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.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, I am sure you and all Canadians know the reason the Conservative Party of Canada abstained from voting for the budget is that the budget was very popular with Canadians. In fact the Conservatives did not want to go knocking on doors given the fact that the budget was there. I say that just so we are clear with respect to the preamble.

This afternoon we will continue to debate the supply day motion. On Friday we will consider report stage and third reading of Bill C-3, the Coast Guard bill; Bill S-17, which ratifies a number of tax treaties; Bill C-23, the human resources bill; and Bill C-22, the social development bill.

When we return on March 21 we will resume debate on Bill C-38, the civil marriage bill. Tuesday, March 22 shall be an allotted day. On Wednesday, March 23 we will consider report stage and third reading of Bill C-30, the compensation bill. If we complete that, we will resume business from Friday. We will then return to the marriage bill on March 24.

With respect to the budget implementation bill, I expect to be introducing that bill in the House in the very short term. At that time the hon. member will see its exact contents.

Points of Order

[The Speaker]

I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised on February 17, 2005, by the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst, concerning a decision of the Chair of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills Development, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities during clause by clause study of Bill C-23, an act to establish the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development and to amend and repeal certain related Acts.

I would like to thank the hon. member for Acadie--Bathurst for raising this matter, as well as the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and the hon. members for Montmorency--Charlevoix--Haute-Côte-Nord, New Westminster--Coquitlam, Montmagny--L'Islet--Kamouraska--Rivière-du-Loup, and Mississauga South for their contributions.

Bill C-23 establishes the Department 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.

In his presentation the hon. member for Acadie--Bathurst asked the Speaker to look at the rulings of the committee chair on the subject of the requirement of a royal recommendation, even where there is a previous statutory authority. He submitted that the committee chair and procedural staff had failed to take into account the ruling made by Speaker Parent on February 12, 1998, when they were determining the admissibility of an amendment from the hon. member for Chambly--Borduas presented in the committee on February 10 during clause by clause consideration of Bill C-23. The disputed amendment to Bill C-23 sought to increase the number of commissioners on the Canada Employment Insurance Commission from four to seventeen. The chair ruled that the proposed amendment was inadmissible because it lacked a royal recommendation.

In summarizing the ruling of Speaker Parent, the hon. member for Acadie--Bathurst stated that a royal recommendation was not required for an initiative for which there was already a statutory authority. In the case of Bill C-23, he stated that there was statutory authority for a set number of commissioners and that an additional royal recommendation was therefore not required for the numbers of commissioners to be expanded since there was existing statutory authority for such expenses.

In speaking to the same point of order, the hon. member for Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord noted that a primary mandate of committees is the clause by clause study of bills referred to them by the House. He submitted that if committees can not amend clauses dealing with financial commitments, it is difficult to justify the continued existence of committees. He also stated that there is a need for more complete instructions from the Speaker on matters that entail monetary commitments on the part of the government.

A further representation was made by the hon. member for Mississauga South who felt that there had been incorrect advice given to the chair of the committee by the procedural staff. He stated that the chairs and members of committees rely on procedural staff to provide them with advice, but if that advice is incorrect then there must be a remedy to rectify it.

I should say that I appreciate that the hon. member for Acadie--Bathurst recognized that Speakers have on numerous occasions ruled that committees are and must remain masters of their own affairs. The hon. member is absolutely correct regarding any Speaker's traditional hesitation to comment on committee proceedings. Nonetheless, he asked the Chair to shed some light on this matter and, in this case, the member's complaint has offered me an opportunity to address a number of important points fundamental to our procedure, not only in this particular situation but in the broader context of the proper functioning of the House in this minority Parliament.

First, I want to address the role of members vis-à-vis financial matters, in particular the nature of the royal recommendation; then, I will deal with the 1998 ruling by Speaker Parent.

The initiation of public expenditure is and has always been the prerogative of the Crown. That is to say, neither committees nor private members can initiate the spending of public funds.

The government has responsibility for managing the public purse, which means, in parliamentary terms, that the government has the exclusive initiative for proposing new taxes or for proposing how public funds should be spent. For new taxes, the government must first move a Notice of Ways and Means Motion and have this adopted by the House. Once this happens, the government may bring in a bill legislating the new taxes set out in the ways and means motion.

For new spending, the government must provide a royal recommendation from the Crown's representative, Her Excellency the Governor General, which recommends a bill that includes provisions for spending public funds. This principle is enshrined in section 54 of the Constitution Act, 1867, whose wording is virtually identical to Standing Order 79(1), which reads:

This House shall not adopt or pass any vote, resolution, address or bill for the appropriation of any part of the public revenue, or of any tax or impost, to any purpose that has not been first recommended to the House by a message from the Governor General in the session in which such vote, resolution, address or bill is proposed.

Hon. members will note that the standing order relates to bills for “appropriation”. This is the operative word. There is a second important word in Standing Order 79 and this is “purpose”. It is not in order to vote on a bill for an appropriation to any purpose that has not first been recommended by a message from the Governor General, that is, the royal recommendation.

What this means is that the financial initiative of the Crown includes not simply the spending of public funds but the spending of public funds for a particular purpose. A government bill that proposes public spending requires a royal recommendation for public spending for a stated purpose. Accordingly, it is not open to the House to change the purpose unless, of course, Her Excellency were to provide a royal recommendation in respect of the new purpose.

I will not elaborate further on the origins of the financial relations between the Crown and Parliament but I refer the House to page 848 of Erskine May, 23rd edition, for a useful description thereof. Suffice it to say that those relations are neatly summed up in the phrase, “the government proposes, and parliament disposes.”

Even in our current circumstances, with the government party not having a majority of the seats in the House, it is still the sole prerogative of the Crown--that is, the ministry--and not that of the House of Commons, its committees or its members to initiate financial expenditures.

This sole prerogative of the Crown underlies all of our procedures. The principle holds true in committee in respect of the admissibility of amendments at clause by clause study of government bills and applies equally to amendments at report stage. It also applies to private members' bills at committee and report stage.

Committees studying estimates must also respect this principle: committees may adopt the amounts requested by the government; they may reduce them; or they may negative a request entirely. However, committees can neither increase the amount of money assigned to a particular department or program, nor redirect money from one purpose to another.

I would now like to address the specific case of the requirement for a royal recommendation for the proposed amendment to Bill C-23 to increase the number of commissioners on the Employment Insurance Commission.

On February 10, the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills Development, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities began its examination of Bill C-23. The committee immediately began to look at the amendments proposed by the hon. member for Chambly—Borduas instead of proceeding through clause by clause consideration in the usual fashion.

One of these amendments, an amendment to clause 20, proposed to increase the number of EI commissioners from four to seventeen. It was ruled inadmissible because it infringed on the financial initiative of the Crown. In other words, the member proposing it had not obtained a royal recommendation. The next amendment contained a similar proposal and was also ruled inadmissible. Neither of these rulings was appealed.

On February 15, the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst attempted to revisit the proposed amendments disposed of previously by the committee, but was unsuccessful in that attempt. The committee then completed its clause-by-clause consideration of the bill and the next day the chair of the committee presented the report on Bill C-23 to the House.

In his argument here in the House, the hon. member for Acadie--Bathurst noticed that the chair of the committee had referred to page 655 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice as the justification for ruling the amendment out of order. The appropriate section reads:

An amendment must not offend the financial initiative of the Crown. An amendment is therefore inadmissible if it imposes a charge on the Public Treasury, or if it extends the objects or purposes or relaxes the conditions and qualifications as expressed in the Royal Recommendation.

In his submission, the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst made reference to the February 12, 1998 ruling of Speaker Parent and claimed that the committee staff had failed to take this ruling into account when advising on the admissibility of the amendment to increase the number of commissioners. I have therefore reviewed the 1998 ruling with great care and would like to summarize it for the House.

On February 4, 1998, the member for Cypress Hills--Grasslands, Mr. Morrison, rose on a point of order concerning Bill S-4, an act to amend the Canada Shipping Act (maritime liability). The member was concerned, first, with the introduction of public bills in the Senate and, second, with the fact that the bill represented a breach of the constitutional principle that money bills must be introduced in the House of Commons.

The member argued that the bill violated Standing Order 80 because it substantially increased the limits of liability upon the government, thereby infringing on the financial privileges of the House of Commons. He concluded by requesting that the bill be removed from the order paper. After the intervention of other members on the question, the Speaker reserved his decision.

On February 12, 1998, the Speaker gave his ruling on the point of order. I refer hon. members to the Debates for that day at pages 3765 and 3766, where, noting that there were few decisions in the area of liabilities and how these relate to the financial privileges of the House, the Speaker said:

My understanding of the procedural implications of Bill S-4 is the following. The increased limits of liability are set out in the proposed amendments to the Canada Shipping Act but the actual compensation available to claimants is subject to the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act....

He went on to quote from Erskine May, 21st edition, at page 717, which states:

Where sufficient statutory authority already exists for payments to which bills relate, no further resolution and recommendation is required.

In other words, the Speaker concluded that the bill did not require a royal recommendation and was in order because statutory authority for the payments already existed. The amendment merely altered the maximum amounts of individual claims.

The hon. member for Acadie--Bathurst quotes this same citation from May and argues that the case before us is analogous to that one. But is this a parallel situation or does the amendment proposed to Bill C-23 to increase the number of EI commissioners go beyond existing financial provisions?

The hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst argued that the bill gave statutory authority for commissioners so an additional royal recommendation was not required for the number of commissioners to be changed. That argument would hold true if the hon. member sought to reduce the number of commissioners, but increasing the number increases the charge on the public purse.

As it stands, the bill, and the royal recommendation that accompanies the bill, provides statutory authority for four commissioners. Since the hon. member wants to increase that number to 17 and since there exists no other legislative provision against which the costs of these additional commissioners could be charged, the Chair must conclude that the amendment is not in order: that it does indeed infringe upon the financial authority of the Crown.

There have been numerous occasions in committee where amendments to increase the size of boards or commissions have been ruled out of order. In the House there have not been as many, but the principle still stands. There are two rulings which I wish to draw to the attention of hon. members on this matter.

The first is from April 7, 1982, at page 9052 of the Debates , when Deputy Speaker Francis made a ruling during report stage of Bill C-42, the Canada Post Corporation Act. Before proceeding to propose Motion No. 2 in the name of the minister to increase the size of the board of directors, the Deputy Speaker rose to point out a procedural difficulty. The bill, as reported by the committee, had been amended to increase the board of directors from seven to nine members.

Deputy Speaker Francis stated:

It is obvious that one of our most basic and fundamental procedures is that only a minister of the Crown may originate legislation which proposes a charge upon the revenue and this can only be done when accompanied by a recommendation from the Governor General. Indeed, amendments made in the committee cannot go beyond the terms of the original recommendation. The amendment which was adopted by the committee offends the financial initiative of the Crown and, therefore, I must rule it unacceptable.

Motion No. 2 standing in the name of the Postmaster General to all intents and purposes has the same effect as the amendment I have just ruled unacceptable and this motion is accompanied by the appropriate Royal recommendation.

The second relevant precedent is a ruling given by Mr. Speaker Fraser on June 12, 1989, at page 2912 of the Debates , on the report stage motions for Bill C-2, the Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board. Two proposed amendments sought to increase the number of board members and had been ruled out of order in committee. Mr. Speaker Fraser endorsed the decision of the chair of the committee, finding that the amendments infringed the royal recommendation and ruling both motions out of order.

Interestingly, the issue of the Employment Insurance Commission and its composition has already arisen in the House in the current session. On February 8, 2005, the Acting Speaker ruled on the requirement for a royal recommendation for Bill C-280, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (Employment Insurance Account and premium rate setting) and another act, a private member's bill standing in the name of the hon. member for Manicouagan.

In his ruling, which is found on page 3253 of the Debates , the Acting Speaker noted that, among other provisions, the bill mandated the appointment of 13 new commissioners to the Canada Employment Insurance Commission. He pointed out that the parent act of the bill in respect of this amending provision, the Department of Human Resources Development Act, provides that the commissioners receive remuneration for their services.

He pointed out that since section 54 of the Constitution Act, 1867, as well as Standing Order 79, prohibit votes on bills appropriating public revenues without a royal recommendation, the same must apply to bills authorizing increased spending of public revenues.

The Acting Speaker noted:

Where it is clear that the legislative objective of a bill cannot be accomplished without the dedication of public funds to that objective, the bill must be seen as the equivalent of a bill effecting an appropriation.

He therefore stated that the Chair will decline to put the question on third reading of Bill C-280 in its present form unless a royal recommendation is received.

Thus, based on our practice, I must agree with the decision of the chair of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills Development, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities when she ruled the amendments to Bill C-23 out of order. She said:

It is being asked that there be 17 commissioners, and the government would have to spend more to compensate those commissioners. Royal recommendation does not permit this in view of what is contained in the bill. So,—the amendment—is ruled inadmissible.

From my review of events, I have concluded that the advice given to the chair of the standing committee by procedural staff was absolutely correct and well founded on practice and precedent and that this advice was reflected in the reasons the chair gave for her ruling on the matter.

Finally, I would like to address two other points. The hon. members for Acadie—Bathurst and Mississauga South both suggested that errors had been made in the advice given by the Table and by procedural staff assigned to assist the committee. Then, the hon. member for Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord stated that there is a need for more complete instructions from the Speaker on matters that entail monetary commitments on the part of the government which are not amendable by the committees.

The role of procedural staff is central to our work in the chamber and in committee for they are always available to assist members in understanding the body of parliamentary rules and practices that the House has adopted to govern its proceedings. This is especially true at times when members may not have had the time to study a matter closely and seek advice on tackling an issue or understanding a ruling.

A member may disagree with the advice he receives or the interpretation of the rules she is given without jumping to the conclusion that members are being misled or poorly served by procedural staff. When in doubt, members are not without recourse. In unusual circumstances when disagreements persist, members are always free to seek the advice of the chair in a committee, to discuss a matter with the Clerk or the Table, or even in certain instances, to raise a point of order in the House for the Speaker's decision.

In closing, let me offer another word of caution. Like me, most hon. members will have had direct experience in majority Parliaments so the current minority situation—although the frequent subject of discussion and speculation—is less well understood.

All hon. members should bear in mind that, while the dynamics of a minority House might be quite different from the dynamics in a majority situation, the constitutional basis of our parliamentary system has not changed and the prerogatives of the Crown remain intact.

Once again, I wish to thank the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst for raising this matter and giving me the opportunity to clarify our practice. I hope that members will find the information and explanations I have provided useful as they continue to carry out their work both in the Chamber and in committees.

Committees of the House

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills Development, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities on Bill C-22, an act to establish the Department of Social Development and to amend and repeal certain related acts.

Bill C-22 as well as Bill C-23 represents a recommendation to the standing committee in June 2000 when Parliament had an opportunity to review the report. This is a concrete example of the work of the committee in dealing with legislation.

It is also an indication of the commitment of our government in terms of the Prime Minister's priorities in strengthening Canada's social foundations. We now have a focal point with these two pieces of legislation in our social development.

Civil Marriage Act

[Bill Graham, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to join in the debate on the matter today before the House.

The member for Fundy Royal has said that it will have a profound impact on Canada. I totally agree with him. It is remarkable that Canada is having this debate. Very few countries are having a debate of this profound nature. It relates in some ways to the way in which we see ourselves as a society and as a country, and how we try and strike individual liberties, freedoms and inclusiveness for all of us.

I am proud of the fact that we are having the debate. I am proud of the respect we have for one another for the tremendously difficult disagreements we have over this. I am proud, at least in my belief, that this will prevail in the end because it is the right thing to do and it is the right time to do it.

I am proud that the government has introduced the legislation. In my view it is in the best of the Liberal traditions, that is a commitment on behalf of government to change society in a way that individuals are protected and that they can affirm and develop themselves to the best of their possibilities in society.

I was very proud of our Prime Minister's introductory remarks, which the hon. member for Fundy Royal mentioned. We heard him discuss in a dispassionate way the nature of the legal framework within which we live. It is not only a legal framework and a charter, but more than a legal framework. It is a framework, and I will come back to this, which seeks to create an atmosphere of mutual respect, comprehension, tolerance and one in which society can progress. We heard the Prime Minister put forward a compelling case, a case founded on our charter, our law and our tradition of mutual respect for one another.

We heard the Leader of the Bloc Québécois speak. We all have to remember when he said:

—the religion of some should not become the law of others.

How long has it been in human society where the religion of the some is the law of the others? How many of us, as we sit here in the 21st century, can recall centuries before when that was the profound reason for social strife, the disruption of society, the civil wars, the terrible religious wars of Europe of the 1630s, the religious wars in France, and the civil war in England? All of this arose largely because some people felt that the moral values of the some had to be imposed by the law on others. Clearly, we have an obligation to determine what are our moral laws. We as a Parliament must consider that.

However, the bill seeks to do that within the context of a charter and I would like to come back to that. First, let us look at what the bill is and what it is not. It is a bill about civil marriage. It is a bill about the state's obligation to create a framework within which individuals can participate in society and fulfill themselves. It is about the state's role. It is not about the role of churches. It is not about the role of religion. That is, as the Supreme Court of Canada has said, for the churches to determine.

I happen to belong to the Anglican Church which is struggling with this matter in a very deep way. This is a matter which is extremely troubling. It is a matter which is causing extreme anguish as people in my church and in other faiths seek to find an answer to something that our colleagues across the way have said is of profound importance for us.

However, let us not try and use the bill. Let us not distort the nature of the bill. Let us not talk about churches. We have allowed divorce in the country for a long time. No one has ever brought a case before the court to require the Catholic Church or any other church that does not wish to recognize divorce to recognize a divorce.

I do not believe it is likely, particularly given the statement of the Supreme Court of Canada, the British Columbia Court of Appeal, the Ontario Court of Appeal and others about religious discretion and religious control, that there is any likelihood or any possibility whatsoever that such an action would be successful.

The hon. members opposite cite cases where they say it is going to be tried and people will bring lawsuits. There will be people who will bring lawsuits, but that is not to say they will be successful.

We have here the clearest statement of the highest court of the land saying that the charter protects religious liberties and religious institutions will make their own choice.

We are debating here in the House the obligation of this Canadian country of which we are so proud and so determined to make one of the greatest countries in the world. That is what we are talking about and not about individual religions which are a part of the mosaic of this state. It is the accommodation of that mosaic which is very important.

I remind members of the House that there are religious organizations, whether it is the United Church or others in this country, that do wish to give affirmation to the opportunity of people of the same sex to get married.

Therefore, let us leave to religion what is religion and let us talk about the state's role and what is the state. How did we get here? We got here because in the 1980s we made a profound decision in this country. We chose to fetter, if I may say that, to restrict, and to control our parliamentary democracy by an overguarding reach of a Constitution which would determine which were the basic rights, fundamental rights and freedoms of Canadians.

One of the basic rights contained in that document was the obligation of the state not to discriminate when it deals with its citizens. An obligation which can only be overridden by section 1, where it is the imperative necessity for the preservation of the state.

I happen to believe, and I am not like those on the other side of the House, that we are fortunate to have chosen this path. I happen to believe that we did the right thing in saying that when we created a Constitution and defined rights and liberties within that, that we gave to our courts the obligations, the duties and the privilege of interpreting that Constitution.

As they have interpreted, a society has evolved. It is a parliamentary democracy which is now part of a constitutional democracy. In that respect, I cannot accept the comment by the member for London—Fanshawe that our courts were being arrogant when they came to the conclusions they did. They have had cases that have dealt with this matter for over 15 years.

Year after year they have pronounced on the reality of the statements. Unlike my friend, the member for Fundy Royal, who says that the Supreme Court of Canada has not pronounced upon this, I totally disagree with him.

The Minister of Justice and other members of the House have said and 139 lawyers, professors and learned people in the law have written to the Leader of the Opposition to tell him specifically that the Supreme Court of Canada has pronounced itself when it affirmed the judgments of Ontario, British Columbia, Quebec, Manitoba, Nova Scotia, Saskatchewan Yukon and Newfoundland and Labrador that restricting civil marriage of opposite sex couples is unconstitutional under the equality provisions of the charter and, therefore, created a legal framework for these marriages, which has established vested chartered rights in the citizens of those provinces.

The member for Fundy Royal would not answer the question from my friend, the member for Davenport. The question remains. The Supreme Court of Canada has spoken of the vested rights of citizens who have been legally married by virtue of authority granted to the state under legal rulings of the highest courts of their provinces. What does the opposition say to us it will do with those people? Will they be thrown into limbo? Will their marriages, which are legal today, be illegal tomorrow?

The hon. member for Fundy Royal says we are not taking rights away from anyone. There are 5,000 couples in this country, and there will be more before this debate is finished, whose rights will have to be taken away if the members opposite are successful in proposing what they propose before the House today. That would be a tragedy for Canadian society.

I suggest to the House it is clear that this is a matter of law. The Supreme Court has pronounced. However, this is not just a matter about legal considerations. I believe it is a matter of fairness in society. It is also a matter, frankly, about economics.

In my own city of Toronto I have done many investigations since becoming the member of Parliament for this riding. I have spoken with people at the University of Toronto and people at many firms, some of which oppose this idea, but over time they have all given similar rights to gay and lesbian couples. The obvious reason they do it is because they want to ensure that they can hire the best people available.

The fact of the matter is that one of the benefits of being open and tolerant to people with diverse points of view and cultural backgrounds is precisely what being modern is all about. The city of Philadelphia in the United States has been seeking recently to create a sense of itself as being gay friendly. If we read the literature, it tells us that being gay friendly is not just about trying to attract a certain group of people to go to the city. It is a signal about being open, the fact that it can bring anybody into the city, somebody who will go there to work because they feel comfortable, are not discriminated against and can contribute, whether they be a computer programmer, an artist, a lawyer or anything else.

When we pass this bill, we will be sending a message to the world that Canada is open to people, Canada is tolerant, Canada is willing to say that individuals can affirm themselves to their fullest, and Canada will be saying it is ahead of where modern society is going. That will make all of us on this side of the House proud indeed and it is something which I believe is absolutely essential for us to do.

We have heard a great deal in the House about the nature of multicultural societies. I know something about multicultural societies. I happen to live in a riding which has a very rich mixture. I happen to know many of the people in that riding, many of whom have cultural hesitations about this matter, who feel that it is not part of their religious tradition, who would not wish to see it as a part of their family.

However, those same people know that they have had the privilege of coming to this country and living in a society with a constitutional protection such that while it might apply in this circumstance as something they disagree with or would not practise themselves, they know that those same rights will protect them when the time comes. That is the essence of what the charter protection is all about. It protects all equally. It will sometimes protect somebody who we disagree with, but as Voltaire once said, “I may disagree with what you haveto say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it”.

The point about the charter is that it has to apply equally to all. In my experience, the multicultural communities that I have the privilege of working with in my riding, with their rich different cultural backgrounds, are uniformly of the view that they want the protection that the charter offers them and they are willing to offer that charter protection to others.

I can say something else about my riding and I am very proud of it. I recall years ago when I first was elected. We have something called Gay Pride in Toronto. I think maybe other cities and countries have pride as well. Twenty-five years ago it was a political event. People protested about being discriminated against. Today it is one of the biggest events in downtown Toronto, as I am sure my colleagues from the city of Toronto who are here today would agree.

Grandmothers and children from every race, every multicultural society, and every facet of Toronto are there participating. Why are they participating? They are participating in something that is a celebration of our common humanity, our tolerance and respect for one another, and our ability to get along. Go and ask the grandmothers who are there with their children watching Gay Pride in downtown Toronto. The members here are telling us that this is going to end society, that it is all going to come to a terrible end. Ask them what they think as they bring their children to an event which celebrates our common humanity. That is what it is all about. It is about our common humanity.

I have been in the House now for many years. I have heard the statements that society is never going to survive, but we heard the same arguments when we talked about the Criminal Code changes. We heard the same arguments about the Human Rights Act changes. We heard the same arguments about Bill C-23, giving equal status and extending pensions to common law partners. In fact, we have heard these arguments over and over again, that the institution of marriage is threatened, society will never be the same, the traditional difference, children will no longer respect their parents, and this will be the end.

We have heard it so often. We have to reflect and look back in history. The same arguments were made when we brought in divorce. The same arguments have been made every time there has been an important social change.

I would like to read something to my colleagues on the other side of the House from a former Conservative MP who is also a research professor at Wycliffe College, the University of Toronto, which is an Anglican college. His name is Reginald Stackhouse and he had this to say in an article he published in the Globe and Mail :

As a Canadian, I don't have to agree with gays and lesbians. I don't have to approve their marrying. I just have to respect their right to do it and live their lives in a peaceful, open way. Showing that respect is something I should do for the common good, not just for the rights of gay and lesbian individuals. This country is a better place to live for all of us when we acknowledge we can be different without fighting about it. Or repressing it. Or even pretending it isn't there. That's not easy for some people. Deeply held moral values can motivate their wanting to use the arm of the law to advance them. But persuasion is morally better than coercion. Anyone who doesn't think so should look around the world.

Experience also teaches us that many of the fears people hold are not justified. In my own lifetime, Canadians have learned to live with a succession of changes in lifestyle, each one feared as the first step on a slippery slope. Yet we have remained “a peaceable kingdom”, a place envied around the world by men and women eager to live where they can be free. Not so that they can wallow in sin.

Just so that they can be themselves.

But that has not made Canada a wasteland of godlessness. We have opened up Sunday. We have decriminalized contraception, abortion and homosexual activity. We have given ready access to divorce and remarriage. In six provinces and one territory, we already have same-sex marriage. But we also have a vigorous spiritual life.

If all the country's worship services are added together, they can still outdraw the total attendance at all our sports events--even when the NHL is playing. So, as a Christian citizen, I am not going to urge my MP to vote “No”. This country is the world's best place to live because we accommodate one another. The Fathers of Confederation showed it when they fashioned a Constitution that accepted differences. Our MPs can show it again.

I had an opportunity some months ago to be at Toronto City Hall. I was there with the mayor. On that occasion several hundred people of same sex had obtained marriage licences to celebrate the fact that they were able to get married. It was no different from any other day when groups of people get together and celebrate their ability to pledge allegiance to one another, to one another's future, the same emotions, the same concerns about where they are going, the same angst that one has and yet the same thrill that this commitment is being made.

Something quite remarkable happened at that event. As I stood there watching, I was asked if I would say a few words. A young American stood up on the stage. He said that he was there with 20 of his American friends, all of whom had come to Canada to get married. This young man from Boston said something quite extraordinary. I mean this in no way critical of the United States, but I am quoting him, he said, “For me the Statue of Liberty has moved from my country to Canada as we come here today to celebrate our individual and collective liberties”. Everyone in that room stood up and sang O Canada .

Mr. Speaker, you and I know that Canadians are not demonstrative as a rule, but I was proud of that group. I was proud of that moment. I will be proud when this bill is passed and we can all say the same thing: our country is a beacon for liberty; our country is a beacon for individual rights, freedoms, respect and tolerance for one another.

Points of Order

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to submit to you that recently there was a procedural mistake which took place during the clause by clause study of Bill C-23, which could have an impact on the business of the House.

I specifically ask you to look into the rulings of the chair on the subject of the requirement of a royal recommendation, even where there is a previous statutory authority.

If I can summarize the facts of the situation as I understand them, there was a meeting on clause by clause consideration of Bill C-23 on February 10. Certain amendments were proposed that day by the member for Chambly—Borduas. Specifically, I refer to the minutes which state:

Clause 20,

Yves Lessard moved: That Bill C-23, in Clause 20, be amended by replacing line 32 on page 6 with the following:

“consisting of seventeen commissioners to be appointed by the”

Debate arose thereon.—

The Chair ruled the proposed amendment inadmissible because it infringes on the financial prerogative of the Crown, as provided on page 656 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice.

The chair ruled then, and ruled again today when I attended the meeting, that the proposed amendment to increase the number of commissioners in the bill was outside the scope due to the lack of a royal recommendation.

I submit that the chair and the committee staff failed to take into account the ruling made by Speaker Parent on February 12, 1998 when deciding on the admissibility of the amendment from the member for Chambly—Borduas. I submit a copy of his short ruling.

The crux of the ruling is that a royal recommendation is not required for an initiative for which there is already a statutory authority.

In the case of Bill C-23, I submit that there is a statutory authority for a set number of commissioners. I submit that an additional royal recommendation is not required for the numbers of commissioners to be changed, even expanded, so long as their is existing statutory authority.

I specifically call your attention to Erskine May, 21st edition, page 717 under paragraph (c)(6), which states that a Queen's recommendation is not needed for an expenditure covered by an existing authority, including:

Widening the jurisdiction of a court or creating offences although they may have the effect of increasing the costs of the administration of justice.

That is the quote relied upon by Speaker Parent in his ruling.

In this case the member for Chambly—Borduas was attempting to widen the membership of the board from 4 to 17. I submit that this proposed amendment was in order and that the committee should be given the opportunity to consider this amendment in clause by clause on Bill C-23.

Mr. Speaker, I am aware of your rulings on committees that state that committees must be and remain masters of their own affairs, and of course I respect that ruling, but unless we can have clarity on the admissibility of this amendment, I do not see how we can proceed with the legislation should it be reported back this week, which is the current plan of the committee.

I therefore ask you to rule on the admissibility of the amendment and transmit your ruling to the chair of the committee before the committee reports, which has already been done and we have agreed to present it today in the House of Commons. However I hope you will give us a decision that will reflect the decision of Speaker Parent in 1998.

First Nations Fiscal and Statistical Management Act

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley.

I am very pleased to rise on behalf of the NDP to speak to Bill C-20. Nothing is perfect, but we see a lot of improvements in this bill over the one that was introduced in the 37th Parliament, Bill C-23. We had some very serious problems back then and thankfully people have had a chance to take another look. This is a bill that we can live with.

It is important because it does a number of things. It takes a huge step forward in giving autonomous responsibility to the first nations people for their own future. At the end of the day, is that not what all people ask for, frankly around the world, to be the authors of their own destiny? In the modern world, if we do not have control of our finances, we really are limited to how much true control we have over the course in front of us.

I am particularly pleased in terms of the pooling aspect, which is a big part of this. It came from the experience in B.C. with the New Democratic government there working with the municipalities and the provincial government. They pooled all their money so their borrowing needs were also pooled and that meant two things. First, all municipalities had an opportunity to borrow money at one of the best rates available. That will now apply to the first nations people, assuming this bill carries and we certainly hope it does.

Second, it allows smaller communities or municipalities, in the case of the first nations people, to still benefit from what is usually available only to larger urban centres where they have the money and the ability to back up their borrowing needs with sufficient revenue at a very good rate. The lower rate we pay the more tax money can be applied to other important things such as health, education, environment, et cetera.

This part alone will play a significant role in assisting first nations people with a lot of their needed projects. Anyone who has visited any of the first nations reserves will know the challenges that are there. We cannot help but walk away with a heavy heart realizing how much more this country has to do for its first nations people.

This modest step forward is still significant because it will allow them a little more certainty in terms of the future: how they get there and how they are going to pay. The fact that they have smaller numbers will not limit their ability to play the kind of role that they obviously want to play, and that the House wants to see played.

Long after the bill is passed, we are going to be watching to ensure that there is no creeping paternalism in this process at all. This is meant to be an arm's-length autonomous process that allows the first nations people to make their own decisions. That means beginning with appointments to these boards and commissions and agencies, all the way through to the decisions that they make and the implementation of them. They need to be in control. We as a caucus will not stand for any kind of paternalism.

The whole idea is to get away from paternalism. This is very significant to us. It is equal in fact to the money and commissions that are being created, and the ability to charge for property taxes and increase their revenues. They are all important, but if we do not move away determinedly and in a progressive fashion from the overhang of paternalism that still exists, if we are not achieving that with Bill C-20 and every other bill we deal with from here on in, then quite frankly, this House is selling a bill of goods to the first nations people. History would show that they have been sold more than bill of goods.

This needs to work for them. It needs to work for Canada.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-20, the First Nations Fiscal and Statistical Management Act.

Like my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent—the Bloc Québécois Indian Affairs and Northern Development critic—who also delivered a speech at second reading on November 19 in favour of this bill, I agree with this act to provide for real property taxation powers of first nations, to create a First Nations Tax Commission, First Nations Financial Management Board, First Nations Finance Authority and First Nations Statistical Institute and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

This bill essentially provides the first nations with financial management tools. Like many other bills, the bill being presented to this House today is not perfect, but it could help in creating a environment that would help first nations to assume their financial independence.

It was very important for us to support this bill to help the first nations to assume a certain financial independence or least much more than they had in the past.

I sit on the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources with the hon. member for Louis-Saint-Laurent, and we heard from a number of first nations officials, who supported this bill, not to mention those whom we met privately, as part of our parliamentarian duties.

Everyone knows that the Bloc Québécois cares about the self-government claims of the aboriginals, since we too have many such claims in Quebec. In fact, we prefer the term “sovereignist”. In our opinion, true self-government is achieved when a nation controls all of its economic levers. First nations that will avail themselves of the services provided under Bill C-20 will be able to play a more active role in their economy and promote private investments on their territory. This legislation will give first nations access to tools that are already available to other levels of government and in turn access to financial markets, among other things.

However, we warn the federal government not to succumb to the temptation of using Bill C-20 to opt out of its fiduciary responsibilities towards aboriginal people. It remains the government's job to address inequality between aboriginals and non-aboriginals. I can assure the government that we will keep a close watch.

For the benefit of the public and of those members who may not be very familiar with the bill, I should mention this legislation proposes the establishment of four financial institutions. I will explain them briefly.

The first one is the first nations tax commission, which will replace the Indian taxation advisory board. It will be responsible for the property tax rule approval process, and its streamlining will also help strike a fair balance between the interests of the community and those of taxpayers, when rates are set.

The second institution is the first nations financial management board. The board will set financial standards and provide the independent and professional property assessment services required by first nations that want to take advantage of the borrowing pool of the first nations finance authority.

The third institution, namely the first nations finance authority, will help first nations communities that will adhere to the legislative scheme to issue securities collectively and to raise long term capital at preferential rates for highways, water supply systems, sewers and, of course, other infrastructure projects.

Finally, the first nations statistical institute will help all first nations communities to meet their local data needs, while encouraging participation in Statistics Canada's integrated national systems and their use.

The establishment of a new financial relationship between the federal government and the first nations is nothing new. Already in 1983, the Penner report, a report by the special parliamentary committee on aboriginal self-government, recommended that the fiscal relationship between the federal government and the first nations be redefined. The Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples made the same recommendation in 1996. Bill C-20 is a step along the road toward greater economic autonomy for first nations.

Here is a brief historical overview of Bill C-20. Before it established a supervisory structure to administer the new legislation, the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development created the Indian Taxation Advisory Board in early 1989. In September 2003, 107 first nations began to tax real property. After the Kamloops amendments, in 1988, if I am not mistaken, a number of events strengthened the existing support for the restructuring of financial relations between the first nations and the federal government.

In 1991, the Department of Finance undertook a review of its policy on Indian taxation and, in 1993, made public the Working Paper on Indian Government Taxation.

In 1995, the First Nations Financial Institute or FNFI was created and, at the instigation of the Westbank First Nation, it was then federally incorporated. The main objective of the FNFI was to provide investment opportunities to first nations in order to ensure long-term financing of their public debt. With the adoption of Bill C-20, the FNFI will become the First Nations Finance Authority, which was discussed a bit earlier in this debate.

In 1995, a round table of representatives from the Department of Finance and the Assembly of First Nations led to the adoption of a resolution on taxation. The following year, the participants at the annual general meeting of the Assembly of First Nations adopted resolution 5/96 supporting the establishment, between the first nations governments and the Government of Canada, of new fiscal relationships based on the principles of flexibility, equity, choice, the assurance of government services comparable to those provided by other governments, economic incentives and efficiency.

The Chiefs' Committee on Fiscal Relations was created two years later to review fiscal relations between first nation governments and the federal government. That is known as resolution 49/98 of the general assembly. It recommended the establishment of first nations financial institutions. In 1999, the Assembly of First Nations expressed its support for this initiative when participants in its annual general meeting supported the creation of the first nations financial authority, and backed the Indian Taxation Advisory Board's efforts to establish the first nations tax commission. Those are known as resolutions 6/99 and 7/99 respectively.

In December of the same year, the federal government and the Assembly of First Nations signed a memorandum of understanding concerning the creation of a national round table on financial relationships, with the objective of establishing solid bases for these relationships through an exchange of information, capacity building and the establishment of benchmarks.

In 2000—we are getting closer—the Assembly of First Nations maintained its support for the creation of the first nations statistical institute and the first nations financial management board, pursuant to resolutions 5/2000 and 6/2000 of the Confederacy of Indian Nations. The general assembly then passed resolution 24/2001 supporting the recommendation by the chiefs' committee regarding the establishment of the four new first nations financial institutions by federal legislation. The legal validity of this resolution was questioned, however, since some people thought that it had not received the support of 60% of those present required, as we know, under the charter of the Assembly of First Nations.

On August 15, 2002, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development released a draft bill with the intent to carry out public consultations before introducing it in the House. Several first nations then raised deep concerns with the way the bill was written. Of course, the Bloc Québécois shared these same concerns.

As a result, the AFN convened a special chiefs assembly in November 2002 and passed a resolution rejecting the proposed first nations fiscal and statistical management bill. According to Resolution 30/2002, the proposed legislation violated the historic nation to nation relationship, infringed upon aboriginal and treaty rights, and was otherwise so flawed that it could not be corrected by mere amendments.

An additional so-called accommodation resolution was also passed, that is AFN Resolution 31/2002 respecting the right of those first nations to enter into local and regional agreements, but not in the context of national legislation.

On December 2, 2002, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development tabled Bill C-19 on first nations fiscal and statistical management in the House of Commons. That bill, which died on the Order Paper in November 2003, was reinstated as Bill C-23 on March 10, 2004. That bill also died on the Order Paper after third reading. It was reintroduced very recently, on November 2, 2004, with some significant changes. We are debating this new Bill C-20 today, after studying it for not too long, but, say, carefully in committee.

However, former Bills C-19 and Bill C-23 were unacceptable both to us and to first nations. We had concerns about the fact that the act could work against aboriginal rights and reduce the federal government's fiduciary obligations toward the first nations. We were also concerned that the institutions would only serve a few first nations.

Bill C-23, for example, like the Indian Act, delegated tax authority to first nations communities, which came down to making aboriginal governments municipal entities, if you will, when their legitimate desire was to enjoy greater financial autonomy.

Moreover, the preamble to Bill C-20 uses language that reflects the government's strongly municipal approach to the first nations.

With respect to Bill C-19, we had a number of critical comments. First, the definition of “specific claims” was too narrow. Access to the tribunal was nearly impossible; the $7 million ceiling excluded most claims. Neither the commission nor the tribunal were independent or impartial. The minister had the power to accept or reject claims. Finally, there was doubt about the impartiality and flexibility of the process.

Fortunately, two very important changes have been made in the bill before us today. First, a schedule was added to ensure that the legislation applies to those first nations who wish to participate, because participation is optional, something we feel is very important. Second, a non-derogation clause was included to protect the aboriginal and treaty rights of all first nations.

These changes ensure consistency with the Charter of the Assembly of First Nations as well as the principles of self-determination, the approach taken by the first nations, and the optionality provided for in recent resolutions of the Assembly of First Nations, which were passed in Saskatoon and ratified again in Charlottetown.

This economic disparity exists because some lands do not have services, investors are uncertain and the cost of starting a business is still too high.

A backgrounder produced by the First Nations Fiscal Institutions Initiative says that a dollar of first nation tax revenue buys 30% to 50% less in capital works than it does for other governments. The problem lies primarily in the legislative and institutional framework.

For 130 years, the Indian Act has perpetuated this state of affairs, this lack of fairness. It has prevented first nations from creating their own institutions and participating in the economy.

Will Bill C-20 completely correct this situation? No, but we think it is a step in the right direction, as long, of course, as the federal government does not use this bill as a means to opt out of its financial obligations with respect to the first nations. I repeat, the government has a fiduciary obligation to the aboriginal peoples and it cannot opt out of that.

There are so many things to improve in the living conditions of the first nations that they will not be settled by this bill, but only through real political will exercised by the current government.

Housing conditions, education and health are inferior compared to the rest of the population. On the reserves, 65% of families live in substandard housing. The Bloc Québécois is deeply concerned about the fact that the lack of adequate, affordable housing for aboriginals has implications beyond housing standards. We know that various medical and social problems are related to poor housing conditions and quality of life. The Government of Canada must make the necessary efforts to correct the situation without offloading the problems to the first nations.

Bill C-20 will help first nations who so desire to participate significantly in their economy and encourage private investment on their lands, which is more difficult at present. First nations wanting to borrow money to develop their community infrastructure face transaction costs, processing delays and interest rates that are far too high, even prohibitive.

Despite the positive aspects of this bill, we must not lose sight of some of the basic principles it must respect. First, will it protect the first nations' right to self-determination? Will it benefit first nations, particularly those in Quebec? Will it protect the rights of first nations that opt out of the legislation and the obligations toward them? Will it help redress the fiscal imbalance of first nations that take advantage of this legislation? We may not get all the answers today, but we will make sure the minister does not forget these questions.

For the Bloc Québécois, aboriginal independence claims are very important and must be respected. Recently, with Bill C-14, we supported the aboriginal peoples' right to self-government. Bill C-14 was about the Tlicho people. This bill will help those first nations who so desire to access the financial tools they have been lacking and that the other levels of government have been using for a long time.

That is why we are in favour of Bill C-20.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, throughout the debate on this bill much has been made of the optional nature of the bill. Even in earlier incarnations this was less clear, but in this incarnation of the bill, as it went from Bill C-19 to Bill C-23, to now Bill C-20 in this Parliament, the claim is made by the government that this is truly optional and people's fears are groundless.

However, it remains unclear to me and perhaps the parliamentary secretary can help me with this. In relation to the statistical institute, which is one of the four new fiscal institutions created by Bill C-20, I do not understand how the claim can be made that Bill C-20 is optional. In fact, the statistical institute is not optional at all. All first nations in Canada come under this whether they wish to or not.

Unless I am missing something completely, there is no optional nature to the statistical institute. Perhaps this should have been dealt with as a separate bill. Perhaps the government should have introduced the three other fiscal institutions as one bill. If there was a need for the statistical institute, it could have been dealt with separately. I would like the parliamentary secretary to explain to me how the statistical institute could be seen as optional.

Department of Human Resources and Skills Development Act

[The Speaker]

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

Department of Social Development Act

[Paul Forseth, Conservative, New Westminster—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to listen to the parliamentary secretary. I thought I heard her say that Canadians are rather dissatisfied about “uncoordinated and incoherent programs”. By that she is as much admitting what the government record is because it is responsible for the present situation.

Then she went on to talk about the Liberals wanting to do social policy differently. Different from what? They have been minding the store and now they are trying to divorce themselves from their own record. When are they going to get on with it?

Her speech had a lot of nice sounding phrases and a lot of optimistic things for the future, but where have they been since 1993? Are they going to start now? Is this it?

When Bill C-23 is passed, what is going to be different for constituents in her riding, constituents in my riding? What difference are they really going to see in the benefits they get? The Liberals have been in charge since 1993, since I have been here, and now they are trying to divorce themselves. I think it is going to be more of the same.

I would like an example, a specific case, of how constituents are going to see anything different from what they have been getting.

Department of Human Resources and Skills Development Act

[Gurbax Malhi, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak in support of Bill C-23, an act to create the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development. I am also happy to hear from yesterday's debate on Bill C-23 that there is wide support for this bill among political parties.

As we move forward in the 21st century, Canada will require a more highly skilled workforce. The new economy calls for highly skilled and adaptable workers who not only embrace change but drive change. In short, we have to, as the government has done, be ahead of the curve when addressing current and emerging labour force needs.

Countries that succeed in the knowledge based economy will be those in which all citizens can realize their full potential and contribute to overall productivity and competitiveness. This is integral to the mandate of the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development and why I support this bill.

Today I would like to talk about the foreign credential program of the Government of Canada and its importance to the workplace skills strategy.

We know that promoting human capital development is critical for Canada to sustain a high standard of living. We also know that immigration is essential to Canada's continued social and economic growth, labour market development and success in the global economy.

Given that between 2011 and 2016 immigration is expected to account for 100% of Canada's net labour force growth, it is all the more important that the Government of Canada doubles its efforts to attract, select and integrate skilled immigrants so that they can maximize their potential and fully contribute to Canada. In short, Canada's success depends on how well we develop, and apply the skills and talents of all Canadians so that no one is left behind.

As part of this effort, and indeed my responsibilities as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development, we are working as a team across the federal government and with stakeholders to meet our objectives, so that all Canadians have the opportunity to develop their skills and succeed.

These partnerships are an extremely important part of accelerating the recognition of foreign credentials and previous work experience of skilled workers. Governments cannot do it alone. We must depend on the cooperation of regulated professional bodies, trades, non-regulated professions, employers, business leaders, employees and employee groups, associations, and the not for profit sector; in short, all Canadians.

In the coming weeks, I will have the opportunity to discuss these issues with groups across the country. I look forward to working with immigrant serving organizations and other stakeholders to further identify the challenges faced by new Canadians and immigrant communities.

Through the federal government's foreign credential recognition program, we are working with the provinces and territories, sector councils, and other partners to accelerate the integration of internationally trained professionals. We are focusing our initial efforts on some key occupations experiencing skills issues, namely, engineers, physicians and nurses.

Our objectives are in the short term to: increase the understanding, consensus and commitment on issues and potential solutions related to foreign credential recognition; increase the knowledge of what works in developing a Pan-Canadian process to foreign credential recognition; and enhance the national coordination of partnership activities with regard to foreign credential recognition.

The government has provided this leadership. The 2003 and 2004 federal budgets pledged a total of $68 million over six years to support the attraction and integration of skilled immigrants into the Canadian labour market.

We are putting the collective efforts of several departments in the federal government to work on issues related to FCR and immigrant labour market integration. The Minister of HRSD, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and departmental officials have been working tirelessly with 11 other federal departments on an action plan.

With regard to FCR, the 2003 budget invested $40 million over five years to improve foreign credential recognition, with another $5 million per year committed in the 2004 budget, all with the purpose of improving opportunities for immigrants to effectively participate in the Canadian labour market, helping employers alleviate skills shortages and ensuring Canada attracts a talented, diverse, and skilled workforce to meet current and future economic and social demands.

FCR is of course part of our broader workplace skills strategy to promote the full development and utilization of the abilities and skills of Canadians. The workplace skills strategy aims to respond to the needs of adults in the workplace by: reinvigorating existing programs to focus on the needs of employers and the currently employed for skills for work; creating the conditions and incentives necessary to encourage workplace skills development; engaging employers and workers to better understand their needs, incentives and barriers; and also consulting on priorities while delivering on early key commitments.

For all of these reasons I welcome the vision of this government and the Prime Minister for the future labour market success of the country. This legislation will provide the legal framework for the minister and the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development to carry out our most important objectives in building modern, productive workplaces in Canada and increased economic and social prosperity for all.

[Paul MacKlin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today in support of Bill C-23, which seeks to create the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development.

As members know, legislation is required to formalize changes of the former Department of Human Resources Development announced by the Prime Minister in December 2003. It is important to underline that these changes were made through a series of orders in council pursuant to an act of Parliament which is known as the Public Service Rearrangement and Transfer of Duties Act.

The bill gives the new Department of Human Resources and Skills Development all of the legal powers and tools needed to fulfill its mandate. The mandate of the new department is to help Canadians acquire the skills they need to find productive and meaningful work, because we all know the best security to unemployment is a job. That is why HRSD is at work in communities across this country.

The department has helped more than 667,500 Canadians in 2003-04 through active measures under the EI Act. We are assisting unemployed Canadians to reintegrate into the workforce. We also help young people under the youth employment strategy to gain work experience, continue their education or enter the workforce.

Through HRSDC alone, during the year 2003-04 over 74,000 young Canadians found employment or returned to school as a result of the youth employment strategy. Each year the Government of Canada's youth employment strategy invests approximately $400 million to ensure that Canada's youth can participate and succeed in today's challenging labour market.

The youth employment strategy targets young people between the ages of 15 and 30 inclusive, and offers three focused programs: first, skills link; second, summer work experience; and third, career focus.

Through the youth employment strategy the Government of Canada is ensuring that Canada has a highly qualified and skilled labour force to meet the job market needs of today and tomorrow.

Yesterday some members were interested in knowing what this new department means for Canadians. I would like to take a moment to talk about one program under the youth employment strategy. It is called the skills link program. Skills link targets youth facing barriers to employment to ensure they gain the employability skills and work experience they need to succeed in the labour force. Youth facing barriers include single parents, aboriginal youth, youth with disabilities, new immigrants, youth in rural and remote areas and high school drop-outs.

Local HRSD offices offer a client centred approach to meet the individual needs of youth over longer periods of time. These include services that support youth in developing basic employment skills and develop individual action plans to enable the young people to work on a series of activities that are tailored to meet their individual employment needs and career goals.

Youth participants in the skills link program work on their action plan until they find and keep a job or return to school to improve their skills or qualifications. Many investments are paying off. The youth unemployment rate has decreased almost four points since 1993 to 13.4% in October and youth employment rose by 10,000 jobs in October.

In addition to youth programs, the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development supports organizations that support our citizens, developing the most effective route for productive employment through learning and acquiring literacy and other essential skills so necessary in all occupations.

Whether it is through the Canada education savings grant, the Canada student loans program, the proposed Canada learning bond or contributions to literacy, the government is supporting children and their families in realizing their learning goals.

HRSD also supports families in another way, by funding projects that support family literacy. Literacy and essential skills, such as an ability to work in teams, are the building blocks for lifelong learning and career development.

We have also improved the Canada student loans program, providing a new grant of up to $3,000 for students from low income families to cover some of the tuition of first year students.

Learning also needs to occur in and around the workplace. This explains why we are working with the provinces and territories, business, unions, workers generally and sector councils, to develop a workplace skills strategy.

The strategy focuses on adult workers and how we can improve their opportunities to enhance their skills for an ever changing workplace. Under the workplace skills strategy we would like to build a highly skilled and resilient workforce, build a productive labour market, and respond to employers' needs.

In the last budget we announced $25 million over the next three years to help replace outdated equipment for trades training in union-employer training centres. Budget 2004 committed a further $5 million per year over four years to sector councils to better integrate skilled immigrants into the Canadian labour market. This builds on the total of $40 million over five years announced in the 2003 budget to help create a foreign credential recognition program.

HRSD is spearheading this program by working with the provinces and territories, licensing and regulatory bodies, professional associations and other stakeholders. Our goal is to build a strong labour market where all human resources are taken into account and where everyone can acquire the skills they need to find productive, meaningful work. HRSD is leading the way.

These are a few examples of the tangible programs and initiatives that Canadians can experience through the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development.

Bill C-23 is good legislation that ensures Canadians of all ages can benefit from increased opportunities to participate in our labour force. Accordingly, I think it is very important that the House support Bill C-23 to help us reach the goals of making sure that our labour market force is developed as quickly as possible to the highest skill level that we possibly can and with the most efficiency in our government plan.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have been here all day, and I understand the interest and concern of Bloc members for the unemployed, I understand their concern that people, who are in transition between jobs or who are at the end of their career too early, be served as well as is humanly possible. I am less sympathetic to some of their arguments, but I understand their concerns about jurisdiction.

I favour lifelong learning and it is a matter for every Canadian. Education is the jurisdiction of the provinces and territories. However, one of the roles of the federal government is to encourage the best practices in lifelong learning across the country. I do not see a federal government moving in and taking over from Quebec any jurisdiction of lifelong learning.

I understand the member's concerns. We are debating a specific bill, Bill C-23 on the creation of this new department, which I believe will be more effective in delivering the federal government's roles in these various areas. There is no change in jurisdiction. The new department is taking over part of the jurisdiction of the programs of the old department, which the House unanimously agreed was too large and to diverse.

Given that there is no change in jurisdiction and given there is no greater infringement in jurisdiction in the new department than there was in the old, why is the Bloc is opposing this legislation? In committee the Bloc members unanimously supported it, and the House of Commons recommended the division of the old department.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address Bill C-23, an act to establish the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development. We must all keep in mind that, in order to know where we are headed, we must know where we are coming from. It is also important to understand where the employment insurance program in Canada comes from. Let us never forget that employment insurance is a social measure. Under the Constitution of 1867, that responsibility was given to the provinces. This was the reality then.

In 1940, the provinces and the federal government agreed to transfer the unemployment insurance program to the federal government. Why did this take place in 1940? It was the beginning of World War II and we had just gone through the 1929 Great Depression. So, the decision to give to the federal government the responsibility for unemployment insurance was made by all the partners under the Constitution.

Of course, over the years, things got a little messy, because the federal government wanted to throw its weight around and go further than what had been negotiated in 1940, which involved only unemployment insurance. This is why we are now debating this issue and why the Bloc Québécois is being asked why it is so dead set against the establishment of two new departments. In fact, the responsibility given to the federal government in 1940 has become a huge snowball that will never stop rolling, for the simple reason that, politically speaking, Ottawa is finding it profitable to invest in all kinds of jurisdictions that do not belong to it. This is where we have a problem.

Indeed, Bill C-23 mentions all the activities that these two new separate departments of Human Resources and Skills Development could perform. These include areas such as employment programs, the workplace, learning, the homeless and the redistribution of benefits in all these sectors. This is where we say “Wait a minute: except for employment insurance, the other jurisdictions or initiatives mentioned in the bill come under the provinces”.

Some might ask us why we are acting like the great defenders of the provinces' interests. Actually, it is because provinces are closer to the real life issues the public faces. The simple truth is that the better service can only be provided by the level of government which is closer to the public. So, the Quebec government is closer to the interests of Quebeckers. Moreover, this is all in accordance with the various jurisdictions which were established in the Constitution of 1867.

This needs to be constantly explained because, too often, Liberal members centralize and are absolutely bent on getting good press or on investing in jurisdictions they do not possess. Obviously, that is the fight we are waging. In addition, the worthiest fight has to do with the jurisdiction that was granted to the federal government in 1940, namely unemployment insurance, which has become employment insurance. Instead of splitting this department and trying to achieve a better distribution of the enormous work load that this department has taken on above and beyond the jurisdictions that were set in 1940, we should look for ways to improve the employment insurance system. This all the Bloc and all its members in this House are asking for.

I know that my colleagues have been doing so ever since the Bloc Québécois arrived here in this House, that is, in 1993. It is a fact that the government is making money at the expense of the workers as far as employment insurance is concerned. Since 1996, the federal government has not put one red cent into it. The funds come from contributions by employers and workers, which are making the fund bigger.

The federal government of course tells us there is no fund. It is absolutely right. It has done away with it. So these contributions merely go into the coffers of the government and are used for other purposes. Other purposes have been created in response to numerous criticisms. This is why the Department of Human Resources has become so large and why it is getting involved in so many things that are not its responsibility. In fact, with a surplus of $3 billion or $4 billion, an average of $3.5 billion from the EI fund since 1996, it has decided to invest in such areas of learning, work, homelessness and back to work programs.

All of these are provincial jurisdictions. All it needed to do, if it wanted to administer properly, and this was the advice the government was given, was to create an independent fund administered in large part by employer and employee representatives. They would be better placed to decide what an EI system ought to be like.

In fact, quite simply, as its name suggests, it is insurance paid into by employees and employers. It is likely the only insurance program where contributors do not have a word to say about it. The federal government is the one to decide what it is going to do with the premiums it collects, and it has decided to invest them in things other than improvements to the program.

I do not want to hear how the program is not in particular need of improvement. We know that, in sectors like forestry, agriculture and tourism, work is seasonal, not the worker but the work. It is not the fault of the people in these areas, who work for three, four, five or six months a year, that they have no work, it is the nature of the sector. It operates when it is profitable, when it will make money. Often in forestry, agriculture or tourism, the weather is the determining factor.

That is why all the members of the Bloc Québécois, the men and women who represent Quebeckers, were prepared to improve this system. We have tabled bills. My learned colleagues, critics for various issues, have tabled bills to amend the employment insurance system.

What the Liberal government is proposing is not changes or improvements to the employment insurance system. It is proposing to change the departments. I understand that.

I had a chance to go through the directory of federal agencies. The Department of Human Resources and Skills Development has more than a dozen separate sections each with its own internal auditor. Just imagine. When you read the directory, you notice that each section of this department has an internal auditor and yet they find a way, year in year out, to be reprimanded by the auditor general.

In other words, the department has become so big that they want to split it up. The problem is that there are too many programs to manage. Why is that? It is because the federal Liberal government has made too much money and has given this department so many new responsibilities that it now wants to divide the department in two. It will probably be easier to monitor it that way.

It is very difficult to manage. Earlier I heard the Liberal member tell us that people agreed. Yes, we agree and we understand. The department has become so big that it has to be divided in two to make two even bigger snowballs. That is what will happen if we do not stop them.

That is why the Bloc Québécois is here to say, and to make the Liberal members realize, that they have to stop. The departments they are in the process of creating, Human Resources and Skills Development, have jurisdictions that do not belong them. These jurisdictions belong to the provinces, as stipulated in the Constitution Act, 1867.

From the outset I have been saying that we have to look to our history if we want to know where we are headed. This department was created by a single agreement in 1940. It had only one responsibility and that was to manage unemployment insurance at the time. Today we have a bill to divide the department in two because it has become too big with too many responsibilities that do not belong to it.

Listen to the Bloc Québécois for once. Give money to the provinces, give up some of your responsibilities and there will be enough of a department left to manage employment insurance, which should thereby be improved for seasonal workers.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague with great interest. I would like to ask him the question that I have asked one or two of his colleagues.

We are discussing legislation which would establish the new Department of Human Resources and Skills Development. Under Bill C-22, we will be discussing the establishment of the new Department of Social Development. The division of the old department of HRDC was recommended unanimously by the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills Development, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

We are discussing the unanimous will of the House of Commons, including the Bloc. The standing committee, that considered the legislation at the time, felt that the department, which had been set up by the Mulroney government and consisted of four or five old federal departments, was too large. Its budget was well over $60 billion. Much more importantly, it was much too diverse. The Canada pension plan, employment insurance, literacy, child care, and a whole variety of things were brought together in that department in such a way that it was difficult to manage them all. The House of Commons as a whole agreed that the old department should be split and we should establish two new departments.

We have been debating the establishment of one of these two new departments for two days. As I mentioned earlier, this division has not cost any money. It will not cost more money to run the two departments than it did to run the huge, previous single department.

I know my colleague is interested in these things. Given the fact that the Bloc supported the division of that department, why is it that he and his party are not going to support this legislation? This new department will deliver services to the unemployed in a much more effective way than before. It will deliver literacy programs to children, immigrants, seniors, and older workers, and deliver those services in a much more efficient way. Why is it that the Bloc, having supported the division of the department, is so adamant now that it will not support Bill C-23?