Mr. Speaker, does the minister realize that his stubbornness is confirmation that the Liberals are in the process of denying a university education to thousands of young people?
House of Commons photoLost his last election, in 2015, with 12% of the vote.
Post-Secondary Education November 14th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, does the minister realize that his stubbornness is confirmation that the Liberals are in the process of denying a university education to thousands of young people?
Post-Secondary Education November 14th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development. Among the series of cuts planned as part of the social programs reform, Ottawa wants to discontinue transfers to the provinces for post-secondary education. The rector of McGill recently announced that, as a result of this reform, the university's tuition fees would climb to $8,000 a year.
Does the minister agree that his proposal, which will increase student debt substantially, is unacceptable, and will he agree, in the interests of common sense, to go back to the drawing board?
Mil Davie Shipyards November 4th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, since the minister responsible for regional development does not answer, I will put my question to the Deputy Prime Minister.
Does the Deputy Prime Minister not admit that awarding this contract without taking MIL Davie's bid into account is unfair to the Quebec shipyard, which is struggling to survive with all the energy it has left and which is better qualified to fill this order?
Mil Davie Shipyards November 4th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, the Hibernia consortium recently awarded an untendered contract to Saint John's Shipbuilding in New Brunswick. This $35-million contract represents several hundred jobs. This decision is outrageous since the MIL Davie shipyard in Quebec had already bid
on this contract, unlike Saint John's Shipbuilding which never did.
My question is for the minister responsible for regional development in Quebec. How can the minister explain that he did not step in to keep the Hibernia board of directors from awarding without tender a $35-million contract to Saint John's Shipbuilding, without a bid from this company, when MIL Davie had already submitted a bid?
Credentials November 3rd, 1994
Mr. Speaker, yesterday I tried to get an answer to my question. I hope to get one today. I am not sure who will answer. In any case, it is up to the government to decide.
Yesterday, I asked the Minister of Human Resources Development about an incident reported to the media. It involved a young unemployed who had been told not to go to Carrefour Jeunesse-Emploi, in Gatineau, but instead go to another centre, to find work. The reason given was that Carrefour Jeunesse-Emploi had a job-search group which had lost its funding of $240,000. In spite of enjoying strong support from the community, that agency had not managed to convince the Department of Human Resources Development to review the decision. We know that the money thus saved was given to other centres, including a new one set up in the neighbouring riding, which just happens to be the riding of the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.
So, this was not a real saving: It was a transfer of funds. One excuse made was that Carrefour Jeunesse-Emploi wanted to provide its services to people who were not getting UI benefits. In this case, the young man was entitled to unemployment insurance benefits, but could not avail himself of the new service provided by Carrefour Jeunesse-Emploi, because the civil servant concerned forbade him to do so. He wanted the young man to go to another centre.
We asked the minister if he could justify this action. Unfortunately, the minister says that it is a judgment by employment counsellors as to the advice they give to clients of our employment centres as to the best services that can be provided to them.
In other words, having delegated his authority, the minister was saying that nothing could be done. He allows civil servants to resort to blackmail. He added that the La Relance project has a 75 per cent success rate, which is why people were referred to it. Carrefour Jeunesse-Emploi also has a 75 per cent success rate.
In the second part of his answer, the minister stated that cuts were made, but that Carrefour Jeunesse-Emploi receives $550,000 from the federal government, compared to only $100,000 from the province of Quebec.
On checking today, we find that the province contributes approximately $600,000 to Carrefour Jeunesse-Emploi and that the contribution of the constituency is $50,000. This is far from the five to one ratio that the minister mentioned yesterday during Question Period, which was more a question period than an answer period, since the answer was not satisfactory.
As we can see, cuts are being made in youth training centres by the Department of Human Resources Development while consultations are being held on the social program reform. The government did not even wait for the consultation results to go ahead with these cuts. If only this was to achieve savings. But no. The money saved will be transferred to other ridings, and the province and the federal government will continue to wrestle with each other. This will only maintain the indescribable mess in manpower training in Quebec.
Meanwhile, the federal government is trying to establish the Canadian Youth Service Corps at $10,000 per participant, when Carrefour Jeunesse-Emploi in Gatineau only cost $1,000 grant for each and every young participant. A survey of the people who found a job in previous years with the help of Carrefour Jeunesse-Emploi shows that, with an investment of $240,000, those who found a job paid $1,385,000 in federal taxes.
So, it was profitable for the government. In spite of this, the government still continues to thwart Quebec's job training objectives, by going after a centre in Quebec which already was a one-stop service centre, and provided a great number of services to young people. And because one criterion to lower the number of people receiving unemployment insurance benefits is not being met, young men and women are being blackmailed.
I am hoping for a satisfactory answer and especially a comment indicating that this will stop.
Credentials November 3rd, 1994
Mr. Speaker, at first glance, the motion tabled by the member for Winnipeg North may seem quite interesting, since it provides that the government should, in co-operation with the provinces, seek to put in place a process aimed at ensuring the portability of credentials obtained in and outside Canada in order to fully utilize the talents, skills and experience of all Canadians.
In other words, the member wants skills acquired in a province to be recognized in the other provinces as well as in other countries. To that end, the member proposes that the federal government, in co-operation with the provinces, seek to put in place a recognition process of credentials. However, one can see that this motion is very much in the spirit of the social program reform.
Indeed, one of the proposals made by the Minister of Human Resources Development in his discussion paper is the delivery of a learning passport. The passport would, in one place, document an individual's learning experience as well as any academic and vocational credentials, and would be recognized across the country by employers and learning institutions.
Such an initiative would require national education standards. However, it just so happens that, according to the Constitution, and this is something the Official Opposition keeps repeating, education falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces. For the majority of provinces, except Quebec, manpower mobility does not pose any linguistic problem, since the English language is used. There might be a problem with New Brunswick, which has a large proportion of French-speaking people, but in the majority of provinces this does not present any problem.
I have to relate an historical event, which occurred in 1990 and which disappointed many Quebecers. There was the Charlottetown Accord but, before that, the Meech Lake Accord was also rejected. One thing which disappointed a lot of Quebecers has to do with the recognition of Quebec as a distinct society, based on its language and its culture. As sociologist Guy Rocher often points out, culture is a group's own way of thinking, acting and feeling. In other words, the difference is not merely of a linguistic nature.
In Quebec, not only do we have a different way of thinking, acting and feeling, but we also have a civil code which, as members opposite know, is totally different from the one used elsewhere in the country. In Quebec, we have a civil code based on the Napoleonic Code. It goes back a number of years but was updated last year by the previous Liberal government, involving a lot of work and extensive changes.
Incidentally, when we consider our legal system, all citizens are concerned and not just lawyers. We always go by the principle that everyone is supposed to know the law. But here, we have a whole collection of different standards.
If we allow mobility in the case of education, for instance, what about language? To have a standard that is acceptable across the country, how many hours of second language or first language courses should be offered from coast to coast? I see this as a major problem.
If a proposal in this respect were up to the provincial Ministers of Education who could try to define minimum standards that would be acceptable to all concerned, we could go along with that, because the Bloc Quebecois does not think Quebecers should live in a vacuum. It has never been opposed to the principle of free trade, and I mean free trade in more than goods and services. Free trade also involves individuals who move around to sell and promote their products, for instance.
However, when we get to the question of manpower training and professional qualifications, Quebec does not operate the same way the other provinces do, with a few exceptions.
We do not want to be perceived as people who are against what English Canada wants to do, if it is against exchanges between the English-speaking provinces. And we are not, whether we are sovereign or operating under a federal system, against exchanges between individuals in Quebec and the other provinces, nor do we have any objection to Quebecers being able to work, for instance, in NAFTA member countries such as the United States, Mexico or elsewhere.
It is an interesting principle, but to implement the proposal made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North, we must consider setting standards in the field of education. I understand the hon. member's emphasis on co-operation and I admire his democratic philosophy, but as far as implementing this approach is concerned, we must remember that for years there has been a very strong consensus in Quebec among all parties on professional training. However, for more than a decade, there has been no agreement on how governments should operate in this area.
Considering that the Minister of Human Resources Development was unable to get the provincial ministers responsible for education and professional training on side, co-operation would seem to be a major problem. If we consider education and financial assistance, we saw, for instance, in Bill C-28 that the Minister of Human Resources Development had a number of new provisions to increase his discretionary powers, while formerly, it was up to the Lieutenant-Governor in Council to determine who is the appropriate authority for education, while according to the new provisions, the minister himself would be able to designate the appropriate authority. He becomes some sort of a super education minister for the whole country, once again infringing upon an area of provincial jurisdiction.
If the invitation from the member for Winnipeg North was well received by the provincial education ministers, together, at their own level, they could define a set of minimum standards, regardless of the political context, be it sovereignty or the status quo. If these ministers could agree on some minimum standards, they may not have to be wall-to-wall in agreement to have specific provisions for Quebec, and recognize Quebec as a
distinct society, while having different standards for the rest of Canada.
The more I attend the meetings of the committee on human resources development, the more I listen to people from across Canada, the more I realize that in this country, there are two different countries and people with a totally different mind-set. In English Canada, people identify more strongly with the central government, that is the federal government, whereas in Quebec, we identify with our provincial government. In English Canada, when there is disagreement between the agencies and the province, people favour the federal government; this is somehow what the proposal from the member for Winnipeg North does. I believe it deserves to be taken into consideration, but in its present form, it is unacceptable to Quebec. The responsibility should lie solely with the provincial education ministers.
Social Security Programs November 3rd, 1994
Mr. Speaker, it is my turn to speak to Bill C-54. My speech will deal with two aspects. First, there is the whole issue of personal information. The reason we are opposed to this bill as it now stands is that the government wants to add Canada Post, among others, to the list of agencies and departments which already have access to this information. We may wonder why Canada Post needs to know this, but I think there is no reason to be concerned in this case.
Correctional Service Canada is a little more disturbing. Why Correctional Service? They may need it for criminal investigations, and that would be okay, I suppose. But the RCMP, the Minister of Justice, members of Parliament? At the moment, the management of intelligence services is raising many questions and creating a great deal of uncertainty among the general public.
I think that now is not the time to add to the list, especially when dealing with clients, in this case seniors, who may be more vulnerable to fuller disclosure of personal information or to allowing a larger number of government organizations, departments and agencies to look at seniors' files.
We know that seniors-it will be our turn some day-live in insecurity, especially those with few resources. We in the Official Opposition are very concerned about the provisions adding a significant number of government bodies to the list of those with access to personal information. That is why the other day the hon. member for Papineau-Saint-Michel proposed an amendment which was rejected but which would have imposed some limits on the collection of personal information.
The second aspect is, of course, the efficiency measures. They want to improve service to seniors-as stated in the objectives of the bill-and simplify access to old age pensions, while at the same time taking measures to recover money from clients who, as I said earlier, are very worried. I saw people again this week in my riding office who are worried about social program reform. I do not want to indulge in grandstanding, but old age pensions are excluded from this reform. Meanwhile, the Minister of Finance is travelling across Canada and telling everybody that there will be a reform of social programs but that spending will also have to be cut.
Seniors-for whom I want to speak out-are worried. Again yesterday, two seniors told me the same thing at a meeting of the Committee on Human Resources Development. Can we guarantee that old age pensions will not be affected? Unfortunately, we see here some measures that reduce the retroactive period for an application to one year from five. Previously, seniors could apply to the government and had up to five years to do so. Now it is reduced to one.
Eliminating the grace period would, it is estimated, save the government $1 to $2 million. The bill has a provision whereby the minister can stop making benefit payments while an appeal is reviewed.
Imagine someone who wants to appeal a decision under this bill. Now, all of a sudden, as a result of the minister's discretionary power or the department's delegated authority, his benefit payments would stop. This means that the burden of proof is on him, because he is penalized right away, and his old age pension payments are stopped until a decision is made on the appeal.
These economy measures are somewhat contrary to the purpose of the law, which it seems was meant to make the Canada Pension Plan procedures easier for seniors.
For these two main reasons, especially the increased number of agencies, if the bill is passed as is, it would give access to private information on individual seniors. Moreover, the savings would be made on the backs of people who are among the most vulnerable in our society, seniors, most of whom, as we know, are barely scraping by.
I think that the government-because the amounts saved are about $1 or $2 million in each case, for a total of around $4 million for all of Canada-should not make seniors feel more insecure. These savings are not worth it. These people have contributed to society all their life and I think they deserve peace of mind and reassurance about their pensions.
Carrefour Jeunesse-Emploi November 2nd, 1994
Mr. Speaker, does the minister recognize that this deplorable situation demonstrates once again the scope of the current mess in manpower training, with federal and provincial civil servants wrestling with each other, at the expense of the unemployed?
Carrefour Jeunesse-Emploi November 2nd, 1994
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development. On Monday, we were stunned to learn that a young man who is unemployed was threatened with losing his UI benefits because he intends to participate in the job-search program set up by Carrefour Jeunesse-Emploi. This is an agency whose federal contribution was just cut and which has now been taken over by the Quebec government and the city of Gatineau.
How can the minister justify such blackmail on the part of his civil servants when young jobless people want to use the services provided by Carrefour Jeunesse-Emploi to improve their lot?
Manpower Training October 26th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, my question is again for the Minister of Human Resources Development. Does the minister not admit that his attitude in the youth service matter clearly shows that he is trying to muzzle the Quebec government, when we know that federal officials offered Quebec a seat on the federal pilot project selection board provided that Quebec made a commitment not to criticize the Canadian youth service program publicly?