Paul Crête

[Firearms Act, June 12th, 1995]

moved:

Motion No. 150

That Bill C-68, in Clause 110, be amended by replacing lines 3 to 5, on page 56, with the following:

"(q) prescribing, in a manner that is equal and fair for every one, the method of payment for the fees payable under paragraph (p);".

[Supply, June 7th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Outremont is wrong; I did not utter a word during his presentation, but I will speak now. I wonder on what planet the hon. member lives.

We have 800,000 people on welfare in Quebec today, and there are 1.2 million in Ontario. Quebec sovereignists are certainly not responsible for that; the federal system is. One of the main reasons for this state of affairs is the manpower issue. The very brother of the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi, a minister in the Johnson government and now the member for

Westmount-Saint-Henri, was among the government members who asked that the issue of manpower be returned to Quebec.

These are not sovereignists, but federalists, people who have realized that, if we want our manpower to be trained adequately, training has to be provided in an acceptable regime. The facts contradict what the hon. member for Outremont said. At present, the public cannot find its way around the 27 federal and 25 provincial programs available.

As for concrete measures, the federal government recently announced that only UI recipients will have access to job search clubs from now on. A fine move to create a single window no doubt. And so logical.

I would like to tell the hon. member for Outremont a thing or two about the real world, through you of course, Mr. Speaker. In our regions, many workers are unskilled and need adequate training. We are talking about regional development. Well, I come from Quebec's eastern region, which could be called the stumbling block of federalism.

The federal government tried all kinds of things in our region, this in addition to Quebec's initiatives. Today, our region has the strongest migration movement. That trend, which started 30 years ago, is the result of your actions.

I want to say a word about the FORDQ. I agree with the member for Outremont: you did turn that office into an empty structure. This is obvious. All the investment budgets targeted for small businesses were cut. Businesses employing only a few people do not need to have access to the international markets. Quite often, they simply need a little help to build a warehouse, etc., but you let them down. One of the reasons is that federal Liberals from Quebec did not speak up. They let the Minister of Industry do his dirty deed, so that Ontario would regain control.

I will conclude with a question on the Human Resources Investment Fund. Instead of creating an artificial fund and using the money contributed by employers and employees to interfere in Quebec's fields of jurisdiction, why did you not reduce the contributions of employers and employees? That way, you would have put the money directly in the industry, in the workplace, instead of spending it on the bureaucracy, and you would have achieved true job creation, instead of making systematic cuts.

[Supply, June 7th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech made by the hon. member who described briefly the management control system the government is trying to set up.

Indeed, this is an issue that concerns all hon. members. As elected representatives, we wonder how to regain control over the bureaucracy, to get more leeway in our dealings with the public servants and, especially, to be advised in a more timely manner of the decisions that need to be made. How are we to explain the difference between the commitments made by the current government when it took office and the very few achievements it has made since then and the results it got, especially in terms of job creation, if not by pointing out the influence of the federal bureaucrats?

I would like to know if the hon. member would, in order to show that the government is acting in good faith, be in favour of implementing the new management system right away in two specific instances, the first being the following. Some decisions found in this year's budget will only come into effect in 1997-1998. For example, the experimental farm in La Pocatière will be closed on or before March 31, 1997. Under these circumstances, could it be possible to review this decision during the new prebudget consultation process, so that if we were to realize that the decision is wrong, we could try to convince the government to reconsider?

To conclude, I would like to give you another example which deals with the reorganization of the employment centres. As a sign of good faith, could the government refer the reform proposal prepared by its bureaucrats to the hon. members, so that they could express their views on it before the decision comes into effect?

[Supply, June 7th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague spoke a lot about agriculture. It warrants a lot of attention, because relations between farmers and markets in Quebec and Canada will be changed significantly by some of the measures presented.

I have a question for him on one type of production that is growing considerably in Canada: lamb production. Alberta, Quebec and Ontario are the three largest producing provinces. The government has decided to close the experimental farm at La Pocatière, which is in my riding. It is the only experimental farm with a national mandate to do research on everything that concerns sheep. Sheep production is growing, and production should increase, because there is a demand for sheep and lamb in Canada production as a whole.

Are there other solutions in the member's opinion? Shutting down the farm and putting an end to research into this sort of production does not seem acceptable to me. In one way it is very dangerous. I would like to know if he sees any alternatives. In fact, both his region and mine are affected by this decision, which has a significant negative impact on production of this type.

[Supply, June 7th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I think my colleague raised an important point in the current debate. It seems that when there is a trend towards restructuring, and this also happens in the regions, people always recentralize when cutbacks have to be made. Amazingly, in a decision making pyramid, it is always the job at the bottom, never the job at the top that becomes expendable. The job at the bottom may provide direct services to customers but does not have as much clout at the decision making level.

My recommendation was to ensure that members could be consulted before this reform was implemented and it is right in line with my colleague's philosophy. I want members to be able to say: The suggestion that we should have only one Canada human resources centre in Rimouski is entirely unsatisfactory, considering the situation in the region. In the Gaspé, we would need a major centre, under whatever name, and another centre for the region around Rivière-du-Loup, and staff should be appointed accordingly, because Canada centres are going to see their consultant resources, who are not in direct contact with the public, regrouped in these so-called regional capitals. This will not have the desired effect, which was to provide direct services to customers. Imagine if McDonald's decided that instead of setting up branches where there are a lot of people, it would have only one restaurant and ask people to come and eat hamburgers 15, 20 or 50 kilometres from their residence. The company would go out of business.

If we do not make the right decisions, we will end up with the same results in terms of the satisfaction of Canadians and Quebecers with services offered by employment centres and with everything connected with unemployment insurance.

[Supply, June 7th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I find this question a bit surprising coming from a member of the Reform Party, because it seems to me that part of the answer can be found in an argument they have frequently advanced, which is that, if decision making were truly decentralized in our system, significant savings could be realized.

One of the sad facts of the terrible debt we are now facing is that, in our federal system, it is very difficult for individual citizens to identify who is responsible for what, and as a result they are forever turning to both the provincial and the federal governments for money, hoping that one of the two levels will come through with what their organization needs to function.

There is therefore a rather unhealthy competition between the two levels of government, because their fields of action often overlap. Another aspect is that it is not true that the manpower profile is the same throughout Canada. Quebec has its own characteristics because of the French language and culture of the majority of its citizens, and therefore the mobility of Quebecers is not the same as what may be the case in the rest of Canada.

There are also different choices that must be made in terms of occupation of regions. For example, when the human resources development committee conducted its cross country tour, Maritimers were in dread of a reform that would suddenly bring about an exodus to the west, when what they wanted was to be able to stay in their part of the country, exploring and developing the resources there.

That would lead to very different choices regarding manpower training. A truly pan-Canadian policy really encouraging full-scale mobility to the max would mean that we would train people in New Brunswick or Nova Scotia for jobs in Ontario, Alberta or Vancouver. On the other hand, if were to keep our manpower training policy to a local scale, if our objectives encourage people to find employment in their own areas, to lead their lives in their current environments, we would make different choices regarding training. We would go size up what resources are available in their areas and what kind of training needs the people already living in an area have. That would make a huge difference.

Take fishermen for example. Given the very inaccurate forecasts made, they became the victims of the overlap in the fisheries jurisdiction. If these people are put in a position in which they have to go back to school to train for jobs in an entirely different region, they will be cut off from the only reality they know and we will be faced with the same problems many southern countries are currently facing.

So, to get back to the hon. member's question, I think that the main solution is decentralization which, in itself, will be much less costly. If provincial governments do make mistakes, if they spend money irresponsibly, it will not take long for the electorate to turf them out. The way things are now, the people cannot actually determine whether the federal government, the provincial government or the municipal government is responsible for such and such a thing. In Quebec, there is overwhelming support in all regions for a massive decentralization of power. This would make it possible to quickly determine who created a situation in particular, who is responsible for ensuring it is a success, and who to praise if it is, or who to blame if it is not. That is one way of getting Canada out of debt.

[Supply, June 7th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity to discuss the motion on Vote 10, dealing with human resources development, and also ask the Minister of Human Resources Development to reflect on a consequence of the current budget, namely the major restrictions imposed to the Canada employment centres.

Let us do a bit of history. For several years now, there have been two manpower networks in Quebec: one managed by the provincial government, and the other by the federal government. The Quebec government already has jurisdiction over all the issues related to the labour market, including the Labour Code, the Occupational Health and Safety Act, the Labour Standards Act and the Collective Agreement Decrees Act.

As well, the federal government developed a network which was originally designed to maintain UI services and related programs.

Over the years, we realized that we did not have the means to afford two networks, and that we had to find a way to integrate them. In Quebec, a consensus was reached by all the stakeholders. The consensus was such that even the Quebec Liberal Party, a federalist party which was in office for several years, asked for an administrative agreement under which Quebec would manage the UI program over its territory.

That Liberal government created an organization called the Société québécoise de la main-d'oeuvre, which had the necessary structures, powers and programs to provide all the services related to manpower.

This year, given the budget constraints, the federal government had the option of saying: Yes, we will let the Quebec government assume full responsibility for manpower; this will allow us to make significant savings.

However, this is not the option chosen by the Department of Human Resources Development. Instead, it chose to reduce the number of its employees in the Canada employment centres across the country, so as to spread the cuts and make the process look like a reform or an administrative reorganization which will result in the creation of Canadian human resources centres. Some 20 to 30, if not 35 to 50 such centres would be established in Quebec. They would be like information booths or banking machines.

The fact is that, with this reform, this downsizing of every employment centre, under colour of seemingly commendable objectives, they will actually create appalling situations. For

years now, we have been saying among other things that adequate consulting services should be made available to the unemployed. Psychologists and other manpower counsellors working with the unemployed should be in a position to do so.

As a result of the federal government's decision, there will not be one single employee left in smaller urban centres, only automated tellers. In medium sized centres, much fewer people will be assigned to and available to provide services to the unemployed, the service users.

The minister is currently considering suggestions made by bureaucrats, public servants. It may be useful at this time to remind him that, before moving to implement this reform, the main effect of which will be to reduce personal contact between people on UI and those who can help them, perhaps other options should be considered.

Let me give you concrete examples. At the La Pocatière employment centre, in my riding, one of the most performing centres in Canada in terms of service requests processing speed, it had become the custom to automatically refer anyone filling an unemployment insurance claim to a counsellor. This prevented claimants from getting lost in the system or getting inadequate advice.

As a result of this measure, the staff will be cut by 17,6. I am not crazy about referring to people in terms of decimals; therefore, let us say about 18 people. After all the cuts are implemented, only 13 people will be left.

It is impossible to both reduce the number of employees and maintain or improve service at the same time. Therefore, the pilot project under way will probably have to be scrapped.

Let me give you another example. The employment centre in Rivière-du-Loup, which serves a vast area, was putting in place practices that would have made it easier to reach unemployed workers in the various communities scattered throughout the territory. Since staff will be cut from 48 to 38, the unemployed will go back to the old practice of merely sending a card to the employment centre. The impact of these cuts will also be difficult to assess, since people will turn to the employment centre more to collect unemployment insurance than to job search. This would run counter to the objectives of the government's planned contract with the people.

I would like to come back to what I was saying about information booth or banking machines. Imagine people who are not used to computers. The clients, who are often the long term or chronically unemployed, are people who freeze before the huge bureaucratic machinery. They have a hard time finding solutions. By making them use a computer and denying them the possibility of receiving individual service, we will put them in an intolerable situation.

What could have been done other than making cuts? In our opinion, the first, the real solution would have been to recognize Quebec's jurisdiction over manpower training and to transfer the employees affected, thus allowing us to correct some rather absurd situations.

For example, the federal network now manages 27 manpower programs, while the Quebec network handles 25. There are some 100 Canada Employment Centres in Quebec, whose services are duplicated by the Société québécoise de la main-d'oeuvre. This requires stakeholders in each region to spend a lot of energy working in concert with others to reach a consensus and develop manpower strategies adapted to local needs. People do so in good faith and make the system work because, if the Canada Employment Centres and the Société québécoise de la main-d'oeuvre followed national criteria and established procedures to the letter, the system would not work. There would be no way for the system to work properly.

As I was saying, we think that the first solution is for the federal government to give jurisdiction to Quebec so that Quebec can streamline operations to make the system work.

Here is another example of measures which seem rather mind-boggling and which are the result of a bad decision. The department informed job search clubs, which are organizations co-operating with the employment centres and which are claimed to be among the priorities of the Department of Human Resources Development, that they will only serve UI beneficiaries.

The documents on the reform refer to more partnership agreements and more co-operation with all sorts of organizations capable of doing the job at a lesser cost. At the same time, job search clubs are informed that they will no longer be allowed to provide services to those who are not UI beneficiairies.

Just imagine knocking at the door of one such club, whose role is to help people looking for work, and being asked first whether you are a UI beneficiary. If this is not the case, you are out of luck, otherwise you may be referred to a Quebec labour department office.

The case of a person who does not get any UI benefits is truly mind-boggling. For example, a student graduating this year, who is not eligible to UI benefits, who is still a dependent, and therefore not eligible to welfare assistance, will not be able to get any help. I do not think this is the right way to treat people.

Before making a decision and following up on the proposals made by his officials, the minister should conduct a vast consultation exercise among MPs regarding the proposed administrative reorganization.

Such a consultation is important, both for the government and the opposition parties. It could be done regionally. For example, the members from Quebec, Ontario, the western provinces and the Maritimes could be invited and informed of the impact of

that reorganization on the employment centres in their ridings. I think this approach would shed a different light on the subject and be a useful adjunct to the studies prepared by bureaucrats.

Another concern linked to the estimates is the number of national advisory groups at the Department of Human Resources Development. Before cutting back on the number of employees in customer services, the people who provide services to the unemployed in all municipalities, in every single part of Canada and Quebec, it might be advisable to see if cuts could be made in these advisory groups which would be in line with the government's current budget requirements.

We are not saying that nothing should be cut. Obviously, considering the size of the debt and the deficit, we must all do our share. We all have to contribute. When we say all, we do not mean only the people assigned to customer services.

In the private sector, I think customer services would be the last place where they would cut staff. We have to consider what can be done, and I hope the minister will ask all members for their views on the reform proposals, to ensure that the final decision will take into consideration what the situation is in each region.

I was looking at a list of criteria for a Canada human resources centre, a local human resources centre and a kiosk. Some criteria work very well for urban areas and some for rural areas, but there are other criteria that are not considered at all. It is like looking through the wrong end of a telescope.

It says that a Canada centre should have between 75 and 150 employees, but not a word about the customers. I think that the criteria for a Canada centre should include the customers these people will have to serve and then, and only then do we decide on the administrative structure that is adapted to customer needs. In this case, the structure comes first and then they adjust the needs to this particular reality. It sounds rather farfetched, and I think we have a responsibility to represent these customers and take their needs into consideration.

A good example is an employment centre that deals with large numbers of seasonal workers, people who are spread over a vast territory. In that kind of situation, we must realize that when there are a lot more transactions, when there are very busy periods, when programs have to be put in place to give these seasonal workers a chance to find jobs or develop jobs that will give them some additional income, because they are the first in line to apply for these jobs, we need adequate services to do this.

I think it is important for the minister to include in his reform what he said in the documents, in other words, the new structures will be customer oriented and will be based on partnership. And to achieve this, the first thing to be done is to determine who the clients will be and with whom public servants will be dealing, and whether certain segments of the population or certain areas are more affected by the system and whether the reforms should take that into consideration.

Therefore, overall, while we are waiting for the government to eventually merge the two systems, and we will have to wait until the federal government decides to take the first step and admit that it has no place in the area of training the labour force, in the interim, these reflections aim to ensure that Canadians and Quebecers using employment centres will not be penalized by the decision, and that we will not be faced with absurd situations in which people are forced to travel great distances to obtain a service. The system should run smoothly.

Another element must be taken into consideration. I would say that about 90 per cent of the salaries of people working at employment centres come out of the unemployment insurance fund. That means that the employees who are paying unemployment insurance premiums and the employers who are making their corresponding unemployment insurance contributions are supporting this system. It is they who ultimately pay the salaries of the staff at employment centres. They should therefore have a say regarding the kind of services they will receive.

The way things are going, the government wants to create a sizeable human resources investment fund so that it can intervene in sectors like daycare and services for handicapped people, which both fall under provincial jurisdiction. This will artificially inflate the financial needs of the unemployment insurance commission when the government could easily have decided to take another approach altogether.

Now that there is a surplus in the Unemployment Insurance fund, could we not decide to continue to give people proper counselling services? Could we not decide as well to find a compromise solution which would maintain proper services and, at the same time, permit a reduction in UI premiums? This is one way to create jobs. If employers and employees pay lower premiums, a significant amount of money is then injected directly into the economy. This is a much more active approach to job creation than putting money in funds like the human resources investment fund, which will be bureaucratic and will not quickly find its way back into the economy.

Therefore, in looking for job creation solutions to make better use of all our human potential, the minister should consider the situation and the creation of the human resources investment fund or at least take a look at the scope he intends to give it, so that money may be made available quickly and show up in the paycheques of individual Canadians and Quebecers who earn their living with it and of employers too, who will then be able to

put more money into research or technological development, which will mean better service to the public.

Therefore, I am happy to have this time in the House to encourage the minister to analyze the recommendations made to him in detail and to invite him to submit them to the House before any decision is made.

[Supply, June 7th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I was interested in what the hon. member for the Reform Party had to say about a particular issue. Why is it impossible to change things? I think the human resources investment fund is a good example.

I think the federal government, probably because of the power of the bureaucrats and also the impression that Ottawa can solve all Canada's problems for Canadians across the country and that it knows all the answers, this attitude, in the case of the human resources investment fund, means that the federal government will go on spending vast amounts of money but in addition, as in this particular case, it will be other people's money, because the money in the Unemployment Insurance Fund is provided by employers and employees. There is no government money in that fund. The federal government uses the fund to intervene in areas under provincial jurisdiction, especially education and manpower training. So when a member of this House wonders why change is impossible, one reason is that the federal government refuses to respect these jurisdictions and thus control its spending.

Now I realize that the Reform Party says we are separatists and do not want to go on being part of Canada, but even from a federalist perspective, would the hon. member not agree that in the case of the human resources investment fund, the government is committing fraud? Because if the money paid into the fund by employers and employees were not used in the human resources investment fund, do you know what we could do? We could gradually reduce employee and employer premiums so that the money, instead of getting lost in bureaucratic channels would go directly into the economy to create the jobs this society so badly needs and the present government has failed to create. What does the member for the Reform Party think of this approach?

[Budget Implementation Act, 1995, June 5th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the bill on the Canada social transfer calls up the image of an old spent horse on its last show. It has been very useful and appreciated in the circus, but it is on its last legs. Yet, the owner wants to keep it going a little longer with some garish costume.

Throughout the sixties and the seventies, the whole issue of interregional equity was at the center of the public debate. I think a very big mistake was made from the start, with the confusion between the provision of a safety net for all Canadians and the real need underlying the goal we should have had, which is to provide an adequate economic and social development so that all Canadians can have a decent life in their own regions.

Unfortunately, with the decisions we have made and the fact that we have been living beyond our means, we reached a point where the Canadian government had only two alternatives in a federal context. The first one, which was chosen, was to announce cuts and offload them to the provinces, while saying: "Let them handle the problem. They are on the front line. We are going to save our political hide".

Second, the Liberals have been unable to carry their argument to the limit and to say: "If we cut provincial transfers, we cannot set national standards, because we cannot reduce our financial assistance and still impose national standards". But the current government has not been able to come to that conclusion, because it is actually made up of many, many members who greatly miss

Trudeau and the years when the Liberal government believed that, by borrowing money right and left, it could solve problems throughout the country. We now realize that foreign lenders can no longer wait and they urge the government to take a stand.

So, in order to satisfy foreign lenders, the government is cutting its spending, even though it still argues, on a philosophical and political level, that national standards are needed. This would perpetuate one of the most significant costs of federalism, linked to all the quarrels and the bickering between the two levels of government. Some people say that the province of Quebec is always complaining about this situation, but look at what is happening in Alberta. Over there, the provincial government is making choices, even though its direction is controversial, and at this end, we have the federal government telling Alberta: "No, you cannot make these kinds of decisions; they go against the national standards".

The province of Alberta has a valid argument. It maintains that, since the federal government is investing less and less money, it does not have such a strong say in the matter any more. The federal government should realize this and change its attitude. The people who are watching and also the members of the government and of the other opposition party should carefully consider what the position of the Bloc Quebecois is.

The Bloc Quebecois suggests that the federal government withdraw from areas of jurisdiction in which it systematically intervened for many years by injecting large amounts of money and by creating false expectations. The federal government should withdraw, but, at the same time, it should fully compensate the provinces by means of a tax point transfer. This would be a positive incentive for each province to make the most of the little it receives, and keep some for other activities, thereby ensuring better regional development.

Of course, this suggestion is made with a federalist vision of Canada's future. If we wished to maintain this old federation, for a few more years at least, this is the type of solution we should adopt. I believe we should at least try to save something from the wreckage. In Quebec, unfortunately for the Canadian federal system, we have had it with these partial solutions and we believe that the real solution is for Quebecers to have full control over their tax money, which now goes to Ottawa but which, in the context of sovereignty, would go to one place only, Quebec City. With full control, the Government of Quebec would be able to develop much more structured programs better able to reach their objectives.

We are often asked this about the bills on which we vote: "You make beautiful speeches on policy issues but how are we affected by this?" I would like to take the opportunity-I feel compelled to because of the time allocation forced on us by the government-to draw the hon. members' attention to a rather treacherous aspect of Bill C-76, which is an omnibus bill. With clause 69, 3,000 resistance veterans will lose their eligibility to some pension benefits.

What is even more devious is that there will no longer be compensation for those who want to be heard by a review panel. Just imagine in what situation veterans will find themselves. Today, most of them are getting on in years and their physical and mental health has been seriously affected by their years in service. Their country wanted to give proper recognition to their contribution by trying to compensate them for what they did for the nation. But today, surreptitiously, the government is going after these people through an omnibus bill. Temember, they are not millionaires.

For example, I met elderly couples in La Pocatière or in Pohénégamook, in my riding. These people do not necessarily have access to a physician close to their home and often have to travel considerable distances when required to undergo a physical. The cost of a medical examination used to be covered by the Department of Veterans Affairs. But, when Bill C-76 is implemented, we will have a situation where these people will no longer be entitled to the partial reimbursement of some of these costs. It will become strictly a regulatory matter. Once again, Canadians who are in a somewhat difficult situation will have to pay for the financial pressures that the government is under.

I think that the government could have been more open-minded and could have realized that, on top of what they did for their country, veterans are in the last stage of their life. I find it very petty to put such a burden on these people who are not necessarily used to finding their way through the bureaucracy in which we work. It shows a total lack of respect for human dignity.

I wanted to use this example so that members would realize that Bill C-76 will have repercussions on the daily life of Canadians. And I am talking about ordinary people. I used veterans as an example, but the cuts that will be made with regard to the Canada health and social transfer-some $560 million next year in Quebec alone-will have an impact on all kinds of people. There will be repercussions of this kind on students, seniors, and social assistance recipients, because these programs were partially funded by the federal government in the past, and if the federal government cuts its contributions, the provinces will be forced to take a much more restrictive stance.

It is important for Canadians to know that the decisions that the provinces may have to make will only be the fruit of the mismanagement by the federal government, which opened up the floodgate for years, using borrowed funds, and imposed duplicate programs on provinces. The result of this today is that we must face a new, very simple reality, which is that Canada no longer has the means to support all of the social programs it used to offer, not necessarily

because the programs were inherently irrelevant, but because they were superimposed on programs that the provinces were already offering. Many useless expenditures on overlaps could have been eliminated had the federal government only reached an agreement with the provinces, ensuring that the changes were made in co-operation with them.

In conclusion, I would like to cite the example of the summit on health. This would have been a good opportunity for the federal government to ensure that the provinces would participate in the debates on health care, instead of imposing cuts and leaving each province ultimately to fend for itself. This is also an example of the current system's downfall. People are unable to pinpoint where their tax money is actually going. This is one of the reasons that I think that, after judging Bill C-76, Quebecers will see very clearly that their only solution is to opt out of the Canadian system.

[Unemployment Insurance, June 5th, 1995]

Is the Prime Minister aware that, by restricting access to unemployment insurance and reducing the duration of benefits, his government launched a direct attack against workers in resource regions who work on a seasonal basis in sectors such as fishing, forestry and tourism?