Peter Milliken

[Criminal Code, October 26th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I was very interested to hear what the hon. member for Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup had to say, and, of course, he conforms to the separatist rhetoric. I agree that the Constitution provides for the rights of the provinces in certain jurisdictions.

In this particular case, the federal government has made it very clear where the difference lies between the two jurisdictions in Canada.

One of the elements of the federal government's agenda is in fact the rebuilding of Canada's social security system. Creating jobs and growth requires the modernization of our social labour market and learning programs. One of the key principles of the reform that has been proposed is to provide greater clarity, as I indicated, in the roles of the federal and provincial governments.

The federal government has taken a major step towards a new partnership on labour market programs. The federal government's main objective is to improve services for Canadians, to make those services more effective and to eliminate any duplication and wasteful spending.

As a result, in June of this year the Minister of Human Resources Development invited interested provinces and territories to assume increased responsibilities in the labour market sector. The federal offer entails implementation of a three year interim labour market agreement with each province which could be put in place immediately. The federal-provincial discussions are currently under way across this country.

However, we are still waiting for a reply from the Government of Quebec. The federal offer includes:

Provincial planning of $480 million worth of federal labour market programs in Quebec, about 60 per cent of the federal labour market program budget; provincial management of federal purchase of institutional training, valued at $140 million in the case of Quebec; provincial planning and implementation of a network of single window offices that would put together under one roof the programs and services of both levels of government; and provincial management of certain other federal programs such as co-operative education, stay in school programs and Canada employment centres for students, valued at $12 million in Quebec.

With regard to the estimates of massive wastage, although the federal government has heard a number of such claims over recent years, there has never been any serious analysis to support these kinds of numbers. These huge claims have no basis in fact.

I invite the hon. member to consider the federal proposal and urge the Government of Quebec to support it.

[Committee Of The House, October 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have been discussions among the parties and I think you would find unanimous consent for the following motion:

That the Standing Committee on Finance, or any of its subcommittees, be authorized to adjourn from place to place within Canada during the week commencing October 31, 1994 and that the necessary staff accompany the committee.

[Committees Of The House, October 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I think there would be consent to dispense with reading of the 42nd report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs concerning membership of committees.

If so, and if the House gives its consent, I move that the 42nd report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs presented to the House earlier this day be concurred in.

(Motion agreed to.)

[Committees Of The House, October 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the 42nd report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the membership of committees.

With the consent of the House, I intend to propose later on today that the 42nd report be concurred in.

[Government Response To Petitions, October 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 58 petitions.

[Questions On The Order Paper, October 24th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I recognize the hon. member did star his question. Therefore, a response is required within 45 days.

In the particular case of his question, I have seen the draft response to that question. I was unhappy with the response because the response was a response, but not an answer.

I sent the reply back to the officials concerned and asked that it be improved. A more fulsome answer I think is the word mentioned by the Secretary of State for the Status of Women, and I appreciate her assistance.

I know the hon. member will understand when I say that I sent this question back for a more fulsome reply. When that is forthcoming I will bring it to the House as quickly as possible, and I thank him for raising the matter today.

[Questions On The Order Paper, October 24th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[Government Response To Petitions, October 24th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 60 petitions.

[Question On The Order Paper, October 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.

[Question On The Order Paper, October 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, Question No. 75 will be answered today.

Question No. 75-