Francis Leblanc

[Department Of Canadian Heritage Act, October 18th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on this bill to establish the Department of Canadian Heritage.

This is a technical piece of legislation that formalizes the structure and the sharing of departmental responsibilities implemented when our government took over.

However, as several of the previous speakers pointed out, this bill refers to fundamental areas over which, within the federal government, the minister will have jurisdiction. These areas include, for example, culture, national identity, official languages, national parks, multiculturalism, etc. During the few minutes I have, I want to address one of these areas, the issue of culture.

Some of our colleagues opposite are questioning the legitimacy of the role played by the Canadian government where our culture and our cultural development are concerned. By arguing that the federal role is not legitimate, they are questioning the bill's rationale. Unlike them, I believe that this role is crucial and has been tremendously beneficial to our country and all the regions, especially Quebec.

Culture is not an exclusive jurisdiction; it belongs to everyone. In this sense, and despite all the constitutional exegesis put forward by the Official Opposition, the Act of 1867 does not give one level of government more jurisdiction over culture than the other.

Cultural development concerns the provinces; it concerns the federal government; it concerns all municipalities, professional groups, the creators themselves of course, as well as the cultural businesses, the volunteers and the private sector. Finally, culture is also a question of individual choice, because if each and every one of us is the product of a specified cultural environment, the creation of a work of art, just like the decision to appreciate this work of art, to read it, to listen to it, to watch it, always results, in fact, from an individual choice.

I sincerely believe that, in order to offer a vast, fair and wide array of choices, we need a large number of cultural development officers and governments which play their roles. The goal of the federal government in this area is to ensure that the Canadian artists, creators and cultural businesses can work and that Canadian citizens have access to their productions.

One of the great ironies of this debate in which the opposition forces us to engage is that some people feel that we have to apologize for having public policy objectives that are so normal-to use an adjective of which the opposition is very fond-for there is nothing in these objectives that is unacceptable or threatening to anybody, especially not to the province of Quebec.

It is also ridiculous that we should have to defend ourselves against allegations that we are ignoring the cultural distinctiveness of Quebec or of other regions in our country. Ottawa plots Quebec's cultural demise? This could have come from the Union nationale in the Duplessis years. By the way, Duplessis had nothing but contempt for culture.

The federal government, an agent of cultural standardization imposed by a ruling group against the wishes of the powerless? These sound like the cries of a people oppressed by one of those totalitarian regimes recently condemned by history. The Department of Canadian Heritage, a machine used to create an official culture? If it were true, we would all be trembling, starting with the creators of this country who do not seem to see this as a serious threat. If we look closely at this issue, how can we sum up the federal government's intervention in cultural matters over the few decades in which it has played an active role in this area?

The fact is that several generations of creators and performers from Quebec have produced and presented their work to the public through institutions created, managed or funded by the federal government. Let us just mention Radio-Canada, the Canada Council, the National Film Board, Telefilm Canada, the National Arts Centre or the department whose minister is

responsible for these institutions before the House, namely the Department of Canadian Heritage.

As far as I know, half a century of efforts by those institutions, of support and assistance programs for artists, publishers, museums, producers and the sound recording industry did not hinder the profound originality of artists in Quebec, on the contrary. Those efforts nurtured and developed their creativity, and their works gained exposure not only in Quebec, but also in the rest of Canada and abroad. In short, those programs and institutions have been important contributing factors in the cultural vitality of Quebec, and all Canada can be proud of that.

The works of the likes of Michel Tremblay, Jacques Godbout and Denys Arcand did not lose any of their Quebecois identity for that. It is absurd, sad and distressing that our colleagues across the way cannot understand that what is done in Quebec can also be considered Canadian.

Of course, the federal government must look after Canada-wide, interprovincial and international aspects, but that responsibility complements those of other levels of government. In reality, except in sectors where it has a clear constitutional jurisdiction, like copyright, federal action is limited to cultural products with an interprovincial or international scope like broadcasting. The federal government is also active in the promotion and sharing of cultural treasures outside provincial or national boundaries.

For art lovers, the names of Emily Carr, Alex Colville, Tom Thomson, Geneviève Cadieux and Jean-Paul Lemieux bring to mind landmark works that gained international recognition. Should we be satisfied with saying that one belongs strictly to British Columbia, the second only to Nova Scotia, the third to Ontario alone and the last two to Quebec? They are also Canadian artists.

That is why Canada created the National Gallery and supports a country-wide network of museums and museum-related institutions. That is why Canada encourages artists to attend schools of higher learning like the National Theatre School of Canada and that is why Canada supports artists who get to perform across Canada and abroad and who even reach international fame.

In a world-wide marketplace where artistic recognition as well as economic profitability is often decided abroad, the Canadian government has a mission to accomplish. The international free trade negotiations gave us a good example of the role played by our country and of the complementarity between this role and that of other levels of government.

When it negotiated the cultural exemption in the free trade agreements with the United States and Mexico, Canada not only assumed its responsibility but also maintained the responsibilities of the provinces towards their own artists and cultural industries.

Therefore, I would say that the Department of Canadian Heritage is a basic institution if we are to carry on with our cultural development which has given such excellent results until now and which should be sustained by the federal government and the provinces. If we do not provide ourselves with the necessary tools to carry on this mission, we are virtually abandoning a responsibility which has proven to be a most profitable one for Canadians.

[Social Policy Reform, October 7th, 1994]

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

Since the Liberals came to power, employment has gone up significantly. We saw that 339,000 jobs were created, most of them full-time jobs. More than 97,000 jobs were created in the Atlantic provinces alone. Which policies helped to bring about this remarkable turnaround?

[Social Security Programs, October 6th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comments made by the member opposite and his concern about the Canadian debt and about the most vulnerable in our society.

I think that the best way to start reducing the Canadian debt burden-this is not the time to explain why the debt is so high-is to put Canadians back to work, create ideal conditions for economic growth and, at the same time, find ways to reduce overlap and duplication and other problems preventing people from finding work and undergoing training and development when needed, so that we can improve the economic picture, given Canada's existing prospects. A dramatic example of that can be found in rural regions like mine, in the eastern regions that are dependent on ailing industries such as fishing.

The purpose of this debate is to get from members on both sides of the House concrete ideas that will allow us as a government and as a society to create conditions favourable to economic growth and job creation, reduce the debt burden and, more important, promote the dignity attached to employment, to income and to Canadians' ability to work and support their families. That is the challenge issued by this debate to this House and to all Canadians.

[Social Security Programs, October 6th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I welcome this historic opportunity to participate in the debate on the reform of Canada's social security system which this government has launched.

I also welcome the challenge of chairing the House of Commons committee that will seek the views of Canadians over the next few months on the proposals for reform which the Minister of Human Resources Development tabled in this House yesterday. I want to say a few words later in my remarks about how the committee proposes to hear from Canadians on this important issue.

There are few dimensions of being Canadian that resonate more strongly in the hearts of all of us than the sense that we are a caring, compassionate and tolerant society. These fundamental national values find their most tangible expression in the framework of social programs that together we have built through our federal, provincial and municipal governments over the past half century to provide support, income security and dignity to those less fortunate members of our society in times of need.

These programs, unemployment insurance, the Canada assistance plan, the Canada student loans program, and the system of federal-provincial co-operation in the funding and support of higher education in Canada, the family allowance and its successor programs, the child tax credit and the child benefit payments for families with children have been responses by reform minded Canadians to real needs crying out to be met. They were inspired by a vision of a better Canada and a willingness in the pursuit of that vision to overcome the overwhelming drag of the status quo and the straitjacket of existing institutions to find ways to realize on that vision.

The great bulk of the national programs that comprise the social security system in Canada today were put in place by successive Liberal governments. They form a proud legacy of this party to the building of Canada. We on this side of the House have every reason and every incentive to want to preserve the social security system and its values which is at the core of our political inheritance.

Why would a Liberal government be proposing to review and reform the very programs with which it has been so identified over the years? For the very same reasons that led our predecessors to defy conventional wisdom and overcome the resistance to change in order to create these programs in the first place.

The Liberal Party of Canada is not the party of the status quo. It is the party of reform. It is the party that has been willing to take on the risks and challenges of guiding and leading Canadians into the future, a future which may not always be fully visible.

The destitution and despair of the great depression called for the creation of programs such as unemployment insurance and new arrangements for assisting provinces and municipalities in helping those in need. These arrangements and other initiatives by federal governments have been met with all kinds of objections for why they could not be funded or why they could not be carried out. So too this Liberal government in the spirit of its predecessors finds itself today challenging the status quo in order to bring Canadians into a brighter future.

We on this side of the House were not elected just to defend the status quo. We were elected to confront the real problems that face Canadians today.

One of the real problems confronting Canadians today is the one million children who in the midst of this abundant land live in poverty because their parents and more often than not their single parents for a whole host of reasons are denied access to the means to earn a decent living for themselves. As a result, these children are born short changed on the promise of being Canadian.

A real problem facing Canadians today is a stubbornly high level of unemployment which exists side by side in good and bad times with a growing number of jobs which fail to get created or go unfilled because there are no Canadians trained to take them. Increasingly the profile of the jobless is not the individual who is between jobs for a few months. It is the long term unemployed whose skills are out of date for the current economy and who cannot get the support to obtain the training necessary to rejoin the labour force.

In the face of this reality our unemployment insurance system which was developed and designed to serve as a temporary bridge between jobs is increasingly being used by a smaller and smaller share of recipients year after year as a form of almost guaranteed annual income. The result is that notwithstanding major increases in UI payments in recent years the number of unemployed who are helped is decreasing and the ability of government through these programs to assist the unemployed to get into the job market is being more and more curtailed.

In an effort to contain UI costs in recent years a host of regulations have been erected that forced the unemployed into dependency traps and often bizarre lifestyle choices. Most Canadian families know that the system is not working. While the proposals in the government document may not be the only solutions, it is clear that more than tinkering is necessary.

The focus of this reform exercise is not deficit reduction. However Canadians know that with a government debt that costs taxpayers more than $40 billion a year in interest charges alone to service, we cannot ignore the cost of this deficit as a consideration in the future programs we undertake as Canadians. If Canadians do not begin as a society to gain control over the mountain of debt and to reduce the deficit which is adding to it we may find that our social programs will not be determined by us but by the international bond agencies that buy our bonds.

These are some of the real problems which this review of social programs and the other elements of the government's jobs and growth agenda are meant to address and in which all Canadians are being invited to participate. The focus for this participation will be the Parliament of Canada and specifically the House of Commons Standing Committee on Human Resources Development which has been asked by the government to carry out broad consultations on these reform proposals.

We will begin our work immediately, hearing from the minister of human resources himself the day MPs return from the parliamentary recess on October 17. We will meet with experts and national associations in Ottawa to hear their reactions and ideas to the government's proposals.

Beginning November 14 in Whitehorse, Yukon, our committee will begin an intensive five week program of cross Canada hearings and consultations which will take us to every province and territory in this great country to hear firsthand what Canadians want from their social security system and what improvements they have to suggest to the government's proposals.

Today we will be making public the schedule of the committee's travels and details on how Canadians can participate in the work of this committee. I encourage Canadians to make contact with the clerk of the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development by phone, fax or letter for information on the committee's schedule and how they can get involved.

In addition to the committee's consultations, we are encouraging individual members of Parliament to carry out their own consultations, to hold public assemblies and town hall meetings in order to obtain the views of their constituents on the proposals and to bring the results of their consultations forward to the committee for its consideration in the preparation of its final report.

The views and recommendations which result from these consultations will form an important element in the response of Parliament to the ideas in the government's discussion paper.

As chairman of the Standing Committee of Human Resources, I had the chance to hear the views of Canadians of all social conditions and of all regions. The message they sent is quite clear. They are proud of a system that could assist many people in the past, but that simply is no longer working well enough.

Our existing system is too easily misused, it does not meet the needs of many people, and it is out of touch with the present social and economic reality. During the last 20 years, many traditional sectors in our economy have had to struggle to survive, and undergo fundamental changes. Many traditional jobs have disappeared and been replaced by jobs requiring more education, training and upgrading of skills.

Since 1976, the long-term unemployment rate has tripled because of those changes. More and more people have had to go on unemployment insurance repeatedly, while struggling to adjust to new requirements. Today, almost 40 per cent of recipients have been on unemployment insurance at least three times in the last five years.

The number of people on welfare has doubled since 1981. Three million Canadians are now on welfare and the cost of social assistance provided under the Canada Assistance Plan has gone up from less than $3 billion to more than $8 billion a year. Chronic unemployment and the increasing number of people who so often claim unemployment insurance show that people are not receiving the help they need.

Too many young people drop out of school without being ready to be part of the labour force. Too many people on welfare or low income earners find themselves in a position where they cannot afford to develop their skills or cannot do it because of the system.

Too many people whose career has been cut short because of changing conditions do not get the training they need. First and foremost, we must find solutions based on the new consensus in terms of principles and priorities and the mechanisms to implement them.

The reform goals and principles outlined in the working paper reflect what Canadians have told me. We must now set out to take action on principles and priorities through the implementation of concrete ideas on how to make the best use of our money in order to meet our main objectives.

There are several proposals in the working paper and they are obviously open for discussion. Given the restrictions about government expenditures, we will have to make difficult choices as to the priorities that we have, as a country, in order to implement some of these proposals contained in the working document.

We have the opportunity to work together and to establish a better system for the future. A system that will be efficient and that will give some hope to parents, children, workers, people looking for jobs, future generations and Canadians across the country.

Next February, I intend to report to this House on the consultations made by the Standing Committee. Once the consultations are over and the Canadians have made their priorities known, this government will introduce a bill to establish a new social security system. Let us see to it that this bill truly reflects what Canadians want and what they need, that is a fair, efficient and affordable social security system we will believe in and which will bring us into the 21th century.

The time has come for a focused vigorous debate on what we can achieve, on what we must achieve through social security reform. It is our responsibility as members of Parliament to help ensure Canadians can take part in this debate. This is a matter for all Canadians, not just interest groups and not just governments.

We have to move the discussion to the coffee shops, the dinner table, the boardrooms, classrooms and union halls. We have to listen closely to what people are saying. All Canadians will have an opportunity to examine these suggestions, to propose new ones and to help define the priorities for reform.

As chair of the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development, I look forward to holding public hearings across the country. I intend to ensure that these hearings are as complete and as accessible as possible.

If at all possible, I want anyone who wants to take part to have an opportunity to so. The government will organize consultation seminars across the country. These will provide a broad range of Canadians the opportunity to take part in an intense examination of the issues and priorities for social security reform.

We will have public meetings in all major centres to bring the discussion of reform to the grassroots of our country. Groups such as labour unions, business and professional associations or service groups are encouraged to organize their own reform consultations and to make their views known.

We will make detailed information and material available to both individuals and groups, setting out the facts on social security, the objectives and principles proposed by the governments as well as the ideas for reform outlined in this discussion paper.

We will provide individuals with a workbook to help people work through the reform issues, identify their priorities and concerns and provide direct feedback to the government. I encourage all members of this House to take part, not only by making their own views known but by making information available to their constituents, encouraging their participation, gathering their views and passing them on.

This is a unique opportunity to move the debate on social security beyond the traditional confines of narrow ideologies. It is an opportunity to go beyond the traditional debates about cutting programs or spending our way out of trouble. Today, that kind of narrow vision misses the point.

Before I conclude my remarks, I want to appeal to Atlantic Canada in particular and to the constituents whom I am honoured to represent here in the House of Commons. No region in Canada has a greater stake in the success of this reform exercise than Atlantic Canada.

No region has been more reliant on the income security system than Atlantic Canada and for good reason. Because of their historical position in Confederation and the nature of their economy over the years the people of Atlantic Canada have by necessity been forced to rely on the income security system more than the country as a whole. In many parts of Atlantic Canada the people know the adversity we have recently had to deal with because of crises in our natural resource industry such as the fishery in some places, forestry and other industries and other sectors on which we are traditionally reliant.

The people of Atlantic Canada may well feel concerned. They may feel nervous. They may feel that their concerns are not being addressed or will not be addressed in a future social security system.

For that reason there may be a temptation not to participate. However, I would encourage and appeal particularly to the people of Atlantic Canada to be a full player and full partners with the government in redesigning an income security system that will serve them as well as the rest of Canada so that rebuilding the economy of this country can be achieved.

[Fisheries, September 26th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.

Atlantic fishing communities that depend on the turbot fishery, such as Canso in my riding, were encouraged to learn that at the meeting of the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization in Dartmouth. The European members agreed to important conservation measures to protect the turbot resource outside Canada's 200 mile zone.

Can the minister inform this House how these important commitments will be enforced?

[Interparliamentary Delegations, September 21st, 1994]

Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the report of the Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association to the Third Annual Parliamentary Assembly of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe held in Vienna, Austria, from July 4 to July 8, 1994.

[Petitions, September 19th, 1994]

It is my honour to rise pursuant to article 31 of the Standing Orders to present a petition on behalf of numerous constituents who urge Parliament to ensure that the present provisions in the Criminal Code of Canada prohibiting assisted suicides be enforced vigorously and that Parliament make no change in the law which would sanction or allow the aiding and abetting of suicide or active or passive euthanasia.

[Committees Of The House, June 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, if the House gives its consent I move that the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development presented to the House earlier this day be concurred in.

(Motion agreed to.)

[Committees Of The House, June 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to lay upon the table the 6th report of the standing committee on human resources, concerning the date the committee's report on the review of social

security is to be tabled and a request for permission to travel. If the House agrees, I intend to move that the 6th report be concurred in later today.

[Department Of Labour Act, June 20th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate this morning in the debate, at third reading, of Bill C-30, and I am also pleased to see that the hon. member for Gaspé gave his party's support to this very important legislation for the workers of the Atlantic fishing industry.

I listened with great interest to the comments and suggestions made by the hon. member to rebuild an industry which is so vital to many communities on the East coast. I find the hon. member's approach to be very interesting and fruitful in many respects. Our government thinks that the time has come to rebuild this industry and, in fact, this is the objective of the adjustment program announced on May 15 by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the Minister of Human Resources Development. The purpose of that initiative is to help displaced workers and those who have been left without jobs following the crisis in that industry. The program is aimed at giving individuals and communities a chance to rebuild their lives, and to rebuild that industry on a more solid foundation than in the past.

Bill C-30 is part of the government's strategy for helping the workers that have been laid off and unemployed by the crisis in the Atlantic fishery to adjust to the situation. We have to consider the horrendously difficult circumstance in which many fish plant workers find themselves, particularly older fish plant

workers. Through absolutely no fault of their own, many older workers are out of a job and their prospects are slim to none for getting another one. This is the problem that Bill C-30 addresses. Canadians want us to show compassion for these individuals. We are showing compassion. We are bring in positive measures to address this unprecedented crisis. The government is approaching this problem through a component of the Atlantic groundfish strategy which will involve income support for older workers. It is a program that will be negotiated, financed and implemented with the provinces.

However there are some workers who cannot be helped under the current legislation. I am referring to those workers who are under the age of 55, who were at least 50 years of age on May 15 of this year and who are eligible to participate in the Atlantic groundfish strategy. They do not qualify for older worker adjustment assistance under current legislation. That is the reason why Bill C-30 is so important, it addresses their plight.

Hon. members have given valuable input to this legislation. Last week Bill C-30 was studied by the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development. The committee gave careful consideration to the issues raised by hon. members opposite. For the benefit of the House I would like to address some of those concerns.

There is always justifiable apprehension that with a new program, tax dollars earned through the sweat of Canadian workers are going to end up in the pockets of people who do not qualify for the program. I can assure my hon. colleagues that will not happen with this program. To be eligible for benefits first an individual must be determined eligible under TAGS; the individual must be a fish plant worker or a trawler person; he or she must have a long term attachment to the groundfish industry; the person has to be out of a job because of a permanent reduction of the workforce at the fish plant and that permanent reduction has to be the result of a decline in fish stocks.

So that this is absolutely clear, the only people we are talking about here are older fish plant workers, including trawler persons. All told we estimate that involves about 1,200 men and women. Of that number about 700 will have reached the age of 55 during their entitlement period under TAGS by May 16 of this year when the Atlantic groundfish strategy came into effect.

We estimate there will be an additional 500 workers who would reach the age of 55 during their entitlement under TAGS. It is those 500 dedicated men and women that the passage of Bill C-30 is designed to help.

Some members have said that if we are going to help older workers who happen to be out of a job because of fish plants closing, then should we not also help older workers who have lost their jobs because of restructuring in other industries? That analogy does not hold here. The groundfish industry is not just one of many industries in Atlantic Canada, it is its lifeblood, and in those communities which are dependent on the fishery there really is no alternative source of employment for older workers.

The demise of this industry will lead to the demise of entire communities unless we help these hard working men and women deal with the crisis. Simply put, there are few options available to older workers in this situation.

Yet there is a legitimate question about the ramifications of the decline in the groundfish industry for the rest of the Atlantic economy. I am sure that hon. members realize that these adjustments do not take place in a vacuum. There is a domino effect that spreads throughout the entire Atlantic seaboard. In Newfoundland alone there are some 1,300 communities affected by the groundfish industry. Of that number, 800 depend solely on economic activity from groundfish. The government would be remiss not to take this into account. We are taking it into account.

Hon. members will recall that the budget provided $800 million for the strategic initiatives program. Projects under this program will be funded on a 50:50 basis with the provinces and territories. They will explore innovative approaches to training and getting people back to work. In Atlantic Canada the program will complement TAGS by helping men and women who are not directly employed by the fishery.

Since the major downturn in the fishery has taken place in Newfoundland, that province will be the first to receive assistance under the strategic initiatives program.

Last Thursday the Minister of Human Resources Development, along with the minister of fisheries of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and ministers from the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador announced funding of $20 million for projects in Newfoundland under the strategic initiatives program.

I realize that this debate on Bill C-30 is not the place for details of strategic initiatives but I can tell the House that these projects will provide financial incentive to encourage students to stay in school. They will help recent graduates to find jobs and they will encourage entrepreneurship outside the fishery.

The funds will also provide employment and training opportunities for unemployed and underemployed individuals on social assistance or at risk of moving on to social assistance. It is a partnership, co-operation among all levels of government, the private sector and community organizations to ensure that programs such as TAGS and the strategic initiatives address the

entire economic picture in a way that will help to revitalize the Atlantic economy.

Some hon. members have expressed concern that this income assistance program will duplicate the general social assistance programs. Let me assure them that this is not so. This is a program that addresses specific individuals who meet specific criteria within a specific age group. General social assistance programs apply to all citizens and have very different criteria.

As well, this program will not be a disincentive to seek work because it is only one part of a broad range of options under TAGS to help fish plant workers adjust to these drastic changes taking place in their lives. Older workers will be able to participate in the other components under TAGS such as green projects, self-employment assistance, and community opportunity pools and others.

At a federal level TAGS is a joint initiative of human resource development and fisheries and oceans. The two departments are working closely together to implement this program for the benefit of the greatest number of workers affected by the demise of the groundfish industry. Fisheries and oceans is currently consulting with its partners to develop a similar income support program for fishers who would qualify.

An hon. member inquired when the program will start and how long it will last. TAGS came into effect May 16 and eligible workers are entitled to labour adjustment measures and income assistance for a period between two to five years, depending upon their attachment to the groundfish industry.

The provisions made available under Bill C-30 to assist older workers will provide a dignified exit to those unemployed fish plant workers in my riding and elsewhere in Atlantic Canada who, having reached the age of 50, know full well that there are no reasonable opportunities for employment in their communities for them and the only alternative course once their unemployment insurance expires would have been social assistance. This program gives those workers a form of early retirement.

In the meantime it will allow the industry to be rebuilt with the younger people who are coming behind them. At the same time it will provide them with an opportunity to have a dignified exit and to be able to deal with the consequences of this crisis without the additional burden of loss of income and the need in some cases to leave their communities where all of their assets are located.

In closing I encourage hon. members to consider the tremendous hardships being faced by these older fish plant workers and to support Bill C-30 so that the government can give them the assistance they very much deserve during this severe crisis in their lives.