1991? It is not this government who did that, but the Conservative government. But now it is a profit nowadays with unemployment insurance and is using part of this profit to provide manpower training in a field which comes under provincial jurisdiction.

This is what we are against and what we are condemning. There is a small opening here. We saw that the Quebec National Assembly, while establishing some parameters, is continuing to emphasize the Quebec consensus on the need to repatriate all the money spent by the federal government in manpower training, even UI funds, because the federal government would use that money to continue to multiply programs and to maintain duplication.

To conclude, I ask the government and the Minister of Human Resources Development to be on the lookout, to listen more carefully to what Quebecers want. He will see that Quebecers, not only the sovereignists, the members of the Bloc Quebecois or the Parti quebecois, but all Quebecers want the Quebec government to be in charge, to be responsible for its policy concerning manpower, training and all related services. I will conclude on that and I thank you for your attention.

[Supply, December 5th, 1995]

Yes, of the Government of Canada, of course. There are some things that I, as a Quebecer, would like to say to the minister, and this morning I have the opportunity to do so. The fact is that throughout the year, throughout our travels, we saw two ways of looking at reality. The majority of Quebecers, in all parties, including the Quebec Liberal Party and the Conseil du patronat, have the same perception of reality. The people of Quebec have the same perception of reality.

The minister made it clear this morning. I am not criticizing his personal values which dictate that the individual is entitled to insurance. I can go along with that. I heard that very often in English Canada too, I must admit. But in Quebec, as long as it was unemployment insurance, there were never any complaints. It is true that Quebec had agreed, I think it was in 1941, to have unemployment insurance come under federal jurisdiction. But since that time, especially these last few years, Quebec has demanded control over funds allocated to unemployment insurance from the federal consolidated revenue fund for training and employability improvement services, arguing that these matters came within the same jurisdiction as education and training. There lies the source of the dispute, if you will, that has been going on for some time now, namely that when the federal government takes money from the unemployment fund for training it is meddling in a provincial jurisdiction.

Mr. Speaker, the minister has surely received a copy of the resolution passed by the National Assembly. As I have been asking him since yesterday, is the minister ready to recognize Quebec's sole responsibility for labour adjustment and job training policies in Quebec, according to the unanimous wish of Liberal Party members, even those who were in the no camp in Quebec?

[Supply, December 5th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment, to set the record straight. Reacting to my shaking my head-it was not even something I said-the minister went off on a tangent and said I did not know the history of Canada and the Constitution.

I shook my head to indicate that there was nothing in the Constitution originally, although of course the minister is right, in that the provinces agreed to a constitutional amendment that gave the federal government responsibility for unemployment insurance. I want to make that clear, and I think it was in 1941. I wanted to make that clear.

The minister is intelligent, dedicated, energetic and well intentioned, and he probably wants to improve things, except when he says that the hon. member for Mercier does not listen too well. I want to appeal to his own ability to listen, because in the days to come, it seems there may be a meeting between the minister and the Quebec Minister of Employment. I hope he will go to this meeting with an open mind. In fact, I hope both parties will.

This morning, he seemed to be open to discussion. I am not the Quebec Minister of Employment. I am in the opposition here in Ottawa. I am also a member of the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development, and like the hon. member for Mercier, the minister's parliamentary secretary and the parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister, I travelled with the committee across Canada last year. I listened to people, and of course I do not share the assessment that was made of a consensus in this respect. I may remind the minister that everywhere there were demonstrations, and 75 or 80 per cent of the briefs boiled down to the following: Mr. Minister, no cuts, please. That is history. But yesterday in the Quebec National Assembly, and that will be the subject of my question to the minister-

[Unemployment Insurance Reform, December 4th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, last Friday the Minister of Human Resources Development tabled his unemployment insurance reforms. The minister told whoever wanted to listen that the purpose of his reforms was to adjust to the new demands of Canadian society and that it would be easier for the unemployed to re-enter the labour market.

However, now that the reforms have been tabled, it is clear that the impact will be far worse than we expected. The federal government hopes to reduce its deficit at the expense of women and young people.

Furthermore, in order to ensure that wealth is redistributed, Ottawa has decided to reduce the premiums of those who are well off by one billion dollars and, to make up for this reduction, increase the premiums of low-income workers by $900 million. Is that what the federal government calls justice and social equity?

[Income Tax Act, December 1st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this debate on Bill C-241 on behalf of the official opposition and I would like to start by congratulating the hon. member for putting this bill forward for this House to consider. I might add that it is unfortunate that it cannot be voted on.

Such is the will of the members. Her intentions were commendable, but at the same time, this goes to show how the government, by refusing to make this bill a votable item, is really only paying lip service to the idea behind it. The hon. member ought to be commended for her good intentions, but this goes to show at the same time that this government does not care too much for her initiative.

Bill C-241 is, in my opinion, very positive from the point of view of its title: an act to amend the Income Tax Act (child support payments).

Interestingly enough, of all the forms of child support, the one that immediately comes to mind is, of course, alimony. There has been a debate on this issue, as we know.

In Quebec, I can think of Mrs. Thibaudeau's case. This lady took her case all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada to try to make the point that the parent, generally the mother, who has custody of the children after a divorce, should not have to declare a portion of the amount received for child support on his or her income tax return, because, for the non custodial parent paying support, this amount is exempt from tax, it is deductible.

The fact of the matter is that there are more women than men in this situation, since, as we know, 85 per cent of single parents facing this kind of situation are women.

We must also remember something else. In spite of the debates in this House on child poverty, as well as the laudable initiatives of members from all parties to make life more comfortable for children, one out of every five children in Canada lives in poverty. This is a serious problem.

The government often boasts about our country being the best in the world. Yet, one Canadian child in five lives in poverty. As you know, children are not the only ones living in poverty. If they are poor, it is because their parents, their mother or their father are poor. Poor children are not all orphans. Their families are in very dire straits.

The measure proposed by the hon. member is interesting, because the person who has custody would not have to declare the money received for support, thus making it tax exempt. We, the official opposition, are in favour of that.

However, when we listen and talk to people, and when we have debates in this House, we realize that we have to be careful. That initiative must be part of a comprehensive strategy, because, taken separately, it might incite judges to take into account the fact that the spouse who pays for support can no longer deduct that amount for tax purposes, and thus lower the level of that support. We must ensure that the person receiving support payments is not penalized by getting considerably less money.

This proposal must be part of a comprehensive policy. We must avoid any boomerang effect and ensure that we do not end up penalizing the person in charge of the family. That would defeat the purpose.

In Canada, we used to have family allowances. Now we have child tax benefits. I find it deplorable that people who work, unlike in Quebec, cannot benefit from tax deductions for children.

Many parents in Quebec believe that, and rightly so. They want some incentives to have children. They are looking at the government for measures to help them take good care of their families, while we are in a situation, as everyone knows, where the population is aging, the birth rate is dropping, a larger segment of the population is becoming more impoverished and the social inequities are growing because of various economic considerations which I do not have time to list in the ten minutes I have. Last, we have very few measures which encourage young Canadians to have a family.

Also, we are considering this motion the very same day the Minister of Human Resources Development is introducing changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act in order to further restrict eligibility to UI benefits for new claimants or people who have not been working for a very long time, without taking many measures to really create jobs. Everywhere we look, there seems to be an impending threat, not only a perceived threat, but in some areas, a real one.

In Ontario, the government is thinking of increasing tuition fees and of decreasing education subsidies. So, we see in the end that the young people in particular-and I remind the House that I am the BQ critic for training and youth-feel like they are continually caught in a stranglehold. Under such circumstances, how can we blame the young people who choose to wait to have children, since their economic situation is becoming increasingly difficult?

I want to congratulate the hon. member for Nepean for a very praiseworthy motion. However, I cannot help but notice that the government, especially this past week, has been considering motions, resolutions and even a bill on such issues as the distinct society, the veto, and so on. I can see that the hon. member opposite is serious and well-intentioned. But, in reality, I deplore the fact that this Parliament seems to become more and more a place for lofty speeches, for rhetoric-and I contribute to that by making one myself today-a place where the government seems less and less willing to do anything but look for ways to cut its spending, more often than not on the back of the disadvantaged. Who are the disadvantaged? Often they are single parents, women, who represent a large percentage of the population, as well as children, since one in five children lives in poverty. I do not see anything in this motion that will correct this situation. It is a good measure, but we can see that there is a lack of willingness to do something on the part of the government.

I hope that the government will soon leave the rhetoric aside and start looking at positive ways of encouraging young people and others to start a family. In spite of that, I do not want to be seen as being too strongly in favour of pro-natalist measures because women have the right to decide for themselves if they want children or not and how many. I do not question this fundamental right, but it is a question we must ask ourselves from a social viewpoint. We must take the necessary measures and soon.

I am a baby boomer, I am 48 years old, and here is what might happen to some of us.

If there are not enough young people entering the labour force, paying taxes and contributing to private pension plans, the people coming after us may not receive a pension. This may even happen to us, as we see that old age pensions, for those who are now under 65, are among the measures being considered. If we do not have enough children and if these children do not start life in a secure environment so that they have an incentive to continue improving our society, I fear the worst.

[Unemployment Insurance Reform, November 30th, 1995]

I have a short question, Mr. Speaker. Does the minister share Premier McKenna's opinion that his UI reform will cause an "unprecedented political backlash" east of Ontario? That does not sound like someone who agrees with the minister.

[Unemployment Insurance Reform, November 30th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.

In his full-scale attack against UI reform, the Premier of New Brunswick, a faithful constitutional ally of the Prime Minister, accused Ottawa of revamping the UI program on the backs of workers in eastern Quebec and the Atlantic provinces.

Does the minister endorse the New Brunswick Premier's statement that his reform is a deliberate attack against the Atlantic region and eastern Quebec?

[Unemployment Insurance Reform, November 29th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the minister could at least read the newspapers.

And today, he could at least do one thing, and that is what I am asking him to do, which is to admit that, by taking into account not the income of the unemployed but rather the family income, he will deny thousands of women access to the unemployment insurance program, while continuing to require that these women pay their UI contributions?

[Unemployment Insurance Reform, November 29th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.

This morning, we learned from a Canadian Press dispatch that the unemployment insurance reform to be tabled in this House next Friday will base benefits on household income instead of on personal income. This measure will deny thousands of jobless people access to unemployment insurance benefits.

Will the minister confirm that his unemployment insurance reform will make the family income a determining factor in eligibility for UI benefits?

[Department Of Human Resources Development Act, November 23rd, 1995]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. You understand that we cannot always resist temptation. I have every intention of following your rules, which I graciously accept because of my great respect for your position.

The hon. member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine, for example, wonders what the official opposition is worried about, arguing that this bill will not broaden the human resources development minister's jurisdiction.

Not only is the hon. member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine not listening, but he has apparently not read the bill. What does the bill do? It expands the Department of Human Resources Development. It must be realized that, if we take away the money allocated to debt servicing, it almost exceeds 50 per cent of the federal budget. That is quite something.

It includes the old employment department, the labour department. It is responsible for old age pensions. On this subject, I simply wish to remind the hon. member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine about the debate surrounding the replacement of many employment centres with computer terminals.

As one who listens to citizens and to seniors in particular-and I know that all members on this side of the House have heard them-, I can tell you that they are concerned. They are not used to typing on computer terminals to get information. They are very concerned about this. The government is saying that they are moving their services closer to the people, but installing a computer terminal in a municipal location is not the way to go.

My main concern-and that is clear from the debate today-is that Bill C-96 will enable the federal government to deal directly with agencies and individuals in matters coming under the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces like postsecondary education, security and manpower training. It is certainly not a case of jurisdictions being unclear.

The hon. member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine suggested that we look ahead not back. I would actually encourage him to go back to the Canadian Constitution and read it over. The Constitution states that these areas are indeed areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction.

The hon. member closed by saying: "Let the members of the Bloc Quebecois and the Parti Quebecois, the people of Quebec and the Société québécoise de développement de la main-d'oeuvre come and help us, the federal government, to do what we have set out to do, so that it can be better done, in partnership".

He got it all wrong. It should be just the opposite. The federal government should be the one trying to help provincial governments in exercising their exclusive jurisdictions. That is what decentralization should be about. It should not be about the federal government decentralizing its action by going over the heads of the provinces to deal with agencies, businesses and individuals. This is not decentralizing. It is by-passing, going over the heads of the provinces. That is not the same thing, and it certainly does not qualify as decentralization.

On the contrary, that is centralizing. You keep the money, spend it according to certain rules or national standards and go over the heads of the provinces to deal directly with businesses and individuals in areas of provincial jurisdiction.

The past often gives us an indication of what the future holds. I will not go very far back in time. I will focus on the past couple of years. As the opposition's critic for training and youth, I would like to remind the House of a bill I mentioned a number of times already to give you an idea of what the minister has in mind when he talks about decentralizing. I am referring to the infamous Bill C-28 that the House passed on June 23, 1994. What is so special about this bill that the Minister of Human Resources Development is responsible for? Subsection 3(1) states that, from now on, the HRD minister will designate himself appropriate educational authorities for the provinces, which flies in the face of the Constitution. I say it again because people have to understand. Over time, people may forget the connection between certain legislative measures passed by the government. Bill C-28 is an example of a case where the federal government ignored the provinces.

Subsection 14(7) states that Quebec can opt out, with financial compensation, like before, provided that its program meets every requirement and that each of its components is similar to that of the federal program.

The Quebec government is free to do what it wants and, yes, will even get money. However, that money, which, incidentally, comes from Quebecers who pay 24 per cent of their taxes to Ottawa, will only be paid provided certain conditions are met. In other words, Quebec is free to do what it wants, but if it does not do this or that, the federal government will cut funding. What a nice way to view decentralization, this in a field of provincial jurisdiction. Such is the spirit that guides this government.

I followed every initiative of the minister regarding his employment development strategy for young people. One must admit that, in the two-year period, it has not met with much success. The figures for the last two months show that the unemployment rate for the under-25 group is exactly the same as it was two years ago, when the minister took office. This is quite the strategy.

My limited studies in political science have taught me that a political or administrative strategy was good to the extent that it produced results. Otherwise, the strategy was not good and had to be changed. I invite the Minister of Human Resources Development to change his strategy for helping young people find jobs. At the moment, he is in the process of trying to duplicate Quebec provincial programs at the federal level. For example his Youth Service Canada is identical in every respect to the Quebec program Jeunes Volontaires. He has tried something involving work placements as well, but these are things that have already been done by the Government of Quebec and the Société québécoise de la main-d'oeuvre.

During the referendum campaign, Quebecers heard and saw all this, with training and employability enhancement programs that change daily, but the last time I looked there were 102 federal and provincial programs. The total has even gone as high as 108, but a few were combined after that. It is still a huge number, and people cannot find their way around all these programs.

A number of stakeholders in the Société québécoise de la main-d'oeuvre, including Mr. Béland, the president of the Confédération des caisses populaires et d'économie Desjardins du Québec, the FTQ, labour federations, and the Conseil du Patronat as well, have been unanimous in demanding that the federal government pull out of this area. Despite their repeated demands, however-and this is where there is a danger when it comes to public opinion-there is a certain fatigue setting in and the strategy of the government across the way, apart from answering questions

asked during question period, is to pretend that everything is rosy. No reaction. Total silence. No problem. With time, people are saying, "Maybe the Bloc MPs will get fed up. Anyway, it is a temporary party only". They are aware that we are in existence for a limited time, but that time is a bit longer than planned, and we continue to keep our shoulders to the wheel, to be vigilant, tenacious, persevering, keeping on our toes, and it is our intention to remain that way. We will continue until the Quebec consensus concerning manpower is satisfied with the federal government's actions.