Maurizio Bevilacqua

[Supply, May 30th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I am wondering whether the hon. member listened to the speech I delivered or paid enough attention to the great number of people who appeared before the human rights and status of disabled persons committee to understand that the Employment Equity Act is a positive measure by the government to ensure that some of the inequities in society are addressed in the fairest possible way.

One of the exercises the hon. member should do, if he is serious about bringing about positive change to society, is to look at the power structure in the country, whether political or economic, to see whether the cultural diversity present in the population is reflected within the power structure. He could perhaps read The Vertical Mosaic by Porter, which will enlighten him a great deal about the sort of things we have to do to make society a fairer and more just society than it is today. I cited a few statistics during my speech that clearly illustrated it was a very fair act that was trying to address some of the existing inequities.

I know where the hon. member and the Reform Party are coming from. They are concerned a great deal about the white male relationship to the economy. I understand their instinctual response to that because obviously intellectually it is very poor.

I want to tell them again, so they can get it straight once and for all, that while white Canadian males make up 45 per cent of the workforce they land 55 per cent of the jobs. When Reform members are speaking to their constituents they should present them with the facts of life as they relate to the Canadian reality. They should try to tell them that discrimination unfortunately exists in the country. It does affect aboriginal people, persons with disabilities and visible minorities who are not given fair treatment in our economic system.

We as a society could close our eyes to that reality, or we as a government could open our eyes to the reality and try to address it. Through Bill C-64 the government is heading in the right direction.

I say to the Reform Party that it should not kid itself. Canadians understand where that party is coming from.

[Supply, May 30th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I am shocked and deeply saddened, as I am sure most Canadians are, by the appalling lack of knowledge and the insensitivity shown by the hon. member's motion. It would be laughable were it not so lamentable.

Discrimination is no laughing matter. This mean-spirited motion adds insult to injury for millions of Canadian women, aboriginal peoples, visible minority members and persons with disability who already know all too well the disadvantages of being a member of these designated groups.

It is patently clear that this attempt to kill Bill C-64 is nothing more than a desire to turn back the clock to the days when men were men and everyone else knew their place. Canada cannot afford the anachronistic attitudes embodied in this opposition motion to stand in the way of progress.

To those who are members of the designated groups employment equity is about human decency and democracy. It is the freedom to exercise constitutionally guaranteed rights, to participate in the political process and to make contributions to the economic and cultural fabric of Canada.

Employment equity means simply that everyone is treated equally, not preferentially and not to the detriment of non-designated Canadians. It means only that qualified candidates, regardless of gender, race, or physical or intellectual capacity, will be given equal consideration for recruitment and will be promoted on the basis of merit.

I would like to point out to the House the flawed thinking at the foundation of this motion and to clarify the obvious advantages of the proposed employment equity amendments. Let me address the litany of complaints about Bill C-64 one by one.

First let us look at the suggestion that the legislation is unnecessary. Tell that to the Canadian human rights commissioner, who in 1994 alone fielded a total of 1,372 complaints based on either disability, race, colour, national or ethnic origin or sex.

I challenge the hon. member to test his thesis on persons with disabilities in this country who are being hired in proportion equivalent to about one-quarter of their representation. Along with aboriginal peoples, they experience the highest unemployment rates in this country, at 18.5 per cent, which is double the national average.

Perhaps he might explain to young, visible minority Canadians, who are generally better educated and trained at higher levels than the general population, why they too experience significantly higher rates of unemployment. Let him tell the women of Canada there is no need for employment equity when although they may prove themselves to be eminently qualified for jobs they are often still unable to break through the glass ceiling.

To quote Madam Justice Rosalie Abella, the former chair of the royal commission on employment: "For every woman in the thousands whose glass ceilings have been melted, shattered or raised, there are women in the millions who think a glass ceiling is just one more object to polish".

I want to remind the members of the Reform Party that white male Canadians make up just 45 per cent of the workforce yet they land 55 per cent of all jobs. Men account for roughly 90 per cent of all senior managers. They also earn on average about 20 per cent more than women workers.

The recent Wannell and Caron report which looked at employment equity groups among recent post-secondary graduates found that even if men and women start out on an equal basis in the labour market, a change occurs as they progress in their careers. The earnings gap tends to grow over time within a group of graduates. The report's authors discovered the female-male earnings ratio dropped by 5 per cent over a five year period.

I ask the House: Does any of this suggest members of designated groups enjoy preferential treatment? The figures speak for themselves.

Speaking of numbers, the opposition's claim that employment equity is too costly just does not add up. This initiative has been designed to minimize the regulatory burden and cost to business by streamlining and simplifying the requirements into a single legislative approach. To ensure any new regulations result in the least burden possible, consideration is being given to using a business impact test developed by the Department of Industry.

Coverage of the Employment Equity Act has not been extended to include small business, nor has coverage of the federal contractors program been expanded. The threshold remains at 100 employees.

There will be some cost to private sector employers for responding to audits under the act but they will be offset by the savings resulting from the proposed amendments in the Canadian Human Rights Act. Costs to government have also been carefully calculated.

I can assure the House that the Department of Human Resources Development will not experience any additional expense as a result of this legislation. The Canadian Human Rights Commission has also indicated it can undertake the compliance related activities in Bill C-64 within its current budget.

These cost considerations do not begin to take into account the many economic benefits of employment equity. Progressive employers report employment equity gives them a competitive advantage. They say the legislation helps them attract, retain and motivate employees from all backgrounds, not only an advantage in terms of human resources but also in tapping the more diverse marketplace. It is clear that on this front the Reform Party is seriously misinformed, as it is with respect to employment equity's popularity.

I remind the hon. member that the Standing Committee on Human Rights and the Status of Disabled Persons conducted broad consultations, hearing from over 50 witnesses representing the interests of business, labour and designated groups. The vast majority of those witnesses indicated they were in favour of employment equity. Needless to say, so are the millions of Canadian women, persons with disabilities, visible minorities and aboriginal people who make up more than half of the country's population. It is hard to argue with numbers like those.

I must confess I have the most difficulty trying to comprehend the opposition's argument that employment equity has been discriminatory and harmful to designated groups. While there is undeniably a lot of work yet to be done, members of many of the designated groups have seen substantial progress since the original Employment Equity Act was introduced.

Women's representation in the workforce is now in line with their availability, although many continue to be ghettoized in low paid and part time work. Movement into management positions is improving. Women's representation in middle management positions increased from about one-third in 1987 to

over 43 per cent in 1993, while their share of senior management jobs more than doubled to just under 11 per cent.

Visible minorities have also made slow but continuing progress in all occupational groups, including management. The representation of visible minorities in the actual workforce increased from 5 per cent in 1987 to more than 8 per cent in 1993. That is close to their 9.1 per cent availability rate. The really good news is in the banking sector where visible minorities enjoy their highest representation at 13.4 per cent.

It is important to point out to the House that these gains have not come at the expense of other Canadians. In a statement accompanying the 1994 annual report of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, chief commissioner Max Yalden said: "Far from falling behind, able bodied white males appear to be getting more than a proportionate share of hiring. Such data hardly convey a convincing portrait of reverse discrimination".

The very real danger of this motion is that it could cause serious damage. If adopted, it would recreate in law an unacceptable working standard for millions of disadvantaged Canadians. It would tacitly condone racism, sexism and other forms of discrimination which we know already exist in the workplace.

It would permit prejudice to go unchecked and might even encourage the outright acts of physical or sexual harassment of the most vulnerable. Now that I have outlined what is wrong with the opposition's motion, let me talk about what is right with the actions this government has taken in the area of employment equity through Bill C-64.

As we promised in the red book, the new employment equity act will broaden its coverage to include both the public service and the private sector. The revisions to the legislation will establish the same core obligations on public and private sector employers to develop and implement equity plans and programs.

The present act covers roughly 5 per cent of all people employed in Canada. Extending coverage within the public service will add another 2 per cent. When one considers that there are roughly 230,000 employees among the 80 federal departments, boards and agencies, the changes represent a substantial number of new opportunities for members of designated groups.

Inclusion of the public sector is a fulfilment of our pledge in the red book to have a federal workforce representative of the public it serves. For the same reason, federal contractors will also be obliged to comply with the principles of the Employment Equity Act.

Another key improvement to the legislation is the increased authority of the Canadian Human Rights Commission. Its mandate is being broadened to allow it to conduct audits of public and private sector employers to verify and gain compliance with the act.

The changes will clarify the commission's enforcement powers to ensure that employers pay more than lip service to the principle of employment equity. I can assure the House however, that the amendments are not meant to be heavy handed. The fact that an enforcement mechanism will be established is a guarantee. The legislation is intended to achieve a balance. The act will not set out to solve one set of problems for employees by creating another one for employers. Changes to the regulations will be minimal and developed in full consultation with business.

This government is committed to creating an environment conducive to economic growth and job creation. We are convinced that the proposed amendments which will not increase the paper burden will allow us to do just that. We are working to do everything possible to ensure that every Canadian, regardless of gender, race or physical attributes, has a chance to fulfil his or her potential, to get a rewarding job and to contribute to the social and economic health of Canada.

Employment equity is not an impediment to progress. It is a catalyst for improvement in the workplace. Workforce diversity will enhance Canadian companies' competitiveness in the global economy at very little cost.

I ask members of this House how any of us can put a price tag on personal fulfilment and the dignity that comes with having a job. Ultimately, the amendments to the Employment Equity Act are not about counting numbers or instituting new rules and regulations. They are about providing enhanced opportunities for self-sufficiency and self-satisfaction for women, aboriginal peoples, persons with disabilities and members of visible minorities. They are about giving meaning to the lives of millions of work ready Canadians, men and women seeking the respect and recognition, the salary and enhanced lifestyle that comes with work.

The proposed changes are designed to promote the optimal use of our rich human resources. They are intended to act as a stimulus to our national economy. They are a reflection of the progressive way this government is addressing the employment equity issue.

The misguided motion put forward by the opposition misses the point. Bill C-64 is an affirmation that hiring and promotion should be based on merit rather than special designation. The bill is designed so those decisions are based solely on the bona fide requirements of an occupation and not on any other non-job related criteria.

The legislation clearly states that the obligation to implement employment equity does not require an employer "to hire or promote unqualified persons". With respect to the public sector I will quote again: "to hire or promote persons without basing the hiring or promotion on selection according to merit". That

of course begs the question: What could anyone possibly find discriminatory about that?

I can only conclude, as did the Canadian human rights commissioner in the annual report last year, that occasionally the tone of the opposition to employment equity seems more than a little shrill. For all who believe in the principles of democracy and the noble ideas of this institution, the Employment Equity Act is a welcome reminder of the values we hold dear as a nation. It is an affirmation that Canadians are just and honourable people who passionately believe in fairness and dignity for all.

I am proud to count myself among those individuals who support employment equity. I urge members of this House to defeat this draconian motion.

[Adm Agri-Industries Ltd. Operations Act, May 19th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak on Bill C-313 which is an act to provide for the resumption and continuance of operations at ADM Agri-Industries Ltd.

In short, the bill uses final offer selection as a dispute settlement mechanism. It would empower the minister to appoint an arbitrator to select the final offer submitted either by the employer or the union. In effect, the bill calls upon the federal government to impose a settlement process on the two parties.

On the face of it, the proposal sounds reasonable. However, I am a firm believer in the free collective bargaining process and the long term interest of collective bargaining would not be served otherwise. Having said that, I want to express to the member for Verdun-Saint-Paul that I share his concerns about the dispute.

On June 6, less than a month from now, the strike will be a year old. Surely in today's highly competitive economic environment it is reasonable to expect the parties to a labour management dispute to reconcile their differences in far less time.

It is noteworthy that one of the parties, the employer, is owned by Archer Daniels Midland, a very large U.S. based transnational corporation. To be frank, I wonder how aware the employer is that the industrial relations culture in this country is different from the industrial relations culture that exists south of the border.

Without overstating the differences between the two countries, I think it is fair to say that generally, employers and managers in this country possess a greater willingness and ability to work with labour unions. They tend to avoid the kind of power bargaining that seems to predominate in the U.S.

Dr. Pradeep Kumar, associate director of the Industrial Relations Centre at Queens University, pointed out in his study of industrial relations in Canada and the United States that: "While U.S. employers have become increasingly hostile to unions, practising a wide range of union substitution and union avoidance activities in pursuit of lower cost and greater flexibility in compensation and work arrangements, Canadian managers appear to have shown greater willingness to work together with unions to facilitate adjustment and adaptation to changing markets and technology. The growing U.S. trend toward a union free environment is less evident in Canada".

Dr. Kumar goes on to say: "Unlike U.S. employers who have vigorously demanded concessions and forced unions into submission using their enhanced bargaining strength, Canadian managers, while jealously guarding their right to manage the workplace free of influence of organized labour whenever feasible, have been more accommodating and receptive to union goals and objectives and have attempted to find consensus on areas of mutual concern".

Also, I think Canadian unions rely more and place a higher value on the collective bargaining process. They certainly enjoy greater public support as evidenced by the fact that the percentage of unionized workers in the U.S. is about half of what it is in Canada.

Professor Kumar and others have also noted that Canadian labour legislation differs markedly from U.S. legislation in many respects.

For example, Canadian collective bargaining legislation provides a relatively simple procedure by which trade unions can acquire collective bargaining rights. In most Canadian jurisdictions a union can be certified without a vote upon evidence that 51 to 60 per cent of employees in the bargaining unit wish to be represented by the union. In the U.S. all applications for certification are contested, requiring a vote to establish that a union represent a majority of employees.

No Canadian jurisdiction has right to work laws, but 21 states in the United States of America have such legislation. Canadian labour legislation permits all forms of union security, closed shop as well as union shop. Dues check off is a common provision.

Most Canadian jurisdictions have successor right provisions, providing that where a business is sold the successor employer acquires all the rights, privileges and obligations of the predecessor. The successor is bound by any collective agreement in force. In the U.S. the effective change in ownership on the union and the collective agreement is uncertain, depending on various factors.

A number of Canadian jurisdictions provide for advance notice and consultation on technological change. This provision is not found in the U.S. legislation.

First contract arbitration is available in the federal jurisdiction, British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec. There is no such provision in the United States.

The use of replacement workers during a strike is prohibited in Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia. In the U.S. if em-

ployees choose to go on strike, their employer can immediately and permanently replace them.

As Paul Weiler, professor of labour law at Harvard University put it: "For employees who may have spent 20 years with the company building up a stake of experience and seniority that can rarely be duplicated elsewhere, the stark reality is that if they do go on strike, they can be replaced by the company with people who in less than 20 minutes on the job gain permanent priority over the striking veterans".

Labour standards and occupational safety and health legislation in the United States is also very different from such legislation here in Canada. For example, U.S. legislation, unlike Canadian legislation, does not require the establishment of a joint health and safety committee, nor does it contain a right to refuse unsafe work. The right to refuse unsafe work by health and safety committees exists in every single jurisdiction in Canada.

While all Canadian jurisdictions have mandatory maternity and paternity leave provisions, with the right to return to former jobs and the continuation of benefits, very few jurisdictions in the United States require employers to provide pregnancy leave.

There are no individual standards for notice of termination or any severance pay legislation in the United States. In Canada, on the other hand, all jurisdictions require an employer to give notification to an individual being terminated, and Ontario and the federal jurisdiction provide for mandatory severance pay.

In Canada most jurisdictions require advance notice of plant closures involving 50 or more workers. Recent U.S. law sets minimum notice requirements for plant closures and mass lay-offs by employers of more than 100 employees, but there is no provision for consultation with the unions similar to that found in many Canadian jurisdictions.

My point is to show that the industrial relations climate or culture in Canada differs in significant ways from that in the United States.

In the dispute we are talking about today we have a relatively new employer, perhaps used to another way of doing things and having attitudes and assumptions not yet aligned with the Canadian attitudes and assumptions, and perhaps too ready to adopt a hard bargaining strategy. In this dispute the employer has chosen to use replacement workers, a decision which, not surprisingly, has greatly angered the workers. In their view, the use of replacement workers is the reason the dispute has lasted so long.

As members of the House know, the federal government has been examining the Canada Labour Code very intensively. It has been consulting with representatives from business, labour, and other interested parties. One of the issues being studied is whether the federal government ought to follow the examples set by Quebec, Ontario, and British Columbia in their legislation to prohibit or restrict the use of replacement workers. Those who favour restrictions on the use of replacements argue that when an employer continues to operate during a strike the collective bargaining process is frustrated and the employer's incentive to negotiate is removed, work stoppages are lengthened, and picket line violence is often inevitable.

It is also argued that the use of replacements serves as a disincentive for employees to join unions. Workers who know they can be replaced easily during a strike will wonder about union effectiveness and will be less likely to opt for unionization.

Those who oppose restrictions on the use of replacement workers say that such a move would tilt the balance of power toward labour, inevitably resulting in higher labour costs. They claim that it would deter new investment. The point is also made that most federally regulated industries are infrastructure industries. If they are completely shut down the entire economy would suffer.

The issue is complex and divisive. The arguments on both sides are persuasive. Also persuasive is the fact that 75 per cent of the workforce under provincial jurisdiction is governed by legislation prohibiting the use of replacement workers.

I will end my remarks by reiterating that I cannot support this bill because I believe firmly in free collective bargaining. The state has no business intervening in what are essentially private disputes.

At the same time, I have concerns about the heavy handed and less than accommodating attitude of the company. Like many others, I whether the impasse would have lasted so long had there been restrictions on the use of replacement workers in the Canada Labour Code.

[Manpower Training, May 10th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member is interested in an intelligent discussion of the issue, perhaps he should know that Human Resources Development Canada had approximately 50,000 labour market contracts in Quebec; 9,600 contracts with non-profit organizations; 9,300 contracts with private sector firms; and 2,800 contracts with public sector organizations.

The point I am making is that there is a need to deal with these individuals. At the end of the day Quebecers will realize that there is a role for the federal government to play in co-operation with the provinces and local organizations.

[Manpower Training, May 10th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.

The hon. member should know that the federal government has co-operated a great deal with the provincial governments throughout Canada. As a matter of fact, there are proposals tabled with the provinces that speak to the clarification of the responsibilities of both the federal and provincial governments to arrive at the delivery of a more efficient system so that at the end of the day the people of Canada, whether they live in Quebec or outside Quebec, can have the best possible service.

[Old Age Security Act, May 8th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, this motion is the first of a set of three amendments that would remove the minister's ability to disclose limited client information to Canada Post.

I am truly surprised that members opposite have brought this amendment at report stage. It reveals a lack of understanding of the purpose of this provision of Bill C-54 and perhaps-and I underline "perhaps"-an unwillingness to prepare for the future.

The government realizes the importance of using new technologies to provide better service to Canadians. This is especially important with regard to our income security programs for seniors. The provision of Bill C-54 that the opposition seeks to delete would enable the minister, under very restrictive conditions, to release limited information about clients to Canada Post where it is necessary for the administration of old age security, the Canada pension plan, or the Children's Allowance Act, as the case may be.

It is widely recognized that there are certain advantages to having a specialist work for us. One could hardly doubt that Canada Post is a specialist in the field of getting letters out to Canadians. This is exactly the reason for this provision.

Bill C-54 would allow the department to transmit the text of letters electronically to a Canada Post processing centre, where computers would print them and machines would place the letters in envelopes. Clients would receive information about their old age security or Canada pension benefits more quickly. The department would save money. Most people in my riding would think this is a very good idea.

Moreover, the confidentiality of the information clients provide to the government is protected in several ways. Canada Post employees are bound to maintain the confidentiality of the mail they deliver, whether they receive the mail in a red mailbox, on a street corner, or electronically by computer. Bill C-54 could never change that.

The Old Age Security Act, the Canada pension plan, and the Children's Special Allowances Act provide that it is an offence punishable on summary conviction to disclose client information to anyone not entitled to have that information. Bill C-54 even strengthens this protection by extending it from just employees of Her Majesty to any person who may have access to client information. This portion of Bill C-54 allows the government to provide service to clients more effectively and at a lower cost.

In spite of opposition attempts to raise the spectre of personal information being sold to those who have no rights to it, Bill C-54 actually strengthens the government's ability to protect clients' information. It is actually the opposition motion that could and would jeopardize the client confidentiality.

Canada Post is bound by law to protect that confidentiality. The opposition would have us open this up to other suppliers with the legal safeguards. Senior citizens, who would benefit greatly from the changes proposed by this bill, have a right to the facts, the correct facts. This bill would allow the government to send mail electronically through Canada Post in much the same way it currently puts letters in mailboxes.

The government is committed to finding efficiency where it can and to using new technology where possible to save money. This bill does not provide unrestricted access to information to Canada Post employees or to anyone else. However, this bill does provide adequate and even stringent penalties for illegal disclosure of information.

Bill C-54 provides sound, appropriate, and highly desirable changes to the acts governing our income security programs. We have all discussed in detail the concerns raised by the opposition, which in some way was reflected in Motion No. 4. Motions 13 and 15 seek to do the same thing to the Canada pension plan and to the Children's Special Allowances Act.

For this and many other reasons I suggest these motions be withdrawn and that all members support the speedy passage of Bill C-54.

[Supply, May 2nd, 1995]

Madam Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to respond to the motion before us which accuses the government of using the proposed Canada health and social transfer to damage the interests and autonomy of the provinces.

This motion and the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition in support of it are completely unfounded. Moreover, it is a gross misrepresentation of what we in the government have said and intend to do.

Had the Leader of the Opposition taken the time to read the budget, he could have easily ascertained our true intent by reading the budget plan released in February in which the Minister of Finance announced the new transfer program which the hon. member finds so troubling. In that document the Minister of Finance states that transfers to the provinces under health, CAP and PSE will be structured differently to create a system that is both fiscally sustainable, more flexible and better suited to the needs of Canadians.

This will be achieved by consolidating the three transfers into a single new block transfer called the Canada health and social transfer. Rather than using it to intrude into areas of provincial responsibility or to reduce the role of the provinces to that of mere consultants as the opposition alleges in its motion, the budget declares the exact opposite.

The budget states: "The new transfer will end the intrusiveness of cost sharing under CAP and will reduce the federal-provincial entanglement that has been a source of irritation with current cost shared transfer arrangements".

This is because federal expenditures would no longer be driven by provincial decisions as to how and to whom social assistance and social services will be provided. Provinces will no longer be subject to rules stipulating that certain expenditures are eligible for cost sharing while others are not. As a result, the provinces will be free to pursue innovative approaches to social security reform without having to worry about whether such approaches meet requirements for cost sharing. The expense to both federal and provincial governments of administering cost sharing will be eliminated.

Thus, it is clear the Canada health and social transfer will not damage the role of provinces as the hon. Leader of the Opposition suggests in his motion. There will be national standards for

the new Canada health and social transfer and the February budget sets them out quite clearly.

No change will be made to the Canada Health Act. Its principles will continue to be enforced by withholding funds if necessary. In addition, provinces will be required, as they are under the rules of the Canada assistance plan, to provide social assistance without any minimum residency requirement.

The Minister of Human Resources Development will invite all provincial governments to work together on developing through mutual consent a set of shared principles and objectives that could underline the new transfer. In this way all governments could reaffirm their commitment to the well-being of Canadians. The Minister of Health will continue to work with provincial and territorial health ministers to renew Canada's health system.

The Canada health and social transfer represents an important step forward for the provinces since it will give them the flexibility they need to develop innovative social programs that can better address the needs of their citizens. After all, it must be admitted that the current Canada assistance plan with its restrictive cost sharing requirements too often inhibited such innovation. Nowhere have the negative impacts of this legislative straitjacket been more obvious than in the hon. member's own province.

It is a sad fact that many exciting and innovative programs in Quebec have been denied funding because of the restrictive requirements contained in the rules governing the current transfer programs. For instance, APPORT is an income supplement program for low income families with children which seeks to help such parents make the transition from social assistance to the workforce. Since 1988 this program has been ineligible for cost sharing because its assessment of need does not conform to that of the transfer program.

Then again, many programs in the 1970s aimed at disadvantaged children in Quebec were ruled ineligible because they did not correspond to the definition of welfare services contained within the act which excludes services related to education. Similarly, probation services for young offenders are ineligible since the same definition of welfare services also excludes correctional services. The list goes on and on.

However, I should add that these problems are not restricted to Quebec. Virtually every province has at one time or other seen worthwhile projects turned down. These have included programs in such diverse areas as self-managed care, community based services, nutrition programs for children and adaptive transportation services for the disabled.

The introduction of the Canada health and social transfer will make it possible for provinces to proceed with these kinds of programs which have been excluded in the past.

As well, let me state categorically that the government has not and will not use transfer programs as a way to interfere in areas of provincial responsibility as this motion suggests. Rather the federal government seeks to involve the provinces as full partners in the very important work of developing a set of shared principles and objectives which might underlie this new transfer system.

This is why the Minister of Human Resources Development will be inviting his provincial colleagues to sit down with him to discuss ways in which we can work together in partnership to develop a common framework of objectives and approaches for the Canada health and social transfer.

Canadians of all regions are very proud of our system of social programs and they are right to be. These programs flow from the shared values of all Canadians and are the result of decades of hard work, sacrifice and dedication. This investment of time, effort and commitment has resulted in a quality of life which is regarded with envy and admiration by the rest of the world.

Let me ask this very fundamental question of those who intend to support the motion. Would this country have been better off if the federal government had not been active in transferring funds to the provinces? Think of the achievements that these transfers have helped provinces to build in the past 30 years. Look at the issue of medicare, the envy of the world; post-secondary education and colleges, one of the highest enrolment rates; the safety net, protection for the most vulnerable. These are proud records of achievement.

While funding arrangements have served Canadians well in the past, federalism is changing. Therefore our transfer programs must also change to remain relevant. There is a need for a greater flexibility in the way we provide funds to the provinces. In hindsight it is clear that some features of our current system reflect a paternalistic and prescriptive approach which is out of place in the 1990s.

Too often restrictions contained within the current system have stifled innovation by the provinces and derailed worthwhile projects before they even got started.

The new Canada health and social transfer will actually result in less intrusion by the federal government in the affairs of the provinces and not more, as the hon. member suggests. It will also result in greater flexibility.

We are taking the proper step toward building co-operative federalism. It speaks to the type of positive direction in which the government is taking the country.

[Supply, May 2nd, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I listened very attentively to the hon. member's speech. While I do not question the sincerity with which she spoke, I do question her understanding of some of the essential elements associated with block transfers to the provinces.

I am quite surprised she would be against this measure taken by the government because it essentially addresses some of the concerns she cited in her speech.

I will be extremely specific on this issue because sometimes facts, figures and proper statistics are missing in debates in the House of Commons, particularly when they originate from the opposition.

As a result of the new transfer we are able to support programs like APPORT. Because of the restrictive nature of the Canada assistance plan, prior to this transfer we were not able to do that.

SUPRET, a work income supplement that preceded APPORT, was rejected under CAP. Now because of the new arrangement with the provinces that could be supported. The Quebec sales tax refund and various social services provided in schools were submitted for CAP cost sharing during the 1970s. These were rejected because they did not meet the CAP definition of welfare services. These are just some of the examples.

The hon. member must understand that by having the Canada social and health transfer we are responding to the call by provincial governments to build in the type of flexibility that speaks to co-operative federalism, something the hon. member should reflect on.

Has the hon. member taken the time to clearly look at all the issues, at all the programs rejected prior to the establishment of the Canada social and health transfer? Will she reconsider her position and applaud the government for this excellent initiative?

[Education, April 24th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, in keeping with the red book commitment, young people are a priority for the government. We have taken measures to give them opportunities to learn some very valuable skills.

I am happy to announce, as I did three weeks ago in the city of Vaughan, that the overall budget for youth employment and services has been increased by $43 million even during this fiscal restraining time. This speaks volumes for the type of commitment that we as a government have toward our young people.

[National Solidarity Day For The Aboriginal Peoples Of Canada Act, April 4th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, first I would like to thank the hon. member for the sincerity expressed about young people. I know he is a member who truly cares about young people.

Going back to the original question about the programs in Newfoundland and New Brunswick, he said: "The results were devastating". That is why the Minister of Human Resources Development has decided to discontinue this ineffective initiative and to focus on what really works in this country for young people.

It is also important to remind the hon. member that this initiative dates back to the Conservative years. Our approach toward young people has changed quite drastically to the point at which if we look at budgetary items related to youth employment we have seen an increase over last year even though we must consider our fiscal situation.

The youth internship program is exclusively designed to help young people make the transition from school to work. Over 2,000 young Canadians will have benefited from our sectoral streams. By that I am referring to the programs launched in the environment, in logistics, in Canadian auto repair and services, electronics, electrical, manufacturing, tourism, all jobs with a

future. Also in the community and school based stream approximately 80 projects have been initiated. Over 4,000 participants have participated.

The funding for youth internship programs has been increased to $118 million in 1995-96 from the 1994-95 figure of $25 million. This speaks to the excellent record the government has established in the area of youth.