Maud Debien

[Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, November 24th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, since Radio Canada International is Canada's international showcase-

[Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, November 24th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.

In announcing budget cuts, the President of the CBC explained that between 600 and 1,000 positions would be eliminated before March 1996. According to him, the exact number of jobs to be cut will depend on whether or not the federal government decides to contribute to the funding of Radio Canada International.

Can the Minister of Canadian Heritage confirm that his government has decided to stop funding Radio Canada International?

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

Mr. Speaker, not long ago, I read the speech the Minister of Human Resources Development made during second reading of Bill C-96. This bill, entitled an Act to establish the Department of Human Resources Development and to amend and repeal certain related Acts, certainly stems from a noble intent.

When I read this speech, I got the feeling that we were taking part in a huge change operation, a bit like the edifying commitments the Liberals make to try to make us swallow the pill. The minister said, and I quote: "a new, innovative way of doing government, to get people to begin to think differently about how government can relate to individuals, to provide a much more effective way of enabling people to respond and make choices themselves and not have choices made for them, to share, to create partnerships, to get away from the top down command system and to turn that into a Canadian Tire philosophy based in the local communities with tools and instruments customized and tailored to the needs of those communities."

One could think that the minister is talking about real decentralization and is about to comply once and for all with the repeated and urgent requests of the province of Quebec for control over the policies and programs concerning manpower and training.

However, the minister warned us right from the start. "It is, he said, decentralization of a very different kind."

The minister then said: "There has been a lot of talk about decentralization. So far it has been a somewhat restricted debate as it talks only about decentralization in terms of transferring from the federal government to provincial governments." And this is very significant. The message here is clear. The kind of decentralization the minister is bragging about has nothing to do with Quebec's expectations and ignores the consensus that was reached in Quebec over manpower training.

Let us look at this a little bit closer. Even though the prime minister told us, in answer to our questions, that the official opposition had obviously not bothered to read Bill C-96, we have to conclude that several individuals, institutions and organizations in Quebec are really ignorant, according to the prime minister. Unfortunately for him, the people of Quebec also know how to read between the lines.

It is appalling but not really surprising to see that Bill C-96 goes totally against the large consensus reached in Quebec over manpower issues. For several years now, all those involved in Quebec's labour force have agreed to demand the repatriation to Quebec of all manpower training programs and of the related budgets.

Far from abiding by this unanimous consent, the federal government has announced its intent to continue with and even increase all of the costly duplication and overlap. Once again, the Liberal government ignores its own basic rule. Yet, the Canadian Constitution 1867 recognizes clearly and explicitly the areas of provincial jurisdiction. But for years now the federal government has been using its spending power and its authority to impose national standards and to infringe upon the jurisdictions of the provinces. All that Bill C-96 does is legalizing a de facto situation.

Whatever the Prime Minister says, we did read this bill, and it was easy for us to grab its real intent. For example, clauses 6, 20 and 21 are unequivocal.

Clause 6 aims at extending federal jurisdiction by expanding the powers, duties and functions of the Minister. Clause 20 provides that the Minister may negotiate and enter into agreements with, and I quote: "such other persons or bodies as the Minister considers appropriate."

In the same vein, clause 21 reiterates that the Minister may authorize any other person or body to exercise any power or perform any duty or function of the Minister.

All that to make sure we understand that the Minister has no obligation to consult or agree with the provinces in precise areas of provincial jurisdiction.

Indeed, from now on, according to Bill C-96, the department of Human Resources Development will be authorized to by-pass the provinces and impose manpower standards and policies. It will be able to develop a parallel federal structure to intervene on the Quebec labour market.

The federal government is empowering itself to by-pass the provinces and to intervene directly with bodies, municipal governments and individuals. While the Constitution gives provinces power over manpower development and vocational training, the federal gouvernment has chosen to ignore it.

So history repeats itself. It will be remembered that, in 1991, the previous Conservative government tried to encroach upon provincial jurisdiction and directly interfere in matters regarding vocational training and manpower. Once again, Quebec unanimously denounced these centralizing and unconstitutional moves by the federal government.

The Quebec Liberal Party and the Conseil du patronat du Québec added their voice to this denunciation. The same centralizing designs, which are spelled out in Bill C-96, are now giving rise to the same denunciations everywhere in Quebec. The initiative is, however, more subtle this time, because it comes a few days after the referendum.

While the Liberals spoke of nothing but change during the referendum campaign, there are now, with Bill C-96, attempting further intrusion in the area of training.

The Canadian provinces have different labour markets. A centralized and uniform approach would hardly help anyone. The result would be more red tape, as my colleague for Joliette clearly demonstrated earlier.

Let us not forget that Quebec already has established manpower networks. The Société québécoise de développement de la main-d'oeuvre is a special form of partnership involving all Quebec stakeholders in manpower matters, whether they are employers, unions, co-operatives, educators or community groups. Quebecers know better than anyone else what is good for them. Quebecers must decide what their manpower policies should be and set their own priorities.

This is not a symbolic demand or the confirmation of a historic right. It is only a matter of good old common sense for those who take to heart the promotion and the support of manpower development. If there really is a will to change and to decentralize in Canada, as we were told during the referendum campaign, this is the time for the winds to blow.

If Bill C-96 is a proof of the flexibility the Liberal government boasts about, if it is indicative of the rejection of, and I quote the minister of Human Resources Development, "the old top down centralized hierarchies of governmental organization, which have been really a product of the old industrial age", then, it is a total failure.

Bill C-96 sends a clear message to the Quebec Liberal Party, to the Conseil du patronat and to all other partners in the field of employment in Quebec, and it is that the federal government will never accept that Quebec assume sole responsibility for manpower training within its territory. Ottawa will never accept either that Quebec repatriate the funds that the federal government allocates to manpower training programs. Quebecers will clearly see that it is impossible to develop a Quebec manpower policy suited to its realities and administered by Quebec if they stay in Canada. That will only be possible in a sovereign Quebec.

Therefore, I urge all members of Parliament who really care for the improvement of relations between the two founding peoples of this country to support the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Mercier and to vote against Bill C-96.

[Agusta, November 10th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, that answer has nothing to do with the question. My question was on the second contract, but the minister keeps referring to the first one. Will we have to make a video for the minister to understand the question?

Let me put it again. Since Agusta is at the centre of a huge scandal in Belgium, how can the minister justify that, without any inquiry on the circumstances surrounding the signing of the EH-101 contract, he will pay Agusta hundreds of millions in compensation, without telling us whether he intends to exclude that company as a bidder for the new helicopter contract? That is my question to the minister.

[Agusta, November 10th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the government announced that it had reached a settlement to compensate the Italian company Agusta, following the cancellation of the contract for the EH-101 helicopters. No details will be made public until several months, but we know that this settlement will cost several hundred million dollars. Agusta, it must be remembered, is currently facing bribe and corruption charges in Europe.

My question is for the Minister of National Defence. While the terms of the settlement reached between the government and Agusta are not yet known, and given that the inquiry called for by the Liberals when they formed the opposition never took place, how can the government explain that Agusta is still being considered for the new helicopter contract?

[Purchase Of Helicopters, November 9th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, as a supplementary, I would like to ask the minister if he intends to make public this agreement in principle as soon as possible.

Knowing that the former NATO secretary general, Willy Claes, was forced to resign from his position after being accused of accepting bribes from the Italian firm Agusta when Belgium purchased EH-101s, how can the government insist on dealing with a company whose selling methods are suspicious to say the least? In talking to the media yesterday, the minister himself mentioned Boeing, Bell, Sikorsky, Eurocopter and Agusta-Westland as possible suppliers for this contract.

[Purchase Of Helicopters, November 9th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the defence minister.

Despite serious accusations of corruption made against the Agusta company in Europe and despite several requests for an inquiry made by the Minister of Human Resources Development when he was in opposition, the government continues to negotiate with the Italian firm the settlement of penalties totalling hundreds of millions of dollars for breach of contract with respect to the EH-101.

Could the fact that the government refuses to dismiss Agusta mean that it intends to award the contract for 15 new helicopters to this company instead of paying these penalties totalling hundreds of millions of dollars? Is the defence minister preparing a sweet deal?

[Department Of Health Act, November 7th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I will start with some general comments on Bill C-95 before the House today. I quite agree with the Reform Party's concern about the meagreness of our legislative menu, but our positions converge so far and no further.

This government has made a habit of using ostensibly harmless bills to introduce provisions in which it assumes more and more powers. That is the case with Bill C-95. This bill establishes the Department of Health and amends and repeals certain acts. The purpose of this legislation is first of all to change the name of the department. What could be more ordinary?

After a closer look, however, we see that this bill contains provisions that are quite the opposite of the changes we were promised during the referendum campaign. It is this aspect of the bill, these new measures that are supposed to clarify the mandate of the federal Department of Health and will in fact increase its importance, which are revealing. Clause 4(2)( a ) and( b ) is particularly disturbing.

This clause provides, and I quote:

-the minister's powers, duties and functions relating to health include the following matters: a ) the promotion and preservation of the physical, mental and social well-being of the people of Canada; b ) the protection of the people of Canada against risks to health and the spreading of diseases;

On the pretext of intervening on behalf of the well-being of the people of Canada, Ottawa could outflank the provinces in an area that is a provincial responsibility. These two clauses in Bill C-95

give an indication of the very broad application this bill might have. It may have serious repercussions.

Need we recall that the Canadian Constitution of 1867 specifically recognizes health as an exclusive responsibility of the provinces? I know this government would rather not hear about the Constitution. That is just too bad. As long as this government keeps violating the Constitution, it will hear about it from Quebec, at any rate.

The federal government's intrusion in this provincial jurisdiction flies in the face of the very principles of Canadian federalism. And then they wonder why it does not work. They are trying to use the power of disallowance, based on considerations such as national interest, peace and good government, and of course the government's spending powers, to again restrict the prerogatives of the provinces.

However, as the federal government tries to encroach on jurisdictions that are exclusive to the provinces, its financial contribution decreases steadily.

In less than 20 years, the federal government's contribution to health care funding dropped from 45.9 per cent in 1977 to an expected 28 per cent in 1997. Finally, to divert attention from its financial withdrawal, the federal government proposed in its last budget a more flexible transfer payment formula under which all the money goes into a single envelope called the Canada social transfer. The federal government announced in the same breath that it would withdraw unilaterally and cut payments to Quebec by $308 million in 1995-96 and by more than $587 million in 1997-98.

The provinces were given the choice of cutting in either education, health or welfare. What a great example of decentralization and co-operation. Talk about flexible federalism. When a government can no longer afford to pay, it must have the basic decency not to try to impose its national standards and objectives more vigorously at the same time.

Since coming to power, the Liberal government has chosen to keep its deficit from growing by attacking social programs and going after the most vulnerable in our society. Yet, it is still trying to pursue Trudeau's old dream of controlling the provincial health care systems through national standards.

The federal government is now getting ready to invade the provinces' jurisdiction through the back door. For example, subclause 4(2)(c) of the bill gives the federal Department of Health the power to conduct investigations and research into public health. You may think that this is a noble objective. But how will the federal government conduct these investigations and this research?

Even though it is not mentioned in the bill, should the federal government have access to all the information needed to carry out its mission? Most of this information is often held by health organizations subject to provincial legislation.

This whole debate may appear pretty technical, but it may lead to many futile squabbles and discussions simply because the federal government does not respect its own fundamental law.

Of course, Bill C-95 shows our federal big brother's commitment to look after the health of all Canadians. It does not, however, tell us what steps the federal Department of Health will take to fulfil these noble ambitions. This is no accident. It is not in the federal government's interests to remind us once again that it is continuing its attempt to encroach on our jurisdiction over health matters.

In fact, on November 2, in the debate on second reading of bill C-95, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Health plainly admitted that "its renewed commitment to a long and glorious tradition has inspired Liberal governments, politicians of every party and Canadian people over many years, indeed over many decades". Later, her Liberal colleague, the hon. member for Pierrefonds-Dollard, added that the Minister of Health had, and I quote: "strongly and successfully defended the principles championed for half a century by the Liberal Party, while developing Canada's health care system".

It is obvious that, through Bill C-95 in particular, the Minister of Health is carrying on the work that Marc Lalonde and Monique Bégin started. And after that, we wonder what is wrong with the federal system. Upholding a long and glorious tradition of duplication, overlap and encroachment, now I have seen it all. Just days ago, the Prime Minister promised major changes to accommodate the provinces, and Quebec in particular.

But today, we have before us yet another bill put forward by the federal government, which is doing everything it can to centralize and once again intrude on provincial areas of jurisdiction.

To paraphrase no committee chairman Michel Bélanger, this is the beauty of it. If the government is really committed to reducing the deficit, it should start by eliminating duplication and overlap with respect to health matters. But, on the contrary, Trudeau's followers are carrying on his work. I could mention, among others things, the fact that the department allocates important budgets for programs and projects that already exist in Quebec. Here are some examples: the strategy for the integration of handicapped people, the fight against family violence, the new horizons program, the seniors secretariat, the fight against tobacco, the anti-drug strategy,

the strategy against AIDS, the program on pregnancy and child development, the forum on health, and so on.

What happened to the commitment made barely fifteen days ago by the Prime Minister, who promised that changes would be made?

You will understand that, as an elected member representing Quebec, I simply cannot support Bill C-95.

[Deputy Prime Minister, November 3rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, in light of the disgraceful events yesterday in the House, the Deputy Prime Minister is clearly incapable of doing her job. In response to questions by the Official Opposition, she persisted in citing incorrect information in disregard of her responsibilities.

Her attitude certainly left something to be desired. Unable to justify the undemocratic remarks of the Prime Minister of Canada, she delighted in using diversionary tactics, which are inappropriate at this critical point in Quebec's and Canada's political history. Clearly, this government has lost control, and the Deputy Prime Minister no longer has any credibility, not only among Quebecers, but among all Canadians.

[New Brunswick Premier, November 2nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the behaviour of New Brunswick Premier Frank McKenna, who is courting Quebec businesses to bring them to his province, is utterly disgraceful. While begging Quebecers to vote no in the referendum and asking them, once again, to believe in Canadian federalism, Mr. McKenna was secretly working to take away their jobs.

What a great demonstration of love for the people of Quebec from the Premier of New Brunswick. This is the man who, when Quebec was in a weak position and making minimal demands, was the first one to stab it in the back by repudiating the Meech Lake accord.

The next time Quebecers have to make a decision on their future, they will not be fooled by the real intentions and hypocritical attitudes of people such as Mr. McKenna.