Bill C-23 (Historical)

Department of Human Resources and Skills Development Act

An Act to establish the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development and to amend and repeal certain related Acts

This enactment establishes the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development over which presides the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development. It defines the powers, duties and functions of the Minister as well as those of the Minister of Labour and of the Canada Employment Insurance Commission. This enactment also sets out rules for the protection and the making available of personal information obtained under departmental programs.

Civil Marriage Act

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today in defence of the traditional definition of marriage.

I was pleased a couple of weeks ago to join some 15,000 to 20,000 Canadians on the lawns of this great Parliament to say in a very loud and clear voice that the traditional definition of marriage, and that is the union of a man and a woman in marriage to the exclusion of all others, is the right thing to maintain.

I, like many on this side of the House, and indeed, I am joined by a huge segment of our society, millions of Canadians from coast to coast to coast who are supporting the retention of the traditional definition of marriage, that of a man and a woman. Any comments to the contrary are simply not realistic.

Marriage and the family based on marriage are the basic institutions of our society. We must not, we should not change these kinds of foundations lightly or easily. I do not believe that the government or those who are proposing to change the traditional definition of marriage have been able in any way to make a compelling case that would cause Canadians and this Parliament to consider changing that definition. That case simply has not been made.

At least one of the major purposes of marriage historically has been to provide a stable environment for the procreation and the raising and nurturing of children. That does not mean that other kinds of relationships are not loving and valuable, nor does it mean that heterosexual married couples who cannot or do not have children are less married than anyone else. What it does mean is that marriage as a social institution has as one of its goals the nurturing of children in the care of a mother and a father. That is the fundamental.

If we change the definition of marriage to end the opposite sex requirement, we will be saying in fact that the nurturing of children in the care of a mother and a father, that this goal of marriage is no longer important. We cannot say that.

The central question we are wrestling with is whether marriage is still connected to this potential to have and raise children and to provide a stable environment for those children, or whether it is simply connected with the personal needs of two adults in a close relationship.

McGill University medical and legal ethicist Margaret Somerville made the point so clear and eloquent in a recent book called Divorcing Marriage . She said:

“The crucial question is: should marriage be primarily a child-centred institution or an adult-centred one? The answer will decide who takes priority when there is an irreconcilable conflict between the interests of a child and the claims of adults. Those who believe that children need and have a right to both a mother and a father, preferably their own biological parents, oppose same sex marriage because...it would mean that marriage could not continue to institutionalize and symbolize the inherently procreative capacity between the partners; that is, it could not be primarily child centred. In short...accepting same sex marriage...means abolishing the norm”--the accepted value--“that children...have a prima facie right to know and be reared within their own biological family by their father and mother. Carefully restricted, governed, and justified exceptions to this norm, such as adoption, are essential. But abolishing the norm would have a far-reaching impact”.

This belief that marriage is inherently connected with procreation until recently was upheld as the reason for marriage by the Supreme Court of Canada. In 1995 Supreme Court Justice La Forest, speaking on behalf of four judges in the majority in the Egan case rendered a decision. This is absolutely important because this kind of decision still holds strong and reigns in the Supreme Court of Canada. It has not been changed. We cannot accept the arguments of the Liberals that the Supreme Court is wavering on this because it is not. Justice La Forest said:

Marriage has from time immemorial been firmly grounded in our legal tradition, one that is itself a reflection of long-standing philosophical and religious traditions. But its ultimate raison d'être transcends all of these and is firmly anchored in the biological and social realities that heterosexual couples have the unique ability to procreate, that most children are the product of these relationships, and that they are generally cared for and nurtured by those who live in that relationship. In this sense, marriage is by nature heterosexual.

That decision still stands in the Supreme Court of Canada and nothing that the Liberals or the Bloc or the NDP say has any basis in fact to refute that. It simply does not alter what the Supreme Court of Canada has said. This statement remains the only commentary on the basic meaning of marriage in any Supreme Court decision.

The House, including the current Prime Minister, voted to uphold the definition of marriage in 1999 and in the amendments to Bill C-23 in 2000 with the Deputy Prime Minister, who was then justice minister, leading the defence of marriage from the government side. Here is what the Deputy Prime Minister said in 1999 as she so clearly and eloquently made her defence of the traditional definition of marriage speaking on behalf of the government. She said:

We on this side agree that the institution of marriage is a central and important institution in the lives of many Canadians. It plays an important part in all societies worldwide, second only to the fundamental importance of family to all of us--

The definition of marriage, which has been consistently applied in Canada, comes from an 1866 British case which holds that marriage is ‘‘the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others’’. That case and that definition are considered clear law by ordinary Canadians, by academics and by the courts.

Marriage has fundamental value and importance to Canadians--

As we know, the government voted to defend the traditional definition of marriage at that time. We do not know what happened to change its mind. It was not a Supreme Court decision.

Nothing that she said then was out of date. All that has happened is that several provincial courts have overruled the long standing common law definition of marriage, but the Supreme Court itself has still not addressed this issue, despite a clear request to do so by the government.

We do not believe, on the basis of provincial court decisions which the government refused to appeal to the Supreme Court, that a fundamental centuries old institution should be abolished or radically changed.

No matter what all the Liberals are talking about, save some of them who support marriage, that institution stands strong today, both in the Supreme Court, and in the hearts and minds and souls of millions upon millions of Canadians.

We believe that marriage should continue to be what it has always been, what the courts and the government accepted it to be until a very few years ago, an institution which is by nature heterosexual and has as one of its main purposes the procreation and nurturing of children in the care of a mother and a father.

I think I speak for a vast majority of Canadians regarding that definition. I will stand in defence of that in the House, on the street, and wherever I travel in this country.

[Gurmant Grewal, Conservative, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise again on behalf of the constituents of Newton--North Delta to participate in the debate on Bill C-38.

The so-called same sex marriage bill has generated considerable interest in my riding, with record numbers of people contacting my office to voice their concerns about the Liberal ploy to redefine marriage. To date, over 15,000 people have either written or called asking me to oppose Bill C-38. They want me to vote against this proposed legislation and do everything possible to maintain the traditional definition of marriage.

I happily tell each and every one of them that I listen to my constituents and that they can count on me to say no to same sex marriage.

The Liberals have attempted to frame the same sex marriage debate as a human rights issue. According to the Prime Minister, opposition to same sex unions is now, ipso facto, an example of hatred and intolerance. Public opinion surveys, however, show that a majority of Canadians are opposed to same sex marriage.

An Environics Research Group poll conducted for the CBC surveyed 1,203 Canadians between March 26 and March 30 and found that 52% of Canadians disagreed with the plan to change the definition of marriage to include couples of the same sex and that only 44% agreed with the Liberal plan. Interestingly, the disapproval jumped to 65% among Canadians born outside our borders.

Does the Prime Minister really want to suggest that the majority of Canadians are bigots?

One dictionary defines a “bigot” as a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own. I know who I think better exemplifies bigotry.

What about the rest of the world? In 2001, the Netherlands opened civil marriage to gay couples and, in 2003, Belgium followed suit. In both countries there are some areas related to adoption or marriage of non-nationals of those countries that still make them slightly different from opposite sex marriages.

By far, the vast majority of European jurisdictions have gone the route of recognizing civil unions, domestic partnerships or reciprocal beneficiaries rather than abolishing the opposite sex nature of marriage. In doing so, they are following the lead of Denmark, where such partnerships were introduced in 1989. Through 1995, less than 5% of Danish homosexuals got married.

As of February 2005, Massachusetts is the only U.S. state to recognize same sex marriages. The states of Vermont, California, Maine, Hawaii, New Jersey and even the District of Columbia, however all offer benefits to same sex couples that are similar to benefits received through marriage, such as civil union, reciprocal benefits or domestic partnership laws.

During the 2004 elections, all 11 states where the issue of same sex marriage was on the ballot, regardless of whether they were Democratic or Republican, voted overwhelmingly for constitutional amendments restricting marriage to a man and a woman.

If same sex marriage is a fundamental right, why have only two countries on Earth recognized it? Are the Liberals seriously suggesting that countries like Denmark and Sweden, which recognize civil unions for homosexuals but refuse to change the traditional definition of marriage, are bastions of bigotry and repressed sexual attitudes?

This House, including the current Prime Minister, voted to uphold that definition of marriage in 1999 and in the amendments to Bill C-23 in 2000, with the Deputy Prime Minister, who was then the justice minister, leading the defence of marriage from the government side.

This was what the Deputy Prime Minister said in 1999 in her eloquent defence of the traditional definition of marriage:

We on this side [of the House] agree that the institution of marriage is a central and important institution in the lives of many Canadians. It plays an important part in all societies worldwide, second only to the fundamental importance of family to all of us.

The definition of marriage, which has been consistently applied in Canada, comes from an 1866 British case which holds that marriage is “the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others”. That case and that definition are considered clear law by ordinary Canadians, academics and the courts. The courts have upheld the constitutionality of that definition. The Ontario court, general division, in Layland and Beaulne, recently upheld the definition of marriage. In that decision, a majority of the court stated the following:

--unions of persons of the same sex are not “marriages”, because of the definition of marriage. The applicants are, in effect, seeking to use s. 15 of the Charter to bring about a change in the definition of marriage.

The then justice minister said:

I do not think the Charter has that effect...Let me state again for the record that the government has no intention of changing the definition of marriage or of legislating same sex marriages. Marriage has fundamental value and importance to Canadians and we do not believe on this side of the House that importance and value is in any way threatened or undermined by others seeking to have their long term relationships recognized....

I support the motion for maintaining the clear legal definition of marriage in Canada as the union of one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others.

That was the Deputy Prime Minister speaking as justice minister less than six years ago. Nothing she said then is out of date. All that has happened is that several provincial courts have overruled the longstanding common law definition of marriage, but the Supreme Court itself has still not addressed this issue despite a clear request to do so from the Liberal government.

We do not believe that on the basis of provincial court decisions, which the government refused to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, a fundamental, centuries old institution should be abolished or radically changed.

We believe that marriage should continue to be what it has always been, what the courts and the government accepted it to be until a very few years ago: an institution which is by nature heterosexual and has as one of its main purposes the procreation and nurturing of children in the care of a mother and a father.

In conclusion, marriage has been one of the fundamental organizing principles of human society since history began. It is important to the future of our society because it provides the best social structure within which to bear and raise children. There has never been a time in history when major civilizations or religions granted same sex relationships the same rights and status as they did heterosexual marriage.

We should not change these kinds of fundamental institutions lightly or easily, and I do not believe that the government has demonstrated that there are compelling reasons to alter this central social institution. I will therefore be following the wishes of my constituents and will vote against Bill C-38. I believe in the traditional, common law definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others.

Presence in Gallery

[Tony Valeri, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, we will continue this afternoon with second reading of Bill C-38, the civil marriage bill. This will be followed by consideration of Senate amendments of Bill C-29, the patent bill, and Bill C-12, the quarantine bill.

We will then return to second reading of Bill C-43, the budget bill, and eventually the third readings of: Bill C-23, the HRDC bill; Bill C-22, the social development bill; Bill C-26, the border services bill; and Bill C-9, the Quebec development bill.

Tomorrow we will begin with Bill C-43. If this is completed, we will then return to the list just given.

Next week is a break week. Since it happens to coincide this year with Passover, I would like to take this opportunity to extend to Canadians of the Jewish faith best wishes on this holiday.

After today there are 35 sitting days for the House before its scheduled adjournment on June 23. The government hopes that the House will be able to complete all stages of Bill C-38 and Bill C-43 by that date, which means that the bills will have to go to and be reported from committees in time for report stage and third reading in that limited time. That is why we have given priority to these bills in order to arrive at the supply votes.

The government is obliged to designate by that date 6 of those 35 days as allotted days or opposition days. Since we do not face the logistical and timing difficulties that I have just described vis-à-vis these two major bills, it seems logical and sensible to ask the House to deal with those second readings before proceeding with business such as opposition days, which are not followed by subsequent legislative stages.

If the members opposite would not be so sneaky in trying to change the Standing Orders, in fact, we could perhaps have the kind of dialogue that the hon. member is suggesting we have.

Civil Marriage Act

[Myron Thompson, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak on this issue. I want to say right off the bat that I believe in the traditional definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

In the course of this debate, those of us who support marriage have been told that to amend the bill to reflect the traditional definition of marriage would be a violation of human rights and an unconstitutional violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

This is just an attempt by the government to shift the ground of the debate. It does not want to debate the question of traditional marriage versus same sex marriage. Government members would rather focus on attacking their opponents as being in opposition to or opposers of human rights in the charter.

They are attempting to do that, but this debate is not about human rights. It is about social policy, social policy decisions and social values that should be determined by the Canadian people. The best way to determine what that social value or social policy should be is through a free vote by every member in the House, to represent the people of their ridings.

Second to that, I believe that a referendum is a very democratic process in getting this done, but I would accept the fact that everyone in the House, if they genuinely did their job as they were expected to do when they were elected, would represent the people who sent them here and would cast a ballot in favour of a social policy that they represent. In my riding, I can guarantee it is that the definition of marriage should not change.

When it comes to marriage, no internationally recognized human rights document has ever suggested that there is a right to same sex marriage. In the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, almost all the rights listed are worded as purely individual rights, rights which everyone should have and no one should ever be denied. But when it comes to marriage, the declaration states:

Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family.

In fact, to this date, no international human rights body or national supreme court has ever found that there is a human right to same sex marriage. The only courts that have found in favour of the right to same sex marriage are the provincial courts or state level courts in the United States.

If same sex marriage is not a basic human right in the sense of internationally recognized human rights law, is it a violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms? Of course it is not.

In the same sex reference case, the Supreme Court declined to rule on the constitutionality of the traditional definition of marriage. Despite a clear request from the government to answer this question, it did not. Furthermore, all of the lower court decisions in favour of same sex marriage were dealing with common law, judge-made law from over a century ago, not a recent statute that was passed by a democratically elected body of people. It is quite possible that those in the lower courts may have found differently if there were a marriage act passed by Parliament defining marriage as a union of a man and a woman.

The whole discussion of the notwithstanding clause is irrelevant and it is a distraction to this debate. There is simply no reason to use or discuss the use of the notwithstanding clause in the absence of a Supreme Court decision which indicates that the traditional definition of marriage is unconstitutional. It has never done that.

Therefore, because it has not done that, there is no reason that we should even consider having to use the notwithstanding clause. The Supreme Court simply sent this back to Parliament where, in its view, the decision should be made. It is right, because Parliament represents the people of this country and because we are not talking about rights. We are talking about social values.

If the House were to move to bring in a reasonably democratic solution, one which defines in statue that a marriage remains the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others, which extends equal rights and benefits to couples living in other forms of unions, equal rights and benefits that are fully protected, including freedom of religion to the extent possible under the federal law, there is every reason to believe that the Supreme Court would honour a decision of that nature made by this Parliament. I think that is what the Supreme Court is looking for.

Marriage and the family based on marriage are the basic institutions of society. We should not change these kinds of institutions lightly or easily. I do not believe that the government has demonstrated that there are compelling reasons to alter this central social institution. It has not shown any good reason at all.

At least one of the major purposes of marriage historically has been to provide a stable environment for the procreation and the raising of children. Having been a teacher and a school principal for a number of years, I can say that I have seen examples of why it is so important that children experience the value of having a mother and a father and their influences. If we change the definition of marriage to end the opposite sex requirement, we will be saying that this goal of marriage is no longer important. I am here today to say that based on my experiences it is extremely important.

It is interesting to note that this House, including the current Prime Minister, voted to uphold the definition of marriage in 1999. We were all quite pleased with that. Then there were the amendments to Bill C-23 in 2000, with the Deputy Prime Minister, who then was the justice minister, leading the defence of marriage from the government side. And now? What a flip-flop.

The Minister of Justice has misled the Canadian public with regard to religious repercussions. He has promised to protect religious freedom, while he knows very well that the Supreme Court has already ruled that the provision in the draft legislation pertaining to the right of religious officials to refuse to perform marriages is outside the jurisdiction of this federal Parliament. He knows that very well.

With regard to the federal common law and the federal statutes, the federal justice minister has had several months to draft amendments to protect religious freedom in relation to income tax and charitable status. He has chosen not to and therefore there are no protections in this bill.

Protecting religious freedom goes far beyond just protecting the rights of churches and other religious bodies to maintain the traditional definition of marriage. It also means preserving the right of churches to publicly preach and teach their beliefs related to marriage. It means preserving the rights of religious schools to hire staff who respect their doctrines and practices. It means protecting justices of the peace and civil marriage commissioners who do not want to solemnize marriages that are not in accordance with their beliefs. It means preserving their charitable and other economic benefits as public institutions. It means preserving the right of any public official to act in accordance with his or her beliefs.

This issue has become probably the most written about issue in Wild Rose in the last 12 years that I have been there. The response to this issue has brought an overwhelming 7,500 emails and letters within my riding since Christmas. There have been many more from all across Canada, including thousands of phone calls, faxes and letters to go along with the emails from the constituents of Wild Rose.

I am absolutely thrilled with the people who have mobilized on this issue. It is like nothing I have ever seen. They understand that this issue will change our country forever. They do not want that to happen.

I am pleased to be part of a Conservative Party where our leader has said that he intends to legislate the traditional definition of marriage while protecting equal rights, benefits and privileges of same sex couples and giving concrete assurances of religious freedom. That is his commitment now, it will remain his commitment when he becomes prime minister, and I guarantee that as long as I am in this seat it will be my commitment for as long as that lasts.

I thank the people of Wild Rose, who have continually been involved with this issue. I want them to know that there are many of us here who agree with their overwhelming opinion that the traditional definition of marriage, for the sake of Canada, should stand now and forevermore.

[Gary Schellenberger, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-38. I appreciate that so many of my constituents took the time to share their concerns with me. The issue of same sex marriage is an emotionally charged one with people on each side of the issue expressing their sincere, deeply held beliefs.

After carefully considering the views of the majority of my constituents who have contacted me on this issue, as well as my personal beliefs, I am in support of the traditional definition of marriage. I voted in favour of the motion that reaffirmed that definition in September 2003 and I will continue to take this position in the future.

I, like many on this side of the House, believe in the traditional common definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. Not everyone shares this view. Because there will be a true free vote in my party on this issue, it makes me proud to be a Conservative. I very much respect my colleagues and, indeed, fellow Canadians who do not share my views on the issue and think respectful debate on the matter is genuinely good for democracy.

This House, including the current Prime Minister, voted to uphold the definition of marriage in 1999 and in the amendments to Bill C-23 in 2000. In fact, the Deputy Prime Minister, who was then justice minister, led the defence of marriage from the government side.

The following is what the Deputy Prime Minister said in 1999 in support of her defence of the traditional definition of marriage. She said:

We on this side agree that the institution of marriage is a central and important institution in the lives of many Canadians. It plays an important part in all societies worldwide, second only to the fundamental importance of family to all of us.

“—unions of persons of the same sex are not 'marriages', because of the definition of marriage”.

Let me state again for the record that the government has no intention of changing the definition of marriage or of legislating same sex marriages.

Marriage has fundamental value and importance to Canadians and we do not believe on this side of the House that importance and value is in any way threatened or undermined by others seeking to have their long term relationships recognized. I support the motion for maintaining the clear legal definition of marriage in Canada as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

This was the Deputy Prime Minister speaking less than six years ago. What she said was true then and it is true now.

The Supreme Court itself has still not addressed this issue despite a clear request to do so from the government. It is important to note that the Supreme Court of Canada ruling on December 9, 2004 did not declare the traditional definition of marriage as unconstitutional. The court made it clear that it believes the issue is for Parliament to deal with.

What is unconstitutional is any kind of discrimination against members of any minority group. We must work hard to ensure that a same sex couple entering into a loving, committed relationship via a civil or domestic union is afforded the same protections, benefits and status as married couples receive under the law.

All law-abiding Canadians must be able to conduct their lives and contribute to society without fear of discrimination. I believe that the proposed amendment suggested by the Leader of the Opposition would have provided the best ground to find a constructive compromise that the vast majority of Canadians would have felt comfortable with.

I want to congratulate the leader of the Conservative Party for advocating a very wise and reasonable position. The majority of Canadians are looking for a middle ground compromise that would recognize the valid concerns of the partisans on either side.

On the one hand, some Canadians seek to preserve the traditional definition of the term marriage, which predates the creation of the nation state. On the other hand, there is a belief that by broadening the definition of marriage to include same sex couples, Canadian society will take an important step in the direction of tolerance and respect of homosexuals. I believe we can achieve this kind of tolerant, respectful society without changing the definition of marriage.

I am entirely supportive of state recognition of same gender civil or domestic unions, bringing with them all the same protections and benefits as marriage, but for the same sex couples. A same gender couple in Canada wishing to enter into a loving lifelong committed relationship must be afforded the same protection and status as married couples under the law.

We can be tolerant and respectful to all parties in this matter without changing the definition of marriage. This is the kind of compromise that should be reached.

The rights of all minority groups must be strongly protected, and it would be wrong to marginalize homosexuals. Any type of discrimination directed against the homosexual community is completely unacceptable. I want to be clear about that.

For me, the issue is not an issue of human rights. It is about freedom of religion. Just as we must protect minority rights, we must also protect religious freedom in Canada. Finding a fair balance can be difficult.

The Conservative compromise option may not satisfy everyone. It would not satisfy those who believe that equality rights for same gender couples are an absolute, which cannot be compromised by accepting anything less than full marriage, or that the heterosexual status of marriage is an absolute, which cannot be compromised by recognizing equal rights for other kinds of unions. But it would satisfy the vast majority of Canadians who are seeking common ground on the issue.

There is no need to go to extremes in this debate. Accepting a compromise that respects the will of the majority and upholds rights is exactly what the amendments proposed by the Conservative Party represent.

Conservatives would propose that other forms of union, whether heterosexual or homosexual, whether called common law status, civil unions or registered domestic partnerships, should be entitled to the same legal rights, privileges and benefits of traditional marriage.

Conservatives believe that same gender couples should have the right to be treated the same as married couples when it comes to matters like pensions, tax obligations or immigration matters. Any federal law that would treat same gender couples any differently from married couples is completely unacceptable.

This is not a reactionary solution that would infringe on any Canadian's human rights as the government alleges. The Conservative position represents a moderate compromise position that would keep Canada in the company of some of the most tolerant and progressive countries in the western world, a Canada we can be proud of.

The overwhelming majority of my constituents believe that marriage is a basically heterosexual institution, but that same gender couples also have rights to equality within society that should be recognized and protected.

Michael Whitehouse wrote me from Stratford, “I am not opposed to people choosing their own way of life, nor am I opposed to seeing civil unions being given benefits. I am opposed to changing the definition of marriage as the union between one man and one woman”.

Marguerite and Oscar Schill of Alma said, “We believe that the definition of union would be an appropriate title for same sex couples to own and would give them honour and dignity and their own definition of being united in love. This would not interfere with those of us who own the definition of marriage”.

Mrs. Inez Haid of Listowel passed this along, “I have no bias when it comes to homosexuals. I respect them. Since they have had the courage to declare their lifestyle, why is there not a vocabulary and a ceremony which would apply to their situation? Give them the same rights and obligations as the traditional married couples but don't call it 'marriage' or a 'wedding ceremony'”.

Winnifred and Norman Dow from Mitchell added, “We are not against some kind of union for such couples but feel the traditional definition as the sacred union of a man and a woman must be respected and maintained”.

One of the problems throughout this debate has been the media's habit of interchanging the terms “same sex marriage” and “same sex union”. The media often starts out using the term “marriage” and then switches back to “union”. Let us be clear here. I am in favour of defending the traditional definition of marriage, and in favour of supporting same gender unions. People should at all times be honest and transparent. Trying to confuse voters is not the answer.

If the government honestly put forward legislation that would preserve marriage while recognizing equal rights of same gender couples through civil unions or other means, then this is the option that most Canadians would choose. This compromise is consistent with Canadian traditions, and it is the option that only the Conservative Party is prepared to offer.

I thank all of those who wrote and e-mailed me on this issue.

Business of the House

[Tony Valeri, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we will continue with the opposition day.

On Friday, we will return to Bill C-43, the budget bill. If it is completed, we will proceed with Bill C-40, respecting the WTO.

The first item of business on Monday will be Bill C-40. If necessary, we would then return to the budget bill, which contains all the initiatives that I know Canadians support from coast to coast to coast, like the Atlantic accord, the new deal for cities, and the increase in payments to seniors through OAS.

We will then return to the second reading debate of Bill C-38, the marriage bill, which will be the first item on Tuesday. When that business is completed, we will return to departmental bills: Bill C-23, Bill C-22, Bill C-26 and Bill C-9.

Next Wednesday shall be an allotted day.

[Tony Valeri, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we will continue debate on the opposition day motion. As members know, there will be no sitting tomorrow.

On Monday the House will hold the debate on our procedures required by Standing Order 51. Mr. Speaker, I ask you to appoint the order of the day to permit that debate. If it is completed, we will return to Bill C-23 and Bill C-22, the human resources and social development legislation.

On Tuesday and Wednesday we shall consider Bill C-43, the budget bill.

Thursday will be an allotted day. At the end of the day on Thursday we shall return to consideration of the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Health.

On Tuesday evening there will be a take note debate. Therefore, I move:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 53.1, on April 12, 2005 a take note debate shall take place on the subject of the RCMP and law enforcement in Canada.

Department of Human Resources and Skills Development Act

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development]

Mr. Speaker, I always appreciate my colleague's remarks. I do appreciate the time she puts into our committee work, both in connection with Bill C-23 and in other matters, many of which she discussed.

We are debating Bill C-23, legislation which redesigns a federal government department. The member from the official opposition who spoke made the point that it was a bureaucratic exercise. I do agree that it is, but I disagree with him in that I think it is a very important bureaucratic exercise, one which will ensure that all Canadians get better services from the newly designed department. I can give one simple example. The privacy provisions in the legislation which replace four or five different privacy codes and which protect Canadians who are involved in employment insurance, Canada student loans or whatever it is, are better.

I have to say to my colleague from the Bloc that in Bill C-23 we are discussing the redesign of a department. I would repeat that the standing committee recommended this some years ago, and the House of Commons unanimously supported the report of the committee to redesign this particular department, and the Bloc supported that. We are carrying through with something the Bloc wanted.

It is a bureaucratic exercise. For example, my colleague mentioned provincial jurisdiction. There is no change in provincial jurisdiction. We have divided one department and created two more. The legislation does not affect the relationship between the federal government and the provincial governments at all. It is simply the same jurisdiction, the same services, but delivered in a different way.

I do not think through Bill C-23 that there is any impingement on provincial jurisdiction. It is simply better delivery of the same services in the same way as before. That is very important, in part because unanimously the House, including the Bloc, supported it.

The hon. member mentioned EI. I know she is passionate about EI, but under the Standing Orders when a committee is given a bill to study, such as Bill C-23, it cannot increase expenditures associated with that legislation. It simply cannot. It cannot say that it will change the department, it will redesign the department, and by the way, it will add a billion dollars to EI or whatever it is. I know my colleague knows this, but I want her to comment on that. It is not possible through our process to change the things she was describing through Bill C-23.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Madam Speaker, this bill is a worthy symbol of the Liberal government. The Department of Human Resources and the Department of Skills Development were separated a year and a half ago and Parliament is being asked to approve it only now. So much for treating Parliament with more respect and solving the democratic deficit.

We support the bill simply because there is little point in opposing it, but let us consider what is missing. At a time when students are struggling with rising debt and Canada's economic competitiveness is lagging, the bill ignores the real issues while focusing instead on changing names on letterhead and reorganizing bureaucratic organization charts.

The bill ignores the priorities that should be the focus of the government's attention in HRDC or, as it is to become, HRSDC. Perhaps it already has become that because the government, it seems, even if we were to oppose it, would declare, as it did with the foreign affairs and international trade departments, that it does not matter what this House says, it will divide it anyhow.

While the government is focusing on that kind of bureaucratic shuffling as the matter for us to attend to, there are other issues that should be attended to that are not. Our economic competitiveness is suffering while Canada's training strategy is woefully lacking. Students are increasingly in debt. Employment insurance is still not resolved as an issue. Skills training, critical to economic growth and prosperity, is lagging and is ignored.

Canadians have dreams for a better Canada, to have brighter futures through education, to enjoy the fruits of their labour through lower taxes, to live in a country that is free from corruption, to have a competitive economy and to have the opportunity to improve their quality of life through advancement and improvement.

However where are we under the government? Canada now ranks 15th in the world economic forum's global competitiveness rankings. Canada used to be ranked 4th, back when the Prime Minister was finance minister. From the 4th spot to the 15th spot in competitiveness is the track record of the government while it is focusing on bureaucratic shuffles.

In that same report from the world economic forum, Canada dropped on the technology index from 2nd place to 13th place and dropped to 15th place in the business competitive index in 2004.

A few years ago Canada was fifth on Transparency International's clean government index. That is an index that measures perceptions of how corrupt a government is in a country.

Today Canada has plummeted from 5th spot to 12th spot on that clean government index, and that was even before the Gomery commission started doing its work and hearing evidence. I do not think that this year's ratings are something to look forward to for Canadians. Perhaps in training the government might think of having a little more training in ethics.

Declining support for education and productivity is affecting our quality of life. In 1993, when Brian Mulroney retired as Prime Minister, the United Nations human development index ranked Canada the number one country in the world to live. By 2003, Canada had fallen to eighth place on that index. Simply put, taxes are too high in Canada. They are killing the incentive to be productive and they are making it difficult for hard-working families to invest in their futures.

As well, Canada has the fifth highest income tax as a percentage of GDP of all the OECD countries. Since taking office, the amount of income tax revenue that the government takes in has almost doubled, increasing by 80%.

Since 1993, Canada has been tied for the lowest productivity growth in the G-7 and Canada's productivity has fallen to 84% of that of our American neighbours.

What is Bill C-23 doing to handle this competitiveness gap, this productivity gap that's emerging, the declining standard of living? What is it doing to really help Canadians acquire better skills so we have a more educated and better equipped workforce to compete in the world? Nothing. Nothing in the bill addresses any of those priorities, which are the real priorities of Canadians and should be the real priorities of this government and the human resources department.

In skills training, what has the government done? Direct funding to colleges has been cut to the tune of 80% since the Liberals took office. Colleges are the best proven providers of workforce training. In fact, of those who graduate from the community college system, over 90% end up in jobs where they are contributing right after graduation. This is a 90% success rate.

However, when we look at the training programs in the human resources department, the evidence given by the minister at committee on estimates showed that less than 50% of those who graduated from the human resources EI training programs found work.

The community colleges have a 90% success rate and the government cuts their funding by 80%. The EI training program has a 50% or less success rate and the government begins to funnel money into it.

It is clear to me that the way of approaching training in this country is very poorly equipped for the challenges of our current economy. It is one that does not recognize success and one that in fact recognizes and reinforces failure.

There is no focus in the bill on what is needed to stimulate economic growth and productivity through skills training, which leads me to post-secondary education. What has been the case for post-secondary education in Canada? Under the present government we have not seen a serious effort to recognize that post-secondary education is critical to the success of our economy and to our workforce to helping young people achieve their dreams for a brighter future.

Interest rates on student loans, loans that are given to people who are trying to advance themselves and improve themselves, things we should be encouraging people to do, are at prime plus 2.5% to prime plus 5%. That is what the government is charging people who have taken out student loans.

Even bad risk lenders get around prime plus 1% from a bank or prime plus 2%. Why is the government running the student loan program as a profit making centre? Clearly there is no interest in being serious about support for post-secondary education.

In addition, we still do not have a dedicated transfer for post-secondary education even after the Liberal government cut program funding to colleges and universities in half since taking office.

What have we seen on employment insurance? Only thanks to the fact that this is a minority Parliament have we seen any action at all. It was only by attaching an amendment to the throne speech to deal with the flaws in employment insurance that the opposition parties finally forced a reluctant Liberal government to act on the matter.

What action have we seen? Sadly, very little. Currently, EI has a $46 billion surplus that has been effectively stolen from workers and diverted into other priorities, other than what they had contributed to. This is $46 billion of workers' and employers' premiums that have been taken away from them. It is another regressive tax by the government applied to things that do not do anything for economic growth and prosperity, that do not help workers and employers and that do not create jobs. It is a tax that is slowing the economy and creating a drag.

What do we get? We get a government that says it is doing something but it is still dithering. Virtually no changes have been made to the employment insurance system. In everything the government does it simply goes through the motions and dithers.

The government is not taking action and through the bill what is it doing? It is simply reorganizing organization charts, printing new letterhead and sending out for new business cards because we are changing the name of the department.

Meanwhile the real priorities are ignored by the Liberal government. It is unable to stop overtaxing through its unreasonable employment insurance premiums. It is unwilling to make training relevant, to create a competitive economy and to increase productivity. It is unaware of the need to lower ridiculously high student loan interest rates. It is unremitting in its refusal to establish a dedicated transfer for post-secondary education.

Unfortunately, the bill does nothing for Canadians other than create a bureaucratic shuffle to support a cabinet shuffle in an effort to shuffle the scandal ridden HRDC name into the past.

Why is the bill even on the table? It is very simple. It is because the government wants to get rid of the odour of the HRDC scandal. That is what prompted the name change in the first place. That was an example of how the government could not manage the people's tax dollars and, in fact, took those tax dollars and diverted them to other improper, inappropriate partisan purposes. Does that sound familiar?

The bill does nothing to benefit Canadians from the actual changes in the operation of government. It is only a public relations exercise to get rid of that HRDC name that is now so scandal tainted.

However it will not work because the one thing we can count on in the Liberal government is that as one scandal gets left behind, do not worry, there is another one coming along pretty soon to take its place.

Civil Marriage Act

[Gurmant Grewal, Conservative, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of the constituents of Newton—North Delta to participate in the debate on Bill C-38, the civil marriage act.

In my eight years as a member of Parliament, there has never been an issue that has so inflamed and divided Canadians as the current debate over same sex marriage.

Unlike the Prime Minister and other members of his party, I have been consistent on this issue from day one. I oppose changing the definition of marriage and will vote against Bill C-38.

In 1999 I spoke in favour of reaffirming the traditional definition of marriage. In fact I led off the debate on the Reform Party motion which passed on a vote of 216 to 55. In 2003 I rose in this chamber to speak in support of another opposition motion seeking to preserve traditional marriage. By that time however, government members, including the current Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister, who had voted to support the traditional definition of marriage had backed down from their commitment to marriage and traditional Canadian family values.

I have consulted widely with my constituents on the issue of marriage. I have had several well-attended town hall meetings on the issue and have conducted surveys. I have heard from more than 14,000 people through letters, e-mails, phone calls and meetings.

During the 2004 election, voters knew exactly where I stood on the same sex marriage issue.

I think most Canadians would agree that gays and lesbians should be free to pursue whatever type of relationship they wish. I see no problem in legally recognizing homosexual relationships, but this should not be done by changing marriage. In 1999 homosexual couples were given pension, property and other rights by changing 68 federal statutes through Bill C-23. If there are any pending rights, they should be allowed.

Marriage is something more than a public recognition of a couple's mutual love and commitment. It is intimately connected to procreation. The procreative potential of marriage is a basic element of what marriage is, just as swimming is a basic element of being a lifeguard, and playing music is a basic element of being a musician.

Marriage provides the structure which protects the procreation and nurturing of children in our society. That is why it is self-evident to most people in history that marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman. A homosexual couple does not meet the qualifications for the title of “married”.

Abraham Lincoln, when debating an individual, sought to resolve the issue with a question, “Sir, if you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have?” “Five”, responded the gentleman. Lincoln corrected the man, “Four, sir. Just because you call a tail a leg doesn't make it so”.

The Liberals are committing the same folly. Just because one calls it a marriage does not make it so. It is an exercise in self-deceit, a denial of reality.

During my years in elected office I have been involved in a number of debates involving measures that deal with discrimination. I have supported legislation in this House and have spoken repeatedly to prohibit inappropriately unequal treatment of individuals based on race, religion, gender, disability and sexual orientation. I have been outspoken on the need to protect the human rights of all people, whether they be Falun Gong practitioners in China, Muslims in Gambia, South Asians living in Canada, or people in labour camps in Tibet. I have spoken with Chinese officials on their human rights record. I have been an advocate of the Human Rights Commission in B.C.

The Liberals are attempting to frame the issue of same sex marriage in the context of justice and human rights. In doing so they are insulting all those people in the world who suffer from human rights abuses on a daily basis.

How could the Liberals equate the denial of marriage to homosexuals to unlawful imprisonment, abuse, torture, denying voting rights or freedom of speech?

The Prime Minister is playing crass politics when he paints gay marriage as a human rights issue. He knows that Canadians will not accept same sex marriage on its own merits, so he is attempting to tie it to human rights and charter issues dear to the hearts of Canadians. While this may be politically opportunistic, manipulative and beneficial, morally it is dishonest.

In fact, no national or international court or human rights tribunal at the national or international level has ever ruled that same sex marriage is a human rights issue. After New Zealand's court of appeal ruled in 1997 that the opposite sex definition of marriage was not discriminatory and that it did not violate the country's bill of rights, the plaintiffs took their case to the UN Commission on Human Rights. The commission rejected the complaint in 2002.

The Prime Minister and his justice minister claim that the Supreme Court has forced their hand knowing full well it did nothing of the sort. The Supreme Court delivered its opinion on the non-binding marriage reference on December 9. The court refused to answer the fourth question, whether the Charter of Rights and Freedoms requires that marriage be redefined. While the Supreme Court has said that Parliament may redefine marriage, it has not said that it must redefine marriage to include same sex couples.

It is not unjust nor a limitation of anyone's legitimate rights and freedoms to insist that marriage is a covenant between a man and a woman. The definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others does not discriminate against homosexuals any more than someone getting the child tax credit discriminates against people who do not have kids. The Prime Minister and his colleagues knew this in 1999. To suggest now that opponents of gay marriage are un-Canadian bigots is disingenuous to the extreme.

This legislation has many Canadians in an uproar, including those in ethnic communities who have moral, cultural and religious beliefs that lead them to oppose same sex marriage. The Liberals argue that those people must abandon their deeply held beliefs so they can be considered Canadians. Linking same sex marriage to what it means to be a Canadian by Liberals is dishonest and shameful.

The Sikh community is struggling with the same sex issue thanks largely to the Liberal government. Our religion does not recognize same sex unions, yet the Canadian government wants us to give up something that is very traditional and very religious. Most Sikhs, like other immigrant groups, are supportive of the Charter of Rights because it helps to protect from discrimination. However, that does not mean they support every Liberal policy put forward in the name of the charter.

It strikes me as inevitable that one day soon churches, temples and synagogues in the country will be compelled to sanctify same sex unions. Soon the protections given to religious officials will be challenged. It will probably begin with the removal of tax exemptions for religious organizations that refuse to solemnize same sex marriages.

There are already divisions within protestant denominations over same sex marriage. The United Church of Canada sanctifies gay marriage, as do some Anglican churches in Canada.

It is a losing battle. Already the morality of homosexuality is a discussion controlled by political correctness. People who say anything in the negative are automatically labelled as homophobic and their arguments are dismissed without further consideration.

The government has assured Canadians that this legislation will have no bearing on the conduct of marriages in churches, synagogues, mosques, temples and gurdwaras, but the Supreme Court has already ruled that this issue falls beyond the jurisdiction of the federal government.

In conclusion, the Liberals have brought forward anti-family policies since 1993. They fail to realize that the family is the foundation of our society. The government should not dare to engineer society. Its flip-flop since 1999 indicates that the government has a hidden agenda.

Same sex partners should be permitted to legally register their relationships if they wish to do so, but as a civil union and not as a marriage. This is a practical solution that would satisfy the vast majority of Canadians. The same privileges and laws would apply to both types of formal relationships. This is a middle way on this issue.

Bill C-38 is bad for Canada. If passed it would undermine the family and strike against a cornerstone of our society. Therefore, I will oppose this bill.

Department of Human Resources and Skills Development Act

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is even better since I can make the correction myself. I think that my hon. colleague is seriously mistaken when he says that the other opposition parties also agree to divide the department into two.

I want to remind my colleague that the work done previously was conducted within a framework totally different from the one to which this bill refers. The bill makes reference to concepts with which the Bloc Québécois completely disagrees, in particular the Employment Insurance Commission and infringements in areas of jurisdiction relating to on-the-job training and so forth. I have already talked about this, as has my colleague for Québec.

Contrary to what the member opposite said, we disagree for very specific reasons. This bill ignores the consensus reached during the previous session of Parliament.

The Bloc Québécois will vote against the bill for many reasons. The first of which, as I mentioned, is that it infringes in areas under provincial jurisdiction. For Quebec, this is serious, particularly with regard to labour management.

And there is the EI fund also. The Prime Minister used the proposed division of the former Department of Human Resources Development into two departments to establish the Department of Social Development and maintain the EI fund in its present form, in spite of the opposition from all stakeholders in the Canadian society, and the Quebec society in particular. I will come back to that. This does not reflect the consensuses at all. In this regard, the Prime Minister is on the wrong track, as I will show.

The Prime Minister split the department the very day he was sworn in. He did so in a hurry,because of the recent election. It was obvious that the matter had been thought over for quite some time. I will come back later to the intention behind this decision, because it is clearly different from the one set out by our distinguished colleague from Peterborough.

This bill adds to existing bureaucracy. It does not introduce anything new or additional in terms of the services to be delivered through this Department of Human Resources and Skills Development, which will be duplicated, naturally, with the Department of Social Development.

One objective pursued by the government with this Department of Human Resources and Skills Development is to mobilize the private sector, non-governmental organizations and communities on community development, the social economy and social development. There are also plans for an adequate income security system for seniors, persons with disabilities, families and children and for integrated policy development and program delivery.

This adds nothing to the services currently provided. It only adds a second head, grafted on to the existing body, namely the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development, and chops off arms. Nothing is added to the existing structure, but the unstated purpose is the one in the latest budget.

I remind the House that because this is about splitting a department in two, we cannot limit our discussion to Bill C-23, which concerns the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development. We must also, logically, discuss Bill C-22, which proposes the creation of the Department of Social Development.

I remind the House that there are currently 14,000 public servants in this department, which has a budget of $20 billion. The Department of Social Development will absorb 12,000 of these public servants, and have a budget of $53 billion. Up to that point, all is well. The same employees will be assigned to the same places, but spread out in service points across the country. These service points will include management of 105 employment insurance processing centres and 11 income security programs processing centres .

It is said that the Department of Social Development will use exactly the same channels to provide exactly the same services as before. What has changed, then? A minister has been added to a institution providing services under the social safety net, namely employment insurance, income security for the aged, job-related training, for a category of sectors, and more than I can mention.

Let us move on and look closer at what they want to do with that. The answer is found in the budget.

All stakeholders in our society are crying out for the creation of an independent employment insurance fund, with improvements. That fund would be managed by the two groups that contribute to it, namely employees and employers. We want contributions to cover employment insurance program requirement, on the order of $12 billion to $15 billion annually.

The surpluses accumulated in the employment insurance fund over the past eight years total close to $47 billion. What happened to these surpluses? They were used for other purposes. How were they generated? They were generated with the employment insurance benefits that were not paid to individuals who were entitled to these benefits and who had paid for them.

A claim is being made in this regard. I will get back to it later on, in the context of the bill and the standing committee.

My distinguished colleague often makes reference to the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills Development, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. On February 15, the committee tabled in this House a unanimous report recommending the establishment of an employment insurance fund administered by those who contribute to it, namely employers and employees. This committee, to which my distinguished colleague is referring, unanimously asked the government to put back in the employment insurance fund the $46 billion or $47 billion that have been diverted over the past several years.

Not only is this measure not provided in the budget or in this bill, the contrary that is confirmed. This bill provides for an employment insurance commission consisting of four commissioners. Just think: there will be one representative for employers, one for the some 18 or 19 million workers across the country who contribute to employment insurance, and two government representatives. This does not change anything in the current situation.

Needless to say the government will continue to divert the funds intended for employment insurance.

There are two stances. First we are told in this House that the issue of EI is a priority and the government will take care of it. Timid measures were presented suggesting that the best was yet to come. Nothing specific happens. When we look at the bill before us we realize they want to keep something that is unacceptable.

Let us move along. I come now to the budget. That is why I say we need to know exactly what this government is trying to achieve. Not only does it not want to put back into the EI fund what it took out, and not only does it not want to improve EI benefits, even though it has the means to do so, but it is giving the expenditure review committee the mandate to use various cuts to save $2 billion or $3 billion in the EI program. Where will this money be taken? It will be taken from the EI contributions.

In other words, the government is doing indirectly what the House will not allow it to do directly. Before the holidays, this House voted on a resolution as follows:

From now on, the employment insurance fund is to be used only for employment insurance purposes and the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills Development, is given the mandate to recommend to the House the measures to take to ensure that this fund is indeed used only for employment insurance.

Instead of complying with the wishes of the House, the government is in the process of doing indirectly what the House told it not to do directly. This is totally unacceptable.

Where will this money be taken from? They say it will come from programs or structures. They say contributions might be reduced. Yet, that is not what those who are contributing to EI are saying. Maintain the contributions at the current rate and improve the program. What is happening now is totally unacceptable.

When we look at the unstated intention of this bill, to truly understand its meaning, we have to look at other documents. I have here a highly important document in which most of the recommendations were made unanimously. It is quite recent and concerns current factual data bases, not different data form the last Parliament. It is the report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills Development, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

The first eight recommendations are unanimous. They recommend an independent fund so the government will no longer be able to dip into it for other purposes. It will be administered by the contributors and used to improve the benefits of those who pay into it. This has to mean something more solid than what the parliamentary secretary, the hon. member for Peterborough, is referring to.

In recent weeks in this House, we have also heard the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development delighting in the measures she had presented here relating to Employment Insurance. The Quebec lieutenant, the transport minister, added that any reasonable unemployed person would find the budget and the government's position excellent. They were about the only two to say so.

In connection with this, the minister referred to a New Brunswick worker who claimed to be delighted with it. If anyone wants to consult them, I have some letters here that are addressed to the minister.

They come from the Canadian Labour Congress. The president sent me a copy, along with a letter. The CLC represents 3 million workers. The Quebec component alone represents over 1 million. Many are going short everywhere in the country, in Quebec in particular: the jobless, youth centres, women's shelters, municipalities. Just about every group of society is represented among those millions of workers and people working with those who are suffering because of the government's inadequate, restrictive and inhumane measures.

It is unacceptable, and at the same time ironic. It is a clear illustration of what goes on in this place and the mess things are in. As we have seen, while the government has the ability to make people poor, it is, in a muddled sort of manner, proposing measures to the members of this House that will make them rich.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development.

I am very honoured because this department is at the centre of issues about which I feel passionately. It is also at the centre of challenges that our country must meet if we want to continue paving the way to success in this 21st century.

As hon. members are aware, the Prime Minister announced the creation of the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development in December 2003 to better position the government, to strengthen Canada's social foundations and to build a true 21st century economy.

I am proud to be the parliamentary secretary of a department whose vision touches on the well-being and fulfilment of every single Canadian. That vision is a country where individuals have the opportunity to learn and to contribute to Canada's success by participating fully in an open and efficient labour market.

The department's mission is to improve the standard of living and quality of life of all Canadians by promoting a highly skilled and mobile labour force, and an efficient and inclusive labour market.

The bill that the House is considering today would give Human Resources and Skills Development Canada the legislative foundation we need to realize this comprehensive vision and mission.

Bill C-23 sets out:

The powers, duties and functions of the Minister extend to and include all matters relating to human resources and skills development in Canada over which Parliament has jurisdiction....

We will continue to work in partnership with the provinces and territories, employers and employees, and other key stakeholders.

The passing of this legislation will give the minister and the department and the Minister of Labour and Housing the authorities required to effectively fulfil this mandate.

Bear in mind that this legislation does not create any new programs or services. It only reflects changes to the machinery of the government announced by the Prime Minister in December. The bill also lays the foundations for a new harmonized code governing the disclosure of personal information. This code will be more efficient and more transparent and will reflect our commitment to ensure continued protection of personal information.

It would also enable us to strike a fair balance between the need to protect Canadians' privacy and the use of such information for the effective administration of programs and services.

The Privacy Commissioner has expressed her solid support for the privacy code in this legislation. She said, “We think this is a very positive measure. We urge you to adopt it”.

I would like to take the time to remind the House of the importance and breadth of the mandate of Human Resources and Skills Development Canada. There are many reasons why the average Canadian is more likely to be in contact with the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development than most other federal departments and those reasons relate to the diverse programs that we offer.

The department is responsible for $20 billion in benefits for Canadians. By providing employment insurance benefits, for example, the department assists Canadians during times of transition, such as job loss or sickness. EI benefits also enable parents to be at home with a newborn or a newly adopted child or to care for a gravely ill family member.

Our employment programs, which include employment insurance active measures and the youth employment strategy, help thousands of unemployed Canadians each year to develop skills and fine good sustainable jobs.

Our workplace skills strategy assists employers across the country through initiatives like the sector councils and labour market information.

The department's learning programs, including the Canada student loans program and the Canada education saving grants program, help make post-secondary education more accessible to millions of Canadians.

I also want to mention particularly the National Literacy Secretariat which funds projects to support literacy across the country, in every community that is represented here, including my own.

Under its labour program, the department provides mediation and conciliation services to resolve labour disputes affecting the federal government.

Our programs for the homeless include many initiatives to help communities across the country address problems with housing and homelessness. The Regional Homelessness Fund and the Supporting Communities Partnership Initiative represent two of these initiatives.

As I am sure the House will agree, all these programs have a very direct and positive impact on the lives of Canadians.

I would like to take this opportunity to highlight how the department will be focusing its efforts in the future.

Given the demographic trends, the rate of growth of our labour force is slowing. Although this phenomenon is not unique to Canada, we lag behind a number of our international competitors in terms of positioning ourselves to enhance productivity. We can no longer rely on the quantity of our labour force to support economic growth. We, like many other industrial economies, must rely more and more on the quality of our labour force to remain competitive and to spur economic growth.

Therefore, Human Resources and Skills Development's priority will be the development of Canada's human capital. By human capital, I mean the sum total of all our citizens' skills. Canada's success as a nation and the well-being of us all increasingly depend on how we develop this human capital.

This will be the department's contribution to the government's broad objective of sustaining and enhancing a productive and innovative economy, a vibrant and healthy society, and an efficient and inclusive labour market. We want to see a nation where all our citizens can readily acquire the skills and knowledge they need to succeed and where everyone adopts and values a culture of lifelong learning.

For individual Canadians, our focus on human capital will mean increased earnings, sustained employment and enhanced health and social well-being. For employers, human capital will mean a skilled, mobile labour force and increased investment in training and innovative workplaces.

We will build a human capital strategy on three pillars. The first is lifelong learning, which I have mentioned. The second is modernizing our employment programming. The third is a national workplace skills strategy.

Developing a culture of continuous learning is a prerequisite to ensuring the quality labour force the new economy calls for. At a very early age, Canadians have to have access to skills development opportunities. Moreover, they will have to develop and practice their skills throughout their working lives.

To support lifelong learning, Human Resources and Skills Development will continue to improve the Canada student loans program as well as enhance the Canada education savings grant to encourage low income and medium income families to start investing for their children's long term education. We will also be reviewing student debt measures and support for part time students.

We know we face some major challenges in our learning goals for Canadians. Eight million working age Canadians lack the literacy skills needed to meet the demands of the knowledge based economy. Raising literacy and essential skill levels will be critical to improving the quality of our workforce and contributing to Canada's social prosperity.

The second pillar of our human capital strategy will see the renewal of the department's employment programs to foster a productive, adaptable and resilient labour force.

We will develop an integrated labour market strategy to respond to emerging labour market trends and work with the provinces to update labour market programming to better reflect the realities of work in the 21st century. Part of this involves strengthening employment insurance and making it more responsive to the current labour market realities.

This is why the budget included a number of measures to this end, such as a new premium rate setting mechanism to increase transparency and accountability and to provide increased rate stability by setting a ceiling on employment insurance premium rates. This mechanism will ensure that the rates paid by workers will not exceed the current rates over the next two years.

In addition, unemployed Canadians will receive more support through three new pilot projects launched in high unemployment regions.

This is to allow clients new to the labour market, or returning after an extended absence from it, to access EI benefits after 840 hours of work rather than 910 hours, when linked with EI employment programs, and to calculate EI benefits based on the “best 14 weeks” of earnings over the 52 weeks proceeding a claim of benefits. This will mean that for individuals with sporadic work patterns, EI benefit levels do a better job of reflecting their full time work patterns. Last, it will increase the “working while on claim” threshold to allow individuals to earn the greater of $75 or 40% of benefits so that they can continue to work without reduction in their benefits.

Continuation of the pilot project that provides workers in high unemployment regions with five additional weeks of regular benefits is another improvement.

There is the extension of the EI so-called transitional boundaries in the economic regions of Madawaska-Charlotte, New Brunswick, and the lower St. Lawrence North Shore of Quebec for another year.

Of course, EI is only part of the answer since we also need to address the growth of self-employment and the requirements for continuous skills upgrading. As we need to enhance our employment programs in support of labour market participation, this means we will renew our efforts to bring in those at the margins of the labour force, like aboriginal Canadians, new Canadians and older workers. We want all Canadians to be able to develop and use their full skills and talents.

The third pillar for developing our human capital is our workplace skills strategy. We are focusing on the workplace because it is ideal setting for Canadians to gain skills, to re-skill and to up-skill for the new economy. The workplace skills strategy will encourage skills development and use through collaborative partnerships with business, unions, learning and training institutions, and sector councils.

Recognizing the important role workplace learning can have in improving labour market productivity and the quality of Canada's workforce, the recent budget announced significant new investments of $125 million over three years.

First, it will strengthen apprenticeship systems in Canada. The government will continue working with the provinces and territories and other partners to enhance interprovincial mobility in the skilled trades and support high quality apprenticeships for all Canadians

Second, it will also support the testing of new skills initiatives that are demand driven and targeted to employed people. A new workplace skills innovation initiative will encourage employers to invest in the skills development of their employees and inform them of government labour market policy and programming.

Third, we will also foster dialogue on workplace skills issues through the workplace partners panel, comprised of business, labour and training leaders. The new panel will be a forum for sharing best practices and innovations and increasing industry leadership and commitment in the area of skills development.

The strategy will also support workplace innovation through demonstration projects and enhance and refine existing tools to support skills development in the workplace.

The department also will continue to advance the government's foreign credential recognition program. Between 2011 and 2015, we expect that virtually all of Canada's net labour growth will come from immigration.

We must find new and better ways of attracting skilled immigrants and helping newcomers integrate into our labour markets so that they can apply the skills and work experience they bring with them. This is why we are investing $68 million over six years to help find better ways to assess and recognize professional credentials and work experience earned outside of Canada. Through the efforts of a broad range of partners we will develop foreign credential recognition processes that are fair, accessible, transparent and consistent all across the country.

These processes will also be rigorous in order to protect the health and safety of Canadians. For example, we have reached an agreement with the provinces and territories and key medical stakeholders on improved procedures for licensing foreign trained doctors. A similar initiative is underway for foreign trained nurses and consultations will soon begin with other health professions.

We are also supporting the Canadian Council of Professional Engineers on an action plan to integrate international engineering graduates more quickly and efficiently into the Canadian labour market. In addition, we will be working with employers and sector councils to find ways to recognize the skills and prior experience of immigrants seeking work in non-regulated occupations, which make up 85% of the Canadian labour market.

Our goals for human capital development will only be achieved by working closely with our partners, including the provincial and territorial governments, businesses, unions, sector councils, education and training institutions, community organizations and municipalities. We will continue to respect provincial jurisdiction while recognizing that the federal government has an important role to play.

The legislation under consideration today also will enable the department to continue its work on other priority issues that matter intensely to Canadians. A key priority issue is the renewal of the aboriginal human resources development strategy and work with communities through the urban aboriginal strategy to find solutions to the issues that aboriginal people face in our cities.

The department will also work to ensure that official language minority communities have the tools their members need to participate in and contribute fully to Canadian society.

I would like to thank the members of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills Development, Social Development and the Status of Persons With Disabilities for their work on the bill.

I believe I have demonstrated that the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development has a major role to play in helping Canada to address the challenges of the knowledge-based economy and provide an even better future for every person, community and business in the country.

With the mandate, authority and necessary tools this legislation provides, the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development will be able to assist individual Canadians to learn and continually develop their skills. This crucial investment will, in turn, enable our citizens to contribute to Canada's economic success and to their own well-being and sense of fulfilment.

The passing of the legislation will, therefore, help ensure that Canada continues to be internationally recognized for the quality of life we offer to our citizens and for its vital and innovative economies.

For these reasons and for the fact that a standing committee of the House and the House endorsed the division of the former HRDC department, I strongly support the legislation.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, for the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development]

moved that Bill C-23, an act to establish the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development and to amend and repeal certain related acts, be read the third time and passed.

[The Speaker]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at report stage of Bill C-23.

Points of Order

[The Speaker]

I am now ready to rule with regard to issues affecting two private members' bills, Bill C-331, the Ukrainian Canadian restitution act, and Bill C-333, the Chinese Canadian recognition and redress act.

Last December 7 when debate commenced on second reading of Bill C-331, the Ukrainian Canadian restitution act, I expressed some concern about provisions of this bill which might infringe on the financial initiative of the crown. At that time I asked for submissions on this matter from interested members before the bill was next debated.

On February 22 the member for Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader and the member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell made submissions on the requirements for a royal recommendation for this bill. The parliamentary secretary also made a submission of why a royal recommendation was required for Bill C-333, the Chinese Canadian recognition and redress act standing in the name of the member for Durham. The Chair wishes to thank these members for having addressed this matter thoroughly and providing the Chair with sufficient time to consider their arguments.

The central issue which is being addressed at this time is whether Bill C-331 in its present form requires a royal recommendation. If this is the case, the bill in its current form will not be put to a vote at third reading unless a royal recommendation is first brought forward by a minister of the crown. If the bill is amended at committee or report stage, the need for a royal recommendation may be removed and a vote may be requested.

Hon. members may recall the ruling given on February 24, 2005 with respect to the royal recommendation and Bill C-23, an act to establish the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development. The issue which was addressed at that time is similar to the one before us today, specifically, is there an infringement on the financial initiative of the crown? The financial initiative of the crown, a well-established principle of our parliamentary system of government, reserves to the government the right to propose the spending of public funds for a particular purpose. The initiative of the crown is assured by the constitutional requirement that any such proposal to the House must be accompanied by a royal recommendation as required by section 54 of the Constitution Act, 1867 and Standing Order 79 of this House.

Does Bill C-331 require a royal recommendation; that is, does Bill C-331 contain a proposal for the spending of public funds that would constitute an appropriation or an equivalent authorization to spend? In my view it does. Clause 2(c) states that the Minister of Canadian Heritage shall:

(c) establish a permanent museum in Banff National Park, at the site of the concentration camp that was established there,--

It is clear that it mandates the establishment of a permanent museum. Therefore, in my view, clause 2(c) constitutes an appropriation within the meaning of section 54 of the Constitution Act, 1867 and Standing Order 79. Alternatively, it constitutes an authorization to spend the necessary public funds and as such is the equivalent of an appropriation under section 54 or Standing Order 79.

The hon. member has advised the House that the new museum would be housed in an existing building and restructuring costs would be paid from funds obtained from the negotiated restitution. However, this is not indicated in the bill, and the Chair can only rely on the text of the bill in these matters.

I appreciate the hon. member sharing with the House what is contemplated by this bill. No doubt the hon. member and others supporting this initiative have been mindful of the need to minimize the cost of this project to the public purse, but costs there nonetheless would be, and for a new and distinct purpose: a Ukrainian Canadian museum at Banff, Alberta. I must assume that these costs would be met by public funds from the consolidated revenue fund. The mandatory language allows me no other interpretation of clause 2(c).

Clause 3 has been challenged by the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader who contends that it also requires a royal recommendation. Clause 3 states, in part:

The Minister of Canadian Heritage shall—negotiate—asuitable payment in restitution for the confiscation of property and other assets from Ukrainian Canadians.

The House will recall that in an initial ruling relating to Bill C-331 made on December 7, 2004 it was determined that this clause did not require a royal recommendation. The hon. parliamentary secretary now argues that the notion of a restitution payment created a positive obligation, in his words, to spend funds. I have now given the matter further consideration and I find no requirement for a royal recommendation.

If the term “positive obligation” means that the government is given a mandate to spend public funds, then I would expect to see legislative text that clearly indicates an intention to expend those funds.

This bill provides for a negotiation with the Ukrainian community before any payment can be made, implying that no restitution amount may ever be determined. Accordingly, it cannot be said that this bill upon enactment would effect an appropriation of public funds. At the very least, a bill effecting an appropriation of public funds or an equivalent authorization to spend public funds does so immediately upon enactment.

Once Parliament approves a bill that requires a royal recommendation, there should be nothing further required to make the appropriation. To subject an appropriation to a subsequent action beyond the control of Parliament is in effect for Parliament to delegate its powers and responsibilities in respect of supply to someone else. This Parliament cannot do.

When Parliament adopts a bill, it is either effecting an appropriation of public funds or it is not doing so. A royal recommendation is not required in respect of actions that may or may not ever happen and so is not required in respect of clause 3 of the bill.

Now let us turn to Bill C-333, the Chinese Canadian recognition and redress act sponsored by the hon. member for Durham.

In this case as well the hon. parliamentary secretary argued that the bill required a royal recommendation because it would impose a positive obligation upon the government to spend public funds once the amount of redress was negotiated and formed part of an agreement between the Government of Canada and the National Congress of Chinese Canadians.

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary drew attention to Clause 4 that reads:

The Government of Canada shall negotiate an agreement for redress with the National Congress of Chinese Canadians, to be proposed to Parliament for approval.

He argued that the negotiated agreement provided for did not detract from the positive obligation imposed upon the government by the bill. The Chair does not agree with that position.

For the reasons I just gave in respect to Bill C-331 and its restitution clause, I cannot accept that Bill C-333 constitutes an appropriation within the meaning of the term in section 54 of the Constitution Act, 1867, or Standing Order 79. Nor do I consider that it constitutes an equivalent authorization to spend public funds under these authorities.

Accordingly, to summarize, in the case of Bill C-331, the Ukrainian Canadian restitution act standing in the name of the hon. member for Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, a royal recommendation will be required before it can be put to a vote at third reading in its current form. In the meantime, consideration of this bill can continue in the House and in committee.

With respect to Bill C-333, the Chinese Canadian recognition and redress act standing in the name of the hon. member for Durham, a royal recommendation is not required to negotiate an agreement for redress. This bill in its current form can proceed to a vote at third reading.

I wish to thank the House for its patience in allowing me to review the requirements for a royal recommendation.

As it is the responsibility of the Chair to ensure that private members' business is conducted in an orderly manner, the Chair will continue to bring to the attention of the House those private members' bills on the order of precedence which may require a royal recommendation.

If the Chair does not identify a specific bill having need of a royal recommendation, it would still be open to any member to raise his or her concerns at an early opportunity. In this way the House can proceed in an informed manner in its consideration of private members' business.