Geoff Regan

[Supply, December 5th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, that is correct.

My wife is often astonished at how quickly and how frequently the schedule changes for a parliamentarian. This is an example of that. When I rose to speak an hour ago I said I would speaking for the full 20 minutes and now it is 10 minutes. I happy to comply and adjust my schedule again.

Before question period I was saying that the bill was a Robin Hood response to the problem we have with the UI system. In 1983 the UI system cost $9 billion to employers and employees across Canada. Today it costs $17 billion. The growth in the cost of this program has represented a tax on jobs in Canada and we have to deal with it.

People in my riding tell me that it has been misused in many ways and it is time to deal with it. But how do we deal with it? And why am I calling it a Robin Hood response? Because we are dealing with this problem of reducing the cost of the program by reducing benefits for the well off who have been breaking the system for a while and increasing benefits to the poor. The low-income people who have dependants will get up to 80 per cent, rather than 55 per cent of their previous income under this system. So it is an important step forward and we are maintaining the program as much as possible in a very solid way for those in the middle. That is a very important point.

Finally, I want to mention the issue of involuntary part-time workers. I have been involved in the food bank movement in the Halifax area, as people in my riding would know. One thing we always complained about for low-income people is the growing number of people who have to work part time because they could not find full-time work. One reason for that has been the incentive provided in part by the UI system to employers to only hire part-time workers, who would work less than 15 hours a week so they would not have to pay these UI benefits, for example.

By moving to an hourly based system where every hour counts and every hour has premiums paid on it, it means that people who are working part time will qualify for UI and the incentive for employers to hire only part time will no longer be there. These are important and positive points about this employment insurance program.

I urge all members of the House to vote against this Bloc motion.

[Hmcs Calgary, December 5th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, late Friday 29 Romanians and one Greek man were plucked from the stormy seas of the North Atlantic by Master Corporal Rob Fisher from Greenwood, Nova Scotia.

HMCS Calgary and a Sea King helicopter were on their way back to British Columbia from the Persian Gulf when they responded to the sinking of the Mount Olympus , racing 900 kilometres in 18 hours to reach the sinking carrier. Amid frightful conditions, Master Corporal Fisher spent four hours pulling the crew members from the sinking ship to safety.

I know all hon. members will join me in thanking the crew of the HMCS Calgary , particularly Master Corporal Fisher, for their heroic efforts, the kinds of efforts we have come to expect from the men and women who serve Canada with dedication and distinction.

[Supply, December 5th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I understand Liberal members have been splitting their time and I have been asked not to split my time. I will be using the full 20 minutes, plus the 10 minutes allotted for questions and comments.

I rise today with some reluctance to speak on this motion. I hope to have an opportunity to speak on the bill and on the many good points in the legislation. However, today we are debating the Bloc opposition motion condemning the government's employment insurance legislation for maintaining overlap and duplication in labour market training. I will try to confine my comments to that motion and to the aspects of the bill which relate to that motion. However, I would like to speak about the many good things the bill will do and I hope to have the opportunity to do so in the future.

If the hon. member and her colleagues in the Bloc had taken the time to give thorough consideration to the new employment insurance legislation they would see it does not maintain overlap and duplication in labour market training. After all, the Minister of Human Resources Development tabled the legislation only last Friday. It is a comprehensive document which deserves serious consideration by all members of the House.

The people of Quebec would be better served if the Bloc spent more time trying to understand this bill.

Instead they are conjuring up fallacies about its implementation.

To address the hon. member's motion directly, I suggest she refer to page 19 of the just published employment insurance guide. I know the hon. member has not seen this document. If she had she would not be wasting the valuable time of the House with this motion.

On page 19 of the guide, under employment benefits, the last paragraph of the first column states: "The legislation also proposes a new partnership with the provinces in order to eliminate duplication and encourage governments to work together to foster employment". It says the federal government will work in partnership with the provinces to eliminate duplication. That also means eliminating overlap; they are, after all, the same thing.

I do not know how much clearer the government can make it. It has been spelled out in the EI guide. I hope that by elaborating I can assist hon. members opposite, who still seem confused, to understand exactly what this means.

The labour market training initiatives under EI are not the one size fits all programming approach taken by previous governments. The federal government will work with each province individually, including the province of Quebec, because Quebecers are Canadians and are entitled to the same considerations under this legislation as are all citizens of the country.

We will work with each provincial government to help it deliver a federal program if it desires to do so or, and this is a key point, where a province is operating a program which will equally serve EI clients we will support that program. I do not know how much clearer I can make it for the members of the Bloc.

If the provincial government of Quebec agrees or if it has an employment initiative which meets the employment benefits criteria of this legislation, we are fully prepared to work with the Government of Quebec to use that initiative to help unemployed Quebecers get back to work as quickly as possible. The same thing applies in every province and territory of the country.

My colleague has already mentioned, but it bears repeating, that the good news is the Government of Quebec has passed a resolution that says it is willing to discuss labour market training with the federal government. Like my hon. colleague, I can assure members opposite the federal government welcomes this opportunity to work in partnership with the Quebec government for the benefit of Quebecers. The same philosophy will apply when the government is dealing with other provinces.

Atlantic Canadians are very concerned about the impact EI will have on their lives. We understand we cannot deal with Nova Scotia the same way we deal with Saskatchewan. I should know since my grandfather and my mother are from Saskatchewan. My grandfather was an MP from Saskatchewan and spoke often of its concerns. They are not the same problems, they are not the same situations as they are in Atlantic Canada.

We are all Canadians but there are different circumstances in the labour market and they call for different approaches in different parts of the country. That is the beauty of the employment benefit measures under EI. They provide for local decision making and ensure appropriate accountability in local areas. Also, they emphasize individual responsibility and self-reliance. All of these things are much needed in this area.

Media reports on this topic keep talking about cuts to UI as if that is all there is to this legislation. There is so much more. I look at this legislation as a Robin Hood response to a program badly in need of change and modernization. We are doing everything we can to maintain the benefits for those who need them most. We are helping out. We are providing a low income supplement for low income families with dependants so they will be better off in the future than they have been in the past. They will get more employment insurance than they would under the old UI system. They will get more now under this system.

We are aiming at those. It is true we are cutting from people who make $70,000 or $80,000 a year and collect UI on top of that. People in my riding have been telling us to do that for a long time. They have been saying people who make $60,000 a year cannot keep taking out $10,000 or $20,000 on top of that in UI year after year, and after only paying in a few hundred dollars. They cannot keep drawing out when they already have high incomes. They will have to learn to spread those high incomes over the full 12 months of the year. That is only fair.

People have been complaining in Atlantic Canada about that, in my riding certainly for a long time. We are hitting those people who really should not be taking UI every year, those with really high incomes. We are preserving it for those who need it most. That is a very important point. That is why I call this a kind of Robin Hood response to this problem.

[Manganese Based Fuel Additives Act, November 27th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak on Bill C-94, which is now before the House.

In the bill the government is taking a decisive step toward protecting the environment, jobs, consumers, and keeping our country at the leading edge of automobile technology. All are very important goals.

Bill C-94 will prohibit the import and interprovincial trade of MMT, a manganese based fuel additive manufactured in the U.S. The proposed bill, to be known as the manganese based fuel additives act, will come into effect 60 days after it gains assent.

Canada is one of the only countries in the world that use MMT. It is very rare in the world these days. The U.S., for example, banned it from use in unleaded gasoline in 1978. It is remarkable that it did it so long ago and we still have it in Canada.

Some members opposite have cited a recent U.S. court decision in favour of MMT as a reason to stop this legislation. But MMT will still be banned in California and in those states that require federal reformulated gasoline to be used. What is more, we have yet to see whether the U.S. government will repeal this decision.

We are taking this action because we need to protect the latest onboard diagnostic systems that Canada's car makers are installing in their new vehicles. These systems are extremely important for the environment. They are responsible for monitoring the vehicle emission controls and for alerting the driver of malfunctions. Without that kind of technology one cannot be aware of how well the car is working or if it is not functioning at all in terms of its emission control processes. They ensure that the cleaner burning engines of today and tomorrow operate as designed. They ensure that automobiles are properly maintained, resulting in decreased tailpipe emissions and improved fuel economy. In other words, this is one more important tool to help us address air pollution, including smog and climate change.

This government will not allow MMT to get in the way of the automobile industry's effort to make cars cleaner and more efficient and less polluting. Canada's environment and Canadian consumers have the right to the best anti-pollution technology possible. Yet Ethyl Corporation, the manufacturer of MMT through its subsidiary Ethyl Canada, denies the vehicle industry allegation about the ill effects of MMT on the vehicle emissions control

systems. In fact it makes a counter claim that MMT is environmentally beneficial.

All this is somewhat fuzzy. What is certain is that efforts to reduce motor vehicle pollution can no longer be addressed by just the petroleum industry, the auto industry, or the federal government. Progress at reducing vehicle pollution requires simultaneous action by all. The petroleum industry needs to keep making improvements in the composition and properties of the fuels engines burn. The auto industry needs to keep making improvements in the vehicle emissions control systems and technologies, such as those offered through onboard diagnostic systems. The government needs to take decisive action in Bill C-94, which removes a major obstacle to the introduction of these technologies. That obstacle is MMT.

Our strategy to reduce vehicle pollution goes beyond just taking action on MMT. The government is doing its part because we know that automobiles are a major contributor to climate change and urban smog as well as some toxic pollutants like benzene. In fact in a recently released task force report done by Canada's deputy ministers of environment it is noted that even with the improvements in emissions technology, vehicles are still the largest contributors to air pollution.

I must say that troubles me. I as a member of Parliament, and I am sure many of my colleagues, have to travel a great deal throughout my riding and often I am the only person in the vehicle. There are times when I feel uncomfortable about that. I know that it is important that I get around my riding, get around to different events, be seen and hear people's concerns. Yet I also know that I am driving a vehicle a lot more than I would like to be driving it. Unfortunately, my riding is too big to go by bicycle. It would take me forever, but it would certainly be great for my health. This issue does trouble me. We should be concerned about the impact of automobile emissions as they impact on the environment and air pollution.

On a national basis, gasoline and diesel powered vehicles still contribute some 60 per cent of carbon monoxide emissions, 35 per cent of nitrous oxide emissions or smog, 25 per cent of our hydrocarbon emissions, and 20 per cent of carbon dioxide emissions. These vehicles, gasoline and diesel powered, are very big contributors to our smog and pollution problems.

This report I just referred to stresses the need to proceed on all fronts at the same time in all of these areas. It states the following: "Vehicle technology and fuel composition, although two separate industry sectors, must be treated as an integrated system in the development of policies and programs in order to successfully reduce emissions from motor vehicles". This is good advice. It should complement our work in preparing our comprehensive motor vehicle exhaust emission standards.

To meet these standards, we are counting on integrating improvements achieved in emission control technologies and fuels. However, clearly we cannot hope to meet these standards without the kind of action we are taking against MMT in Bill C-94. And it is not simply an act of impatience. Since 1985 the federal government has waited for the automotive and petroleum industries to resolve this situation without legislation. It was not resolved. The time for waiting is over. It is now time for the government to act.

Last October the Minister of the Environment urged both the petroleum and automotive industries to voluntarily resolve the issue of MMT in Canada by the end of 1994; otherwise, the government would take action. This deadline was subsequently extended in February of this year to review automobile and petroleum industry proposals. The MMT issue is no longer an industry dispute. Its outcome can affect the vehicle emissions programs we are putting into place. In the long term it could also negatively impact on the automotive sector. Successful resolution of the MMT issue will ensure that environmental benefits are realized through the use of the most advanced emission control technologies. We have to move in this direction.

Members opposite have claimed that this legislation will have an enormous financial impact on the petroleum sector. However, let us be prudent and realistic. The economic impact of removing MMT will be small, not enormous. Estimates for the industry, an industry that involves many billions of dollars, range from $50 million to $83 million per year, which means an additional cost to consumers of 0.1 cents to 0.24 cents per litre at the pump. This is less than one-quarter of a cent per litre at the pump.

Some have said that taking MMT out of our fuel will increase benzene. That is not so. It is nonsense. Gasoline can be refined without MMT and without increasing levels of benzene. Any effort to increase benzene levels or benzene precursors will not be tolerated under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. In fact this past summer the Minister of the Environment announced that benzene levels would be regulated at a maximum of one per cent per volume. So there is nothing to fear. Let us move ahead. Let us do it, because we need new emission control technologies like the onboard diagnostic systems. We need them to help achieve reductions in smog, carbon monoxide, and hydrocarbons. We need to reduce these kinds of emissions because they have an influence on climate change and urban air quality.

This is good legislation. It is good for consumers and good for the environment. All 18 automobile companies in Canada agree, even if the Reform Party does not, that we are moving in the right direction.

I urge all members to give their support and swift passage to this bill.

[Atlantic Canada, November 27th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the Reform Party has been calling for a much weaker federal government. Once again Reformers are listening only to the small percentage of Canadians who are their supporters. They are not listening to Atlantic Canadians.

They want decentralization in the most decentralized federation in the western world. When Reformers want federal government to withdraw from health care they are not listening. When they talk about privatizing UI they are not listening. When they want a looser federation they are not listening to Atlantic Canadians.

Atlantic Canadians believe in a strong federal government. Atlantic Canadians believe in Canada.

[Auditor General Act, November 23rd, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak on Bill C-83.

The Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development took on the task of examining the government's commitment to establish an environmental equivalent of the auditor general. This was in fact a key red book commitment. It is an idea that has been discussed and debated for many years. It is also an idea the government is making a reality in short order.

The committee heard from many stakeholders representing a wide range of interests and opinions. Their testimony provided important insights into what must be done for Canada to achieve sustainable development.

The committee in preparing its report and the government in proposing Bill C-83 have paid careful attention to the message of stakeholders. The committee submitted its report in May of last year and the government responded just over a year ago. Its response was aimed at integrating economic, environmental and social factors in federal planning and decision making across all departments, just what the stakeholders had asked for.

Key aspects of that response include the amendments to the Auditor General Act with which we are involved today. The amendments would provide openness, transparency and leadership by government on sustainable development and continued action to make sustainable development a real practice throughout the federal government. Bill C-83 is central to integrating the environmental and sustainable development in government planning decisions across all federal government departments.

Last year I had the pleasure of being part of the Special Joint Committee for the Review of Canada's Foreign Policy. For the first time as part of a review of foreign policy one of the areas we looked at was sustainable development and the environment. We can see more and more these days how much environmental issues are international matters.

The hon. member for Peace River is here today. He was also a part of that review. It was a very interesting process. I was pleased that for the first time as a committee we recognized in our report that the federal government should include as a major plank of its foreign policy the promotion of sustainable development around the world.

Why is it important for us to make environmental matters and sustainable development more of a priority in government? One reason is that we live in a world of limited measurable natural resources.

I asked a friend of mine, a professor of geography in Halifax, if we could measure the atmosphere, the amount of air around the world. He checked with a friend in a specialized area who was more knowledgeable on the particular topic and told me there were approximately five quadrillion tonnes of atmosphere around the world. That is about one one-millionth of the total mass of the earth. Twenty-one per cent of the atmosphere is oxygen.

It is measurable and finite which means that it is limited. There is not always lots more where that came from. We have to recognize therefore that if we can measure it and if we can limit it, we can also destroy it. We can damage it. That is a very important point to realize in thinking about the environment and the world we live in.

This is the only planet we know of that will sustain and support life. That is an important point too. If we damage this one we do not have another one to go to. It is unrealistic to think we can choose some other world or that we will have some way to transport billions of people to some other planet where we can survive if we damage this one.

There is a very narrow range of conditions in which life can exist, particularly human life. Is it possible for us as human beings to actually alter or change the conditions which sustain human life? It seems to me the answer to that question is yes. We now have solid evidence that we actually have changed the conditions. We are having an impact on the conditions.

This year 2,000 leading world experts on climate change came to the conclusion and agreed, after years of debating it and not being ready to agree, that human activity contributes to global warming. We are affecting climate change. We are moving in the narrow range within which we can actually sustain human life. We should be aware of that very important point.

The planet has a limited ability to support human life. Researchers at Cornell University in the U.S. determined in a study that the earth's biosphere could only produce enough renewable resources, food, fresh water and fish, to sustain about two billion people at European standards. That is not North American standards and we should know the difference. If members know much about how Europeans live, they will know they are less wasteful of resources. They tend to follow the three r s of reducing, reusing and recycling a little more than we do. They have done it for quite a while. They have a head start on the three r s that are so important for the environment. I hope we can follow their example and catch up quickly.

Not only in Europe but in North America we have to change our practices to try to follow the three r s of reducing our consumption; reusing our receptacles for pop, bottles of various kinds and other containers; and reducing the amount of packaging of products. Often we buy products with a lot more packaging than is required. I understand marketing problems but somehow marketers have to take into account environmental issues and find ways to market with less packaging.

The whole issue of sustainable development is a new issue in foreign policy and newer one in domestic policy. Today it must be a core issue in our domestic as well as foreign policy. Sustainable development is about integrating environmental, economic and social values into decision making. That is very important for our future. If we do not include all three in deciding what will be sustainable for us in the future, how we will live in a sustainable manner and how we will support social and other programs in a sustainable manner, we have big problems. We need to think about how much we value the environment, society and the people in it and the economy. We must consider all these points and not one at the exclusion of others.

When thinking of the environment we must think about how much are interests are endangered. If we realize that we live in a very narrow range of conditions that can support human life and that we can actually affect those conditions, change them and move them outside that range, we realize our interests are in danger.

One great problem for us is to determine how to move toward goals of greater employment that are so important and at the same time deal with tremendous challenges in the environment. That is a major challenge of the next 50 years but I hope we manage to deal with it sooner than that.

Should we increase our emphasis on sustainable development? Clearly the answer is yes. We have done it in foreign policy. We are now doing it by creating a role within the auditor general's office for a commissioner who will report directly to the auditor general and will file a report annually on how the government and all departments are doing in environmental matters. It is very important to keep the government's feet to the fire on environmental matters to make sure it lives up to its responsibilities to promote sustainable development in every aspect of its activities.

I was very pleased to speak on the bill and I urge all members to give it speedy passage.

[Treatment Of Municipal Sewage, November 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to address Motion No. 425 put forward by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni. The motion states:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should support the undertaking of a country-wide program of improving the treatment of municipal sewage to a minimum standard of at least that of primary treatment facilities.

The concern I have about the motion is that such a new country-wide program would only duplicate existing efforts of the federal government, provincial governments and territorial governments.

Our government initiated the Canada infrastructure works program which is geared specifically to upgrading infrastructure. I note that sewage treatment was given a high priority in the program. For example, in my riding of Halifax West, one of the most important and costly projects which the program funded was the upgrading of the Mill Cove sewage treatment plant. It is a very important program which will provide better service for the whole Bedford-Sackville area. That is one of the two largest programs in my riding. The other one relates to road building. Both are solid traditional infrastructure programs.

There are other kinds of infrastructure. These days we have to recognize that even things like fibre optics can be important for infrastructure and for the ability of a community or a country to develop its economic base.

I also note that the Reform Party did not support the infrastructure program when it was first introduced.

I remind hon. members that the primary responsibility of implementing standards or guidelines for fresh water, recreational or drinking water quality and sewage treatment discharges rests with provincial and territorial governments and not with the federal government in Ottawa. The role of the federal government is to supply leadership and advice in support of the provincial and territorial governments through the co-operative establishment of national guidelines and appropriate action in the federal domain.

National guidelines exist in this area and are constantly being updated. For example, through federal and provincial co-operation, health based guidelines for drinking water and recreational water quality are developed. In fact, the fifth edition of "The Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality" was published in May 1993. This document is popular among those who study water quality issues. The document recommends limits for microbiological, chemical and radiological contaminants which have been found in drinking water and are known or suspected to be harmful.

The guidelines are used in all parts of Canada. They are developed in co-operation with the health and environment ministries of the provinces and territories. The guidelines fall under the auspices of the Federal-Provincial Subcommittee on Drinking Water. It is important work which is in progress.

The process began in the 1970s. For this reason among others, Canada's drinking water is one of the safest drinking waters in the world. We have to recognize how fortunate we are in this country to have this supply of safe fresh water.

The impact of standards for sewerage is to protect raw water sources which might be used by Canadians for drinking water or recreational purposes. It is the raw water sources which we are talking about.

The environment is one of the key determinants of population health. We all know these days about the increase in allergies and respiratory illnesses which seem to be traceable to environmental causes. Water quality is an important indicator of our efforts to protect human health in this area.

Of the many environmental factors, the quality of their drinking water is of major concern to Canadians. We know this from a number of public surveys and consultations which the government has undertaken. We also know that Canada is in the enviable position of having great riches of fresh water within its boundaries. I believe that Canada has the greatest resource of fresh water in the world. Approximately 83 countries in the world do not have access to fresh drinking water. It is atrocious. The problem is the greatest in those countries which are highly populated.

Our infrastructure program is a co-operative effort of federal, provincial, territorial and municipal governments. It is already being used to upgrade and improve sewage treatment across the country, just as it is in my riding with the upgrading of the Mill Cove sewage treatment plant. This is in keeping with our red book commitments.

In our present situation, the federal, provincial, territorial and municipal governments are prioritizing the infrastructure works program to benefit all Canadians because we have to look at what is vital to Canadians. Microbiological characteristics of the water are

still considered to be vital to public health protection and for that reason guidelines are under continuous scrutiny.

There are microbiological guidelines for coliform and total bacteria in drinking water. In fact, it was recently updated and sections on viruses and protozoa in finished water are being prepared. Microbiological contaminants will not be removed from source water if we adopt this motion. This motion will not reduce trace chemical contaminants in the fresh water supply to our municipal drinking water systems.

It will not help, for example, in the case of Five Island Lake where the lake system is contaminated by a PCB site or actually an orphan site which has a number of toxins which need to be cleaned up. This motion will not address the problem of that water system.

The establishment of a national primary sewage treatment standard will not improve the microbiological qualities of drinking water, nor will it significantly improve fresh water quality.

One of the important things we should be moving toward in this regard and one of the things happening in Halifax, for example, is the work toward the removal of toxins and other contaminants at source. That is a very important step we have to take. It is a matter of taking responsibility for the quality of our water and what we dump into our sinks and into our water system.

We have an obligation to all Canadians to expend our resources in the most efficient manner possible. Every dollar we spend must have the maximum possible health benefit to the Canadian public. Health Canada has a duty to Canadians to address serious health issues affecting water quality. We are concerned with disease-causing organisms and cancer-causing chemicals in our water. We have to be concerned about those things more and more these days.

These are the serious issues of the day that Health Canada is addressing. These are also the issues that will not be touched on by this proposed motion. Since primary sewage treatment will not reduce organic substances found in source water from municipal drinking water and disinfection is essential to maintain a safe drinking water supply that will protect the public health, the establishment of a minimum standard of primary treatment will have little public health benefit with respect to drinking water.

Water quality improvements are already occurring under the Canada infrastructure works program, the Canada-Ontario agreement to clean up the Great Lakes and the Quebec-Canada entente to address issues in the St. Lawrence River basin.

I believe the member for Comox-Alberni had the best of intentions in putting forward this motion. Unfortunately, it does not address the real problems facing Canadians today. An isolated program to spend large sums of money on municipal sewage treatment will cost Canadian taxpayers dearly without doing much to increase public health protection.

Health Canada is working now in partnership with other levels of government to improve water quality across the country. These are the initiatives we must continue to develop to ensure that the quality of our drinking water remains the envy of the world.

[Icelandair, November 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, on Friday, November 10, I was pleased to join provincial counterparts, Iceland Ambassador Einar Benediktsson and Icelandair representatives in welcoming Icelandair to Halifax International Airport in Nova Scotia.

Icelandair is a 60-year old privately run airline. It is no mere beginner. It carries 1.2 million passengers every year. Icelandair will begin scheduled service to Halifax on May 14 next year. It will go from Halifax International Airport to some 20 destinations in Europe through Reykajavik. We in Halifax West and in Nova Scotia look forward to the tremendous potential this brings for tourism in Nova Scotia.

Icelandair recently held a Reykjavik to Halifax flight for Scandanavian tour operators, an important first step for this exciting tourism opportunity. Icelandair knows what more and more companies are coming to realize, that metropolitan Halifax and the province of Nova Scotia are good places to do business.

[Department Of Human Resources Development Act, November 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak this morning on Bill C-96.

Clause 3 of the bill states:

There is hereby established a department of the Government of Canada called the Department of Human Resources Development-

Perhaps the most remarkable part of the bill is the very name of the department it creates: "Human Resources Development". Those three words stand for one of the most critical challenges and also one of the greatest opportunities facing Canadians today. They stand for one of the most basic beliefs underlying the government's commitment to Canadians.

We believe that Canada has enormous potential, economically and socially. We believe that people, our human resources, are the key to unlocking that potential. It is the talents and skills of people that have made this country one of the most prosperous nations on earth. It is those same skills and talents that will secure for Canada and Canadians a prosperous future.

By investing in people, by developing our human resources, we want to ensure that every Canadian has a chance to take part in the future. We want to ensure that every element of the social programs works toward that goal. That focus is what the new department is all about. It is about helping the people who need help the most, by giving them the tools they need the most, by giving them a chance to overcome the barriers of poverty, a chance to gain access to good training and skills and a chance to get good jobs.

Throughout the social security reform consultations we have been asking Canadians how to focus our social programs better to achieve that goal. It has been going on throughout the Department of Human Resources Development over the past year as departmental officials have worked to sharpen the focus of programs and services to make them more effective. It is going on right now as we develop the new human resources investment fund, which will lead to greater decentralization in this area. We will be working more with our partners at the local level and will be reducing the 39 current programs to a handful which can be hand tailored to local needs.

Social security reform will continue to evolve as the government prepares legislation to refocus the UI program and integrate the lessons it has learned from consultations into departmental operations.

If members want to see social security reform in action as an example of focusing resources on investing in people, they can take a look in my riding at the Bedford Professional Training Services. With this program each project consists of a mix of classroom and on the job training in modern office management. Many of the trainees are older workers who have been displaced from their former employment. In addition to learning new skills, they must deal with low self-esteem, grief, embarrassment and frustration which accompany a midlife job loss, as we all know well. A strong counselling component is built into the training package to address these issues.

The co-ordinator of the program, Fran Hill, is to be commended for her excellent work. In fact the placement rate for this program in its first two projects was 90 per cent. Ninety per cent of those people who were actually in the program were placed in jobs. That is excellent and is to be commended. One former trainee has successfully started her own business and is now employing another of Fran's graduates.

These people do not want handouts from the department. They want jobs and they want help getting the tools and skills they need to get on with their lives. That is what they are getting at places like Bedford Professional Training Services. They are getting a second chance at education and learning skills for new jobs. That is just one example of the strategic initiatives we are undertaking to refocus the department's resources away from the status quo toward real, productive and meaningful change.

I will give another example. Let us look at the communities of Lucasville and Upper Hammonds Plains which are two minority communities in my riding of Halifax West. These communities have benefited tremendously over the past two years working closely with the Bedford Canada Employment Centre.

Through a section 25 program a UI recipient prepares a strategic development plan. Right now they are arranging for community consultation on this plan but they will soon begin the initial stages of implementation. Part of that plan involves tutoring programs which have already begun and have been very successful.

Through the Youth Services Canada summer program, students, including eight from the summer program and four in the career placement program, did two activities. The first involved recreation services in the communities. The second involved renovations of homes, churches and community centres in those communities but according to priorities which were established at the local level by the people in those communities. That is a very important point.

The curriculum they used was developed with funding by the delivery of systems project of the department. The curriculum works to improve educational standards. It gives the area the capability as a remote learning centre. It will actually start in the middle of this month.

There are many examples like these across the country that reflect the new focus and direction of the department. We can see it in the assistance that thousands of Canadians receive every day in our network of CECs, Canada Employment Centres, across the country. Thousands of Canadians who need help to get the training, the jobs and income support they need are helped in these centres.

We can see it in the hard work and dedication of some 30,000 departmental employees. I want to mention one in particular with whom I worked over the past couple of years and who retired this summer. Keith Cameron was the manager of the Canada Employment Centre in Bedford. I was very impressed by his commitment to his community and his commitment to his work.

In fact on Canada Day in 1994 I visited Upper Hammonds Plains. There on a day off was Keith Cameron coaching the local ball team. If that is not commitment to a community that needs assistance and needs involvement, I do not know what is. To me that shows the kind of dedication and commitment of many of the employees of the human resources development department. It is an excellent example for others to follow.

Day in and day out, people like Keith Cameron and other departmental employees are working with people who are looking for jobs. They help mediate labour disputes. They help communities with economic development. They help young people get started in the world of work and help seniors benefit from income support programs.

This new focus of the department is an integral part of the human resources investment fund established in the last budget. They work closely together. The whole point of this fund is to make the most flexible use possible of our resources to ensure that people get the support and services they need to find jobs, jobs that they want desperately.

For example, this fund will support the government's commitment to child care, a crucial measure to help unemployed parents find work and get training. We made a commitment to co-invest with the provinces in child care and we will live up to that commitment.

We are also working to improve the child care that is available to aboriginal peoples. Our officials are working with a team from the First Nations. Together we are making good progress. The government hopes to have a new program in place this fall.

Additionally the department has launched the child care visions fund with $5 million annually. The money will be used to help support new research and development in this area which is so very important to Canada's future human resources potential.

These are some of the ways the new focus of the department is reflected in concrete action. In the immediate future one of the government's top priorities will be to integrate this focus into the unemployment insurance program with a major overhaul of the program.

A few weeks ago the Minister of Human Resources Development spoke to the human resources standing committee about the direction this overhaul is going to take. A key objective of the overhaul is to transform the UI program to focus on re-employment not unemployment, on jobs not joblessness. This means finding ways to remove disincentives in the program that hamper job creation and discourage workers from returning to the workforce. It also means simplifying the system for both workers and employers, making it easier to work with and less costly to administer. It means integrating the UI program with a variety of tools to help people get back to work.

The government will introduce legislation to reform UI in the next few weeks but the department is already working on the basic operational changes needed to make the integrated employment program work and succeed. This means streamlining the current 39 separate programs and services that are delivered through CECs across the country and integrating them in a way that allows the communities to implement them in different ways. That seems to be very appropriate.

The objective is to ensure the department's energies are driven not by program rules but by the needs of individual Canadians in different parts of the country. There will be much more room for discretion and judgment at the local level which is important. If we want to tailor re-employment programs to fit local needs, we must have that kind of local discretion.

Bill C-96 does not in itself accomplish these changes. What it does is it consolidates the administrative framework for changes that have taken place, are taking place now and will continue to take place in the future. It reflects the basic focus that underlies the government's approach to social and labour market programs. It is this focus that will help to develop Canada's human resources giving those who need help the most the tools they need to work and prosper in the future.

[Development Aid, November 7th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

Last night CBC Newsworld aired a program entitled ``The Sceptics Journey''. It showed four Canadians who began opposed to foreign development aid but after visiting a number of projects in less developed countries changed their minds.

What is the government doing to make more Canadians aware of the value and success stories of Canadian development aid?