Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to speak to the amended motion. I have looked forward to this opportunity for some time because what we are looking at is the last piece of enabling legislation for the House to consider.
Certainly after two years and some months of being in the House, it could not be more timely. Also of interest, it is the last piece of legislation to implement what I call the Kim Campbell cabinet.
I oppose the bill for a number of reasons and I will list them. It gives to the federal government powers to circumvent the provinces when establishing programs and initiatives through HRD.
I oppose the cheap partisan reason for the creation of the ministry of labour and I oppose the way the government is attempting to hide information from Canadians by eliminating the provision to create an annual report for the department.
I will spend some time speaking to the specifics. As I mentioned, my colleagues and I have legitimate and valid concerns about the legislation. In particular, there is an area of the bill which we believe provides the federal government with new powers to enter into agreements with agencies, groups or agents and allows the federal government to entertain these co-operative agreements without first having approached the provincial governments.
We have all heard the Minister of Human Resources Development naysay that challenge. We believe that simply put the bill gives the government the opportunity to circumvent the provinces
when delivering social programs or any of the services relevant to the Department of Human Resources Development.
This kind of federal power grab runs contrary to the contemporary federal trend toward decentralization. We have spent many hours in the House in debate and in question period discussing that very point. Remember that the Liberal government promised Canadians during the Quebec referendum campaign that among other things it would move to greater decentralization. There has been zero movement on this front.
In this bill there is a marvellous example of a federal attempt to nationalize powers that did not exist before. This is a very old approach to government. This is the Trudeau approach. It is an approach which began just after the second world war, one which does not suit the needs of people in Canada today.
First year students in Canadian politics learn that Canada has a rigid constitution. It is rigid in the sense that constitutional amendments are not easily made. As is well known, it was extremely difficult to amend the British North America Act. We need not remind anyone that amending the Constitution has not been made any easier by the Canadian Constitution Act, as events since 1982 have so clearly demonstrated.
Amending procedures were not spelled out in the BNA. The result is that we had precious few constitutional amendments between 1867 and 1982. It will also be recalled that the BNA sought to establish a highly centralized union but that various judicial interpretations made it a more decentralized union. In addition, the Fathers of Confederation felt that in turning over responsibility for education, health and social welfare to the provinces they were dealing with jurisdictions that were not important and local in character. It also explains why Ottawa's power of taxation far exceeds its constitutional responsibilities.
The Fathers of Confederation gave the federal government power to raise moneys by "any mode or system of taxation". It is important to bear in mind the role of government in 1867 was highly limited.
The Rowell-Sirois commission pointed out: "The principal functions of the state followed the prescriptions of Adam Smith. Government was thought to have met its purpose when it provided for adequate defence, the enforcement of the general law for the administration of justice and the maintenance of a few essential public works".
In addition, Canadian society in 1867 was still largely a pioneer in rural society. Accordingly, it had clearly an individualistic outlook and a reliance on the family as the unit of mutual welfare.
The Great Depression would change all of that. Franklin D. Roosevelt's new deal would lead the way for governments in western industrialized countries to intervene to soften the sting of economic misfortune. Lord Keynes, a noted Cambridge economist, was quick to provide the intellectual underpinnings for government intervention in the economy to mitigate the lows in economic cycles.
In brief, Keynesian logic provided a basis for counter-cyclical budgeting. It also provided a basis for government programs and measures to stabilize the economy, to promote economic development and full employment. It suggested that with latent demand and no limit in factors of production, governments could actually create the long sought after prosperous and rational societies desired.
Keynesian economics also legitimized government deficits and in time governments would spend more, tax more and borrow more, a great deal more. Does this not sound an awful lot like the fiscal policies of today's Liberal government?
It is this Keynesianism gone wild that causes the Minister of Human Resources Development and his bureaucrats to propose clauses like the ones in this bill that instead of allowing the provinces to manage their own affairs, allows the federal government to grab more power.
The Keynesian revolution captured the Department of Finance in Canada as it did the treasuries of other western countries. Canadians emerged from the second world war determined never to permit another depression of the kind witnessed in the 1930s.
In addition, by war's end, Canadians held a strong belief in the ability of government to intervene and manage the economy. Canadians had learned during the war that governments were able in moments of crisis and when moved by an all consuming goal to lead the country to high levels of economic activity and employment.
Not only did the allies win the war, but governments had managed the war economy well. Unemployment had fallen to zero, yet prices had been held down. Given this, no one was surprised when the Government of Canada presented a major policy paper to Parliament toward the end of the war which was Keynesian in outlook. It said: "The government will be prepared in periods where unemployment threatens to incur deficits and increases in the national debt resulting from its employment and income policy. In periods of buoyant employment and income, budget plans will call for surpluses".
However the expected severe post-war economic downturn did not materialize and the measure that the federal government had prepared proved unnecessary. Still, Ottawa became convinced that it possessed a new arsenal of economic policy to achieve high unemployment and more generally to manage the national economy.
At the risk of stating the obvious, Keynesian economics looks to the national economy and to promoting balance in economic cycles when formulating policy prescriptions and to the national government as the key economic factor. The important point here is that Keynesian economics has a strong centralization bias. It looks to national fiscal policies, national industrial strategies and to national programs to develop the national economy. In short, Roosevelt and Keynesian economics would turn national governments loose on national economies.
Convinced that it had found the holy grail of economic policy, it had only to look to what other more western industrialized countries were doing to confirm their findings. Ottawa nevertheless recognized that it did not have the necessary jurisdictions to manage the national economy and to promote the positive state. The findings of the Rowell-Sirois royal commission had told it as much when it began to table its findings in 1940.
Ottawa also was all too well aware that given the inherent rigidity of the written Constitution, it could not count on constitutional amendments to give life to the welfare state. In addition, in the rare instances when it was able to secure a constitutional amendment, it only served to create shared jurisdictions.
For example, the 1951 amendment to the BNA which gave Ottawa authority to establish the old age security program made pensions a matter of shared federal-provincial jurisdiction. I will not even begin to comment on old age security, which we know as OAS, because as we all know the Liberals ostensibly killed it despite their campaign promises to the contrary.
This bill allows the government to grab more powers in keeping with the Keynesian principles I have already explained within a historical context.
The rigidity of the Constitution led the federal government to find ways to circumvent its provisions and to develop new mechanisms to implement a new economic order. The federal government would identify for itself a role in many areas of provincial responsibility through extensive use of its spending power. In time a whole edifice of federal-provincial programs in areas of provincial jurisdiction was put in place although such programs remain unmentioned in our written Constitution.
The clauses in this bill with which we are concerned will provide the federal government the opportunity to create joint programs with municipalities. This constitutional breach has been circumvented. Ironically municipalities are not even constitutionally recognized entities. These are big questions to ask and to answer.
The written Constitution in the end appears to matter little to federal policy makers. Ottawa in the post-war period attracted some of the best and the brightest determined to build a modern, positive state. Fuelled by tax money from a rapidly expanding post-war economy and convinced that only the federal government could put into practice the lessons learned from Keynesian economics, Ottawa promoted a new constitutional doctrine which ignored the written Constitution.
Donald Smiley, one of Canada's leading constitutional scholars, explained: "According to the constitutional doctrine that came to prevail, the central government might legally spend revenues as it chose, even on matters within the jurisdiction of the provinces, and could at its discretion fix the circumstances under which a potential recipient might receive the federal largesse".
Bill C-11 allows the federal government to enter into agreements now with agencies and municipalities. The reason for this is so the federal government can continue to dole out that largesse and take credit for it. It is simple to understand. The federal government is reducing transfers to the provinces and as a result it is losing its clout, its ability to dictate how the money is spent. Therefore, it is losing its ability to buy votes by proclaiming how it is giving out the dole at the provincial level.
However, the Liberal need to buy votes through empty rhetoric and equally empty promises remains just as strong today as it ever was. In order to be able to buy those votes the federal government is now compelled to deal directly with agencies and municipalities.
The federal government did not wait long after World War II to introduce measures in the areas of health care and social policy. Within 20 years it would put in place a wide array of federal-provincial measures ranging from old age pensions to the establishment of a national health care program. In time the federal government would introduce its own programs and carve out for itself a powerful role and presence in virtually every sector in the economy.
When it opted for conditional grants it essentially intervened in provincial fields on its own terms. In the end it was able to carve out a role for itself in the provision of welfare assistance, in assisting the unemployed, in post-secondary education, in medicare, in energy, in industrial development, in economic development and so on.
The desire and ability of the federal government to intervene in areas of provincial jurisdiction did not wane in the 1970s. In the early 1970s the federal Department of Regional Economic Expansion introduced a new approach to economic development. In doing so, Ottawa signed a series of general development agreements, known as GDAs, with the provinces.
The GDAs were enabling documents in that they cleared the way for the federal government to support whatever measures were regarded appropriate to local, provincial and regional economic circumstances. It is not an exaggeration to suggest that the GDA approach essentially tossed aside our written Constitution to enable
government to support whatever it felt was necessary to promote economic development.
A cursory look at the activities sponsored by the GDAs and their replacement agreements reveal an incredible array of measures and initiatives. No economic sector was considered off limits.
One corollary of this blurring of the constitutional lines is to confuse not just at the government level but more important at the level of the citizenry exactly which level of government is responsible for which service. The clauses in this bill which give new and greater powers to the provinces do nothing to redirect the constitutional blurring of the jurisdictional lines. In fact it only contributes to more blurring as now we can add another layer of government to the confusion.
As well, it has also given rise to overlap and duplication in government programs and to a costly government overhead. Try counting the number of units in the federal government sporting the labels of liaison, co-ordination, federal-provincial relations and intergovernmental relations, to describe what they do. Now we will have to add yet another level to this red tape insanity.
Countless meetings are held every month to administer federal-provincial programs and agreements. We should bear in mind that Ottawa spends over $20 billion a year to pay federal public servants and to provide them with office space and other administrative arrangements. I can only imagine just how much more money this bill will end up costing Canadian taxpayers as it adds another layer to that already overburdened bureaucracy.
My colleague from Mission-Coquitlam moved an amendment to redress the offending clauses to which I have been referring. She moved an amendment that before the federal government enters directly into agreements with agencies or municipalities of a province that it first consult with and receive the approval of the lieutenant governor of the province in question.
The amendment was reasonable. It would still have allowed the federal government to enter into such agreements, even though of course we oppose them, but it would only have then required that the federal government inform the provinces of the actions about to be undertaken. However, the Liberals needed so badly to implement their vote buying clause that they refused to entertain this reasonable amendment.
I used to think that we were here in the House to work together. However, cynical partisan moves like that cause me to be circumspect. They cause me to believe that the Liberals are not really here for the betterment of our country. They are really only here to maintain the status quo, to hold onto power at all costs, even if it means willingly and knowingly doing the wrong thing and implementing vote buying policies just as those in this bill.
I have great concerns that Bill C-11 will go another step down the road to giving the federal government greater powers, despite what it says. Not only will it create overlap and duplication, it will probably cost us billions of dollars all for the sake of buying Liberal votes.
Speaking of buying Liberal votes, that brings me to my second concern over this bill, which is the creation of the Ministry of Labour. This bill finally enables the last of the Kim Campbell cabinet departments.
In 1993 when the Prime Minister named his cabinet he did not name a minister for labour. Not a single Liberal complained then that such a position was necessary. Why was that? Because the job can be accomplished within the Department of Human Resources Development. We do not need an expensive portfolio for an issue that can be covered by other ministers. For almost two years the Liberals agreed with us on this point. Why did they change their minds? What caused the epiphany?
When the Liberals took power in 1993 they did not see a need for this individual or the assignment of this ministry. We did not hear a peep from anybody. However the Prime Minister changed his mind in February 1995. In order to entice the so-called star candidate from Quebec to run in a Quebec byelection, the Prime Minister promised her a new cabinet seat if she agreed to run. She agreed and they created the Ministry of Labour for her.
Let us face facts. The Liberals only created the job to satisfy their partisan backroom interests. Their focus was not labour; it was about their own job creation formula to entice a so-called star candidate.
During report stage on Bill C-11 we heard a lot of sanctimonious talk from the Liberals. They pretended to be the friends of labour. We know the truth, do we not?
The Reform Party has nothing to learn from the federal Liberal Party when it comes to labour relations and how to treat people. Our policies clearly state that we recognize the right of workers to organize unions, to strike peacefully and to carry out the business of collective bargaining.
The Liberals cancelled the federal public service workforce adjustment directive. I wonder how many Liberals campaigned on a promise to fire 45,000 public service workers. How many of them were honest enough to tell their constituents that as part of their job, job, job program they meant to fire 45,000 civil servants? I wonder how many of these Liberals campaigned on a promise to allow collective bargaining except, of course, when there is a strike in the port system. They were all very quick to force labour back to work, were they not?
I wonder how many in the labour movement know that the Liberal Minister of Human Resources Development refuses to meet with the head of the Canadian Labour Congress. Over and over again in committee there have been complaints regarding this very action, or lack of action, on the part of the minister. This is what Liberals mean about being open to the concerns of Canadians. They refuse to even meet with labour leaders.
Also how many on that side of the House campaigned for quota based employment equity legislation like the kind they rammed through the House? The Liberal record speaks for itself. When it comes to labour issues, this government should be ashamed.
The Reform Party has clearly and honestly established its position regarding the existence of the job of Minister of Labour. Reform favours smaller, less expensive government that effectively provides services for Canadians where they cannot provide for themselves. To this end we believe that labour issues should be managed by the Department of Human Resources Development. As the Liberals first believed in 1993 there is no need for this position. The difference is that Reform is consistent on labour issues. Our Liberal colleagues appear not to be. They have flip-flopped all over the place on labour issues.
My final disagreement with Bill C-11 pertains to the fact that the government is trying to hide from Canadians both its performance and its future plans. It is doing this by eliminating the requirement for the production of an annual report. Indeed, this is really quite alarming when it is taken at face value. Colleagues on the other side of the House will say that it is just because they are really trying to reduce costs but this is a matter of financial accountability and certainly in terms of performance standards in any corporate sector would be an obvious expectation from a board of directors.
We had proposed an amendment that would require the Minister of Human Resources Development to table an annual report to the House. Typically the Liberals rejected this proposal. Anything that appears to promote open and honest government they oppose.
Bill C-11 as presented does not require an annual report to be made from the department. I am concerned that this may be just another way for the government to withhold information from the House of Commons and the people of Canada. I believe it should be mandatory for all government departments to publish annual reports and for the purpose of accountability they should be placed before Parliament.
As part of the new program review, the federal government is changing the production of the estimates. It suggests that in a few years it will make the estimates more user friendly, whatever that means, and that more useful and practical information will be included in the estimates. The government suggests that annual reports are so general that they border on being useless.
Every bill that has been introduced to create a new department has had the annual report component deleted. The government has deleted the requirement for the production of departmental annual reports. Our amendment would have required the government to continue producing that annual report component for each of those departments.
We are sceptical of the process for improving the estimates. At minimum, until such improvements have been made, annual reports should be continued. Until the estimates are improved, the lack of annual reports will result in the Canadian public receiving less information from government. In effect the Liberals are trying to hide, at least it appears, information from Canadians about the workings of their government.
We all know that the red book promises more open government. This is open government? No more annual reports is open government? I do not think so.
Reform exists to change government. Liberals had an opportunity to demonstrate to Canadians that they were willing to open up government and to allow Canadians greater access to all information regarding how it operates. It should not be a secret. What is the government trying to hide? It had the chance to open itself up to greater public scrutiny and it chose to hide.
It is taxpayer money that the Liberals are spending, my money and yours, Mr. Speaker. Canadians should know how and where their money is going.
The government, by opposing our amendment, proved to Canadians that it does not give the appearance of caring about accountability or openness. I ask the question again: What is the government trying to hide? Is this just another way for the Liberals to address their dismal failure on the deficit fight? They will not make public or even produce an annual report for this department, one of the largest spenders in the government.
This department is huge. Canadians, thanks to the Liberals, will not be able to keep track of its developments. The government says its estimates will be improved but it also said it would scrap the GST, and we know where we are at with that right now. Who are we to believe? Is this a case of what we do not know will not hurt us? Maybe that is why the government did not mention the debt in the budget speech. Ignore it and perhaps everyone else will too.
The Liberals should talk about it. They should admit that they have been responsible for the growth of the debt since 1968 and honestly attack the debt problem. We are seeing no action.
I insist that we need an annual report for this department. I believe with the inclusion of the amendments the Reform Party suggested, Bill C-11 would be a much better bill. The amendments would make the department more forward thinking in its approach to problems and certainly more accountable.
If the Reform amendments had been approved and passed in the House we could have supported this bill. However, we have attempted to improve the bill and yet again the government has resisted.
Given that the government has clearly made a substantial new power grab in this bill and given that it refused even to listen to Reform's reasoned compromise, we cannot support it.
