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.

Department of Human Resources and Skills Development Act

[Réal Lapierre, Bloc, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel.

On December 12, 2003, in keeping with the wishes of the Prime Minister, the Department of Human Resources Development was divided into the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development and the Department of Social Development.

According to the Prime Minister, the justification for this was to strengthen our social foundations. As a result, 14,000 public servants who manage more than $20 billion, supposedly in order to strengthen the social foundations of Canada, will be mandated to build the economy of the 21st century.

Human Resources and Skills Development will therefore hold a mandate to promote the development of highly skilled workers. As far as I know, however, this is already being done in Quebec and successfully done at that, until there is any evidence to the contrary.

What then lies behind this endless desire of the central government to interfere in areas under provincial jurisdiction, on the pretext of improving Canadians' quality of life, especially when the Employment Insurance mess is obviously not a good advertisement for massive intrusion into an area that would definitely merit being brought into line with the needs of the provinces, the regions of Quebec in particular?

Whether the topic is employment insurance rules, setting up an independent fund, or community housing needs, I can see no need at all to change the rules of the game.

The real issue is this: How is this new approach likely to improve the lot of individuals, when we have not talked at all about correcting the eligibility criteria for the vulnerable people who are EI clients, or about improving the current, inadequate structure?

Bill C-280 introduced by the Bloc Québécois deserves to be adopted, because it establishes the composition of the Employment Insurance Commission. The commission would be far sighted enough to incorporate in its structure representatives of employees and employers appointed by the governor in council, a chairperson appointed by the House of Commons, and vice-chairpersons selected from among the deputy ministers or associate deputy ministers of Human Resources Development Canada.

The second part of Bill C-23 deals with the appointment of a Minister of Labour and all his powers, duties and functions, all for the purpose of improving the standard of living and quality of life of Canadians by promoting, among other things, a highly skilled and mobile workforce, and reinforcing the social foundations of Canada.

How, then, can we explain the government's stubborn opposition to passing an anti-strike-breaker law in the past, the bill now reintroduced by one of our hon. members as Bill C-263? Logically, Bills C-23 and C-263 should be considered together if we want to improve the quality of life of working people.

As for manpower development, the Government of Quebec has no lessons to learn from Ottawa, especially since the four client groups that escaped its grip in 1997—young people, people with disabilities, immigrants and older workers—are not receiving the attention they need for their freedom.

As for the section of the bill dedicated to the national homelessness initiative, whose purpose is to establish support mechanisms for the homeless, especially to help them settle and prevent other people at risk from joining their ranks, the proposed federal initiative itself has no permanence, which is clearly a necessity under the circumstances.

Needless to say, in my riding like in any riding with an inner city, social housing and homelessness are major problems. That is why the proposed measures will have to take into account this new dynamic. Both in terms of approach and funding, we will be expecting long-term solutions, and not ad hoc programs like the ones we are unfortunately seeing all too often these days.

There is nothing in this bill guaranteeing anything substantive to promote housing development in order to make housing more accessible and in particular to ensure that it not take up too much of the tenants' monthly budget. As for measures to improve the employment insurance program, efforts must be made particularly to ensure that they are geared toward helping the target clientele made up of young people, people with disabilities, seasonal workers and older workers who all too often face the sudden closure of their places of work.

It must be recognized once and for all that the solution is not always to question existing programs, be they federal or provincial, but rather to ensure that programs complement one another and respect the jurisdictions of each level of government. If as much energy was put into bringing each existing program, regardless of its origin, in line with the others as is put into claiming paternity for programs, this would go a long way toward facilitating the well-being of all citizens.

In a nutshell, there is nothing in this legislation to ensure a better world in terms of industrial relations, employment insurance and social housing, given that the funding for acceptable solutions is not provided. In this bill as in many others, one of the problems may be insufficient reliance on the available human potential because, in many cases, administrative constraints hinder creativity.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a general question for my colleague and, if there is time, perhaps a much more specific one.

As I understand it, we are debating Bill C-23 which would set up legally, if that is the right word, the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development. Bill C-22 is the other side of the coin. Its purpose is to set up the Department of Social Development.

The bill we are discussing today came about as a result of an inquiry by the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. That standing committee unanimously, including members of the Bloc, recommended that the old Department of Human Resources Development Canada be divided.

The committee did not recommend that because it disagreed with what the department was doing but because it felt the department was too large. Its budget was $60 billion or $70 billion. Much more significantly, it was too diverse. When the Mulroney government set up HRDC many decades ago, it simply lumped together four or five, maybe even six, federal departments but never brought them together or caused them to focus on the main topics which the old department was intended to do.

Bill C-23 is the unanimous will of the House of Commons. It would set up the new Department of Human Resources and Skills Development which, in my view, would be able to focus better on the issues that are important to my colleague.

The new department would be, in my mind, the department of lifelong learning and training. For example, if a senior citizen needs literacy training, he or she will get it. If a worker needs retraining, the worker will receive that retraining through this much more streamlined department.

My colleague focused on the Minister of Labour. Part of the legislation would establish the ministry of labour which deals with the matters that he is discussing.

I would suggest to my colleague that EI was lost in that great big department, which would be divided now and be much more streamlined. EI was in a department along with Canada pension, caregiver legislation, child care legislation, things like that. EI was simply a part of this great big whole. I would suggest that his Bloc colleagues who recommended that the department be divided were right. Such things will be better handled in this new, much more streamlined department.

It has become clear in the debates on the estimates, which have been going on in committee, that this division has not cost any more money. It is not as though we are adding some great big new department or anything like that. If anything, it will cost less money than the previous and, I would argue, very inefficient department cost.

With better delivery of service and better attention to some of the issues my colleague raised, why is his party opposing the legislation to divide the old federal department when it initially supported it along with the rest of the members of the House of Commons?

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in connection with the hiring of replacement workers to take the place of workers on strike or locked out, the Bloc Québécois believes that a Minister of Labour working within the spirit of part 2 of Bill C-23 ought to make a commitment to support Bill C-263. Once again, the Bloc Québécois is the only party in Ottawa defending the interests of the workers of Quebec.

The Canada Labour Code should be amended and brought into line with the Quebec code, so as to ban the use of strikebreakers for once and for all. The best way to acknowledge the exceptional contribution of all those who are involved every day in building our societies is to provide them with the guarantee that everything possible will be done to ensure that Bill C-263, as proposed by the hon. member for Louis-Hébert, is passed. This is a bill to eliminate the outmoded practice of using strikebreakers during strikes or lockouts. The Bloc Québécois will do its utmost to gain the support of the other political parties in this House.

Anti-scab measures are indispensable if there are to be civilized negotiations during labour disputes. Measures against the use of strikebreakers foster industrial peace. They are the cornerstone that ensures a level playing field for employers and employees. They will make it possible to eliminate the existence of two categories of workers in Quebec: those who come under Quebec's jurisdiction and therefore have that right, and those who do not because they work in businesses under federal jurisdiction.

The Prime Minister, who was so anxious to have that position, now needs to show his true colours as far as this bill is concerned. We also need to hear from all of his caucus today. They cannot want to direct the Parliament of Canada and not take part in a debate as important as one on workers' rights. We need to know their intentions. Quebeckers and Canadians can count on the Bloc Québécois to keep after them until a response is forthcoming.

On October 21, a 46,000 signature petition was tabled in the House by my colleague, the former labour critic, in support of workers and asking that the government pass Bill C-328. In solidarity with all workers, the Bloc Québécois adopted a resolution at its last biennial congress recognizing the importance of amending the Canada Labour Code to prevent the use of strikebreakers.

The situation in Quebec and in Canada is that only Quebec and British Columbia have legislation preventing the use of strikebreakers. Four provinces, including Ontario, have included anti-strikebreaker measures in their labour codes.

In Quebec, the passage of the anti-strikebreaker legislation in December 1977, implemented in 1978 under René Lévesque, was unanimously hailed as a great leap forward in workers' rights.

Following a particularly stormy strike at United Aircraft in Longueuil, this measure which seriously limited all employers' abilities to scorn unions with impunity, put Quebec in the vanguard in North America.

In New Brunswick, union leaders have been calling for anti-strikebreaker measures to be added to the provincial labour code for some time now. The same is true in Manitoba and Saskatchewan where unions are trying to convince their governments to adopt such measures.

Section 94(2.1) of the Canada Labour Code contains provisions forbidding replacement workers, but only if the employer uses them for the demonstrated purpose of undermining a trade union's representational capacity. This is a weak provision since the employer need only continue to recognize the existing union and thus not undermine its representational capacity in order to have the right to use replacement workers, strikebreakers or scabs.

In other words, if the employer refuses to negotiate and uses scabs, at that point the Canada Labour Relations Board can forbid the employment of such workers. However, if the employer negotiates or pretends to negotiate with the union in order to avoid this prohibition, it can continue to use scabs. We can see that this is a ridiculous measure and leaves a huge loophole for the use of scabs.

Now I will address the importance of having legislation. There is a general consensus among the various unions as to the importance of having anti-scab measures for both provincial and federal workers. Anti-scab legislation is needed in the current labour climate because it allows greater transparency in labour disputes.

There are many negative effects to having a strike or a lockout and they are enough to illustrate the importance of having anti-scab measures in order to reduce the conflicts. Strikes or lockouts can cause a decrease in local or global economic productivity, in business and government revenues, and in profits, which lowers the purchasing power of the workers directly or indirectly affected by the dispute. In some cases the dispute can cause social problems, debt in the households involved in the dispute, psychological problems caused by stress, and so forth.

I have some thought-provoking numbers. Anti-scab legislation has existed in Quebec since 1977. The average number of working days lost was 39.4 days in 1976. This decreased to 32.8 in 1979. In 2002-03, the number of workers affected by labour disputes in Quebec dropped by 18% and average days lost in 2001 was 27.4. The number of days dropped from 39 to 27 in Quebec with anti-scab legislation.

Anti-scab legislation has existed in British Columbia since 1993. As a result, from 1992 to 1993 the ratio of time lost dropped by 50%. The average number of working days lost between 1992 and 2002 under the Quebec Labour Code was 15.9 days compared to 31.1 days under the Canada Labour Code, which is a difference of 95%. That is the difference between the two. The number of days lost by 1,000 employees from 1992 to 2002 was 121 days under the Quebec Labour Code compared to 266 days under the Canada Labour Code: a difference of 119%.

The 10 month dispute at Vidéotron alone resulted in a loss of 355,340 working days in Quebec in 2002. This is more than a third of all working days lost because of a strike or lockout in 2002 in Quebec. The conflict at Sécur resulted in a loss of 43,400 working days. These numbers certainly do not explain all the circumstances, but they are troubling enough that the government should conduct a serious study of this issue.

The Liberal government should explain to workers its reluctance to support the initiative put forward by members of the Bloc Québécois. But workers know they can always rely on the hard work of the Bloc Québécois to help the government see the light.

I have four more examples of labour disputes that demonstrate the urgency of amending the federal legislation. In May 2001, with the approval of the CRTC, Quebecor bought the Vidéotron cable company with the help of the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec. In order to clear up financial difficulties related to this acquisition, Quebec undertook shortly thereafter a streamlining process to save $35 million to $40 million a year in its cable company.

The dispute between the 2,200 employees and technicians of the cable company and Quebecor was considered by many like the last big step in a comprehensive streamlining exercise. The 2,200 Vidéotron employees were on strike or locked out from May 8, 2002 until March 2003. Vidéotron facilities were vandalized many times. The end result was a conflict that lasted more than 10 months.

In the Sécur case, after 99% of workers voted against the employer's latest offers, the 900 employees went on strike on July 5, 2002. On that date, the Sécur company held 75% of the market of valuables transport in Quebec, and its annual turnover was $55 million. It was delivering cash to 1,200 of the 6,000 automatic teller machines in Quebec. Since the labour dispute began, this work has been done by the bank employees and some 100 managers of the company.

The situation deteriorated at the end of August: Sécur employees vandalized automated banking machines by caulking them with urethane foam. The dispute ended on October 9, 2002. The result was that the labour dispute at Sécur lasted over three months.

In the case of Cargill, since they had been without a labour contract since 1999 and were not able to reach an agreement on the content of the collective agreement, the management and the CSN union stopped negotiating on March 21, 2000. Because of the deadlock in the negotiations with the union, the management at Cargill, a grain company, ordered a lock out on March 28, 2000, at its Baie-Comeau facilities, thus affecting 42 permanent employees.

On April 28, 2003, Cargill accepted the recommendation of the federal Department of Labour mediator on the whole collective agreement and on the back to work agreement at its Baie-Comeau port facilities.

On April 18, 2003, most of the 42 Cargill workers also approved the mediator's recommendation. Finally, after years of negotiations, an agreement was reached. But the fact is that the dispute at Cargill lasted 38 months.

In the case of Radio-Nord Communications, the union members, who represent three television stations, namely TVA, TQS and the CBC, and also two other radio stations in northwest Quebec, remained on strike from October 25, 2002, until August 2004.

This was the second labour dispute in four years, the first one dating back to 1998. Over the past 15 years, Radio-Nord has eliminated close to 50 positions in Abitibi. Since the last labour contract, 10 unionized jobs were abolished, including two positions of journalists.

SECAT, which is the union for communications employees in the Abitibi-Témiscamingue and which is affiliated with the CSN, condemns the centralization of the various management groups in the Outaouais region.

This means that the decisions affecting the various communities in Abitibi-Témiscamingue reflect the happenings in the region less and less. While the union was open to resuming talks, Radio-Nord continued to rely on replacement workers. The result is that the dispute at Radio-Nord Communications lasted over 22 months.

The labour disputes at Radio-Nord Communications and Cargill, and those that dragged on at Vidéotron and Sécur, have several points in common. They are long disputes in areas governed by the federal labour code and where the use of replacement workers is permitted. I should also point out that the work stoppage at Vidéotron and Sécur led to acts of violence and vandalism.

Violence and vandalism will never be justified and should be condemned outright by workers' representatives. However, the feeling of powerlessness and not seeing an end to the strike or lockout inevitably leads some of them to take illegal and serious steps. It resulted in cut cables at Vidéotron and ATMs stuffed with urethane foam at Sécur.

Under the Canada Labour Code as it stands today labour disputes are longer and tougher, yet Ottawa still refuses to include anti-scab provisions.

Here are a few numbers. 2003 was a record year for the number of lost person-days. It is important to note that this sad record is due for the most part to strikes in companies under federal jurisdiction, which usually last a lot longer.

Indeed, 57% of the total lost person-days in 2003 were at a company under federal jurisdiction, namely Vidéotron.

It is more than ever necessary to ban the hiring of replacement workers during a labour dispute to reduce violence on the picket lines and help reach a fair balance of powers between employers and employees during negotiations.

There is a very broad consensus among various unions on the need to adopt anti-scab legislation.

It is a necessity in today's world because it allows for greater transparency in a labour dispute. This bill would not cost the government anything. The current government interferes in so many files that are not under its constitutional jurisdiction. It should start by assuming the responsibilities that properly belong to it.

I will conclude my short speech by saying that it could be used by our Liberal colleagues across the way as a working paper. It might help them realize how important it would be for the House to pass anti-scab legislation.

This would show the government's interest in workers who are governed by the Canada Labour Code.

We wonder why there is anti-scab legislation in Quebec, when our next door neighbour, which is governed by the Canada Labour Code, is not entitled to these measures. It can be frustrating for someone to see that his work has been taken over by someone else while he is outside, without salary, availing himself of his rights to better working conditions.

This is why unions are with workers. That is the only time that people can stand up and tell the employer that they are unhappy with all the clauses of the collective agreement and that they want to have the right to strike.

They want to tell their employer that theyare doing without their salary for a period of time, but that, essentially, they want better working conditions. How do you expect them to have better working conditions if, while they are on strike or locked out, they are being replaced with scabs who do their work?

I think that, in such a case, the employer is not in a rush to try to solve the conflict. When the union and the employer want to negotiate in good faith, negotiations go on and scabs are always welcome during that period. Frustration sets in and rises as time goes by, while these people are on the sidewalk waiting to go back to their work.

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, part 2 of Bill C-23 deals with the appointment of a minister of labour and his powers, duties and functions “--with the objective of promoting safe, healthy, fair, stable, cooperative and productive workplaces”. This is stated in clause 18 of the bill.

The objective of the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development is to fully participate in an effective and efficient labour market. The purpose of the mandate is to improve the standard of living and quality of life of all Canadians by promoting a highly skilled and mobile workforce and an efficient and inclusive labour market. This means that the department will play a key role by helping build for Canada an economy for the 21st century and by strengthening the country's social foundations.

While the Bloc Québécois recognizes the main virtues of such a statement, it is skeptical as to what the Liberal government really wants to do, particularly considering that, at the federal level, the use of replacement workers is still allowed and that, over the past 12 years, the Liberals have defeated many bills introduced by the Bloc Québécois to amend the Canada Labour Code and prevent the use of replacement workers.

The debates held in the House of Commons always ended up in setbacks for workers, and the Bloc Québécois does not think that this issue should be dealt with under Bill C-23, which seeks to promote fair, stable and cooperative workplaces.

I would like to quote an article published in the November 1, 2004 edition of the newspaper Le Nouvelliste , in which the Minister of Labour is quoted as saying that:

We did not go so far as to prohibit the hiring of scabs, as did Quebec and British Columbia, if I am not mistaken, said Mr. Fontana. I already said that I was open to discussing this issue.

The very purpose of Bill C-263 on replacement workers, which was introduced by Roger Clavet, is to prohibit employers under the Canada Labour Code—

[Navdeep Bains, Liberal, Mississauga—Brampton South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak in support of Bill C-23, an act to create the Department of Human Resource and Skills Development.

I would like to use the bulk of my time today to discuss something that I heard members raise yesterday, which is access to post-secondary education. I believe it is important to put some of these statements in context for all members, as we sometimes do not appreciate the value that Canadians and the federal government place on post-secondary education.

My colleague, the member for Brant, inspired my intervention today. He mentioned yesterday a fact that is very important and bears repeating. Canada is the second biggest investor in the world in post-secondary education as a percentage of gross domestic product.

What is more, according to a new report, entitled “A New Measuring Stick: Is Access to Higher Education in Canada Equitable?”, released on September 27, 2004 by the Educational Policy Institute, Canada has one of the best records in the western world of encouraging people from lower socio-economic backgrounds to attend post-secondary institutions. The 11 country, 10 province study on equitable access to higher education ranks Canada third behind Ireland and the Netherlands, but reserves the highest marks for the provinces of Manitoba and my home province of Ontario.

Canadians 25 to 64 have the highest attainment rate in post-secondary education in the world at 41%. We should also know that earlier this year a TD Bank financial group study found that the return on a university degree was 12% to 20% annually and on a college diploma it was around 15% to 28% annually. Tangibly, this means that over their lifetimes university graduates earn $1 million more on average than those without a post-secondary education.

Whether apprenticeship, college or university, these are investments students, their families and governments make in post-secondary education, and they are sound investments.

During the current academic year of 2004-05, it is estimated that approximately 470,000 full time and part time students will be assisted in accessing learning opportunities through Canada student loans, student grants and interest subsidies. The amount of total financial support is expected to reach nearly $2 billion. Of that amount, more than $1.7 billion will be disbursed as Canada student loans to approximately 365,000 students. Approximately $80 million will be made as non-repayable Canada study grants to over 50,000 of those students and the remaining amount will be disbursed in the form of interest subsidies to approximately 105,000 borrowers in study.

While the government and all Canadians can be proud of these achievements, the Government of Canada and the new Department of Human Resources and Skills Development is determined to do better. The legislation modernizes the mandate of the department to allow the minister to improve the Canada student loans program and ultimately access to post-secondary education in cooperation with the nine participating provinces and the Yukon Territory.

The Government of Canada will invest close to $137 million in 2005-06 to modernize the Canada student loans program. The Government of Canada is committed to ensuring that all Canadians have access to the skills development and learning opportunities needed to realize their potential and participate fully in the 21st century economy.

Fostering a culture of lifelong learning is a key fulfilment of this commitment. Access to a post-secondary education is an important component of Canada's strategy to secure a higher standard of living and a better quality of life for all Canadians. The Government of Canada offers a wide spectrum of programs and services that work together to help ensure that Canadians of all ages can achieve their learning goals.

The Government of Canada recognizes that the learning process starts with the birth of a child and continues into adulthood. The 2004 Speech from the Throne reflected this by proposing the introduction of the new Canada learning bond. The bond builds on the success already achieved by the Canada education savings grant, which has helped many parents to save for their children's education through grants and tax sheltering of earnings. Since its inception, $2 billion in grants have been paid to over two million Canadian children of all ages. The total asset value of registered education savings plan savings by Canadians for their children's education is $13 billion, up from a little over $2 billion in 1997. Currently one in four Canadian children between the ages of zero and 17 benefit from the Canada education savings grant. The Canada learning bond will also play an important role in ensuring that wherever possible any Canadian who wishes to undertake post-secondary education will have that opportunity.

The Government of Canada introduced Canada millennium scholarships in 1998 to help Canadian students acquire a post-secondary education and reduce student debt loans. The Canadian Millennium Scholarship Foundation is the autonomous organization responsible for managing a $2.5 billion endowment from the Government of Canada and providing scholarships to students across the country. Over 90,000 students have received Canada millennium scholarships, awarded through the Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation, totalling $285 million annually. Recently, in a member's statement, I had the good fortune of recognizing individuals in my riding who received this scholarship.

While the government makes significant investments in post-secondary education through these and other programs, it is working to do more to ensure that every Canadian can fully participate in the workforce and society. The 2004 budget outlined new initiatives aimed at opening up the range of people able to acquire post-secondary education and student financial assistance, including introducing a new grant worth up to $3,000 for first year students from low income families to cover a portion of their tuition, also introducing a new upfront grant of up to $2,000 a year for students with permanent disabilities.

Above and beyond that, some of the other initiatives include increasing weekly loan limits of up to $210 per week, including computers as eligible expenses, extending loan eligibility to more middle income families by reducing the amount parents are expected to contribute and increasing income thresholds used to determine eligibility for interest relief and increasing the maximum debt reduction and repayment.

The budget of 2004 package of improvements is the result of a productive, collaborative dialogue with our provincial and territorial partners and stakeholders. In addition, each year the government youth employment strategy helps approximately 50,000 students between the ages of 15 and 30 by providing financial support to help them to return to their studies. To ease the transition to a post-secondary education for adult learners with registered retirement savings plans, the lifelong learning plan allow them to allow amounts from their RRSPs to finance training or education for themselves, their spouse or their common law partner.

Learners may withdraw up to $10,000 a year from their RRSP to finance full time training or education. Through the personal income tax system, the Government of Canada provides tax credits for post-secondary education tuition, educational expenses and interest paid on student loans. Courses taken to finish high school, improve literacy skills or upgrade secondary school credentials with the goal of preparing adults for specific occupations in fields of higher learning may also qualify for tax assistance.

In summary, the government and Canadians are doing the right thing when it comes to investing in post-secondary education. Again, Canada is the second biggest investor in the world, as a percentage of GDP, in post-secondary education. This is all the more important when we consider that research suggests that investment in education and skills training may rank as the most important factor for achieving economic growth over a long run via increased productivity.

When we look back at the years between 1996 and 2003, we note that the increased standard of living was largely driven by increased favour productivity.

The legislation is geared at creating the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development that is a machinery of the government bill, an important bill to ensure the minister and the department have the legal powers and tools needed to fulfill the minister's mandate. It is also a reminder of the range of federal programs that support post-secondary education and the tangible investments that Canadians value.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-23.

This a bill wants to divide in two the former Department of Human Resources Development, which will become the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development, and also to create another department that will be called the Department of Social Development.

We will oppose Bill C-23. Why? Because it shows that the federal government wants to invade provincial jurisdictions. It wants to put in place an increasing number of programs that will often go against Quebec's social development. We will have to negotiate once again, year after year, the renewal of certain sums that the government had promised, but it will not keep its promises, at least not at the level of its commitments.

Concerning manpower development and education, we know very well that education is a provincial jurisdiction. As for manpower development, we know very well that we would like to have complete jurisdiction in this sector. There was an agreement with Quebec, but we know very well that the government kept an element with regard to manpower development.

The second reason why we will oppose this bill has to do with their vision of the Employment Insurance Commission. We do not share it. I would also like to point out in this House that I am the vice-chair of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills Development, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. The Bloc and all opposition parties had proposed a motion expressing their support for the Speech from the Throne. Without that, the government could have been toppled and we could have found ourselves in an election campaign again.

However, the subamendment proposed following an agreement among all opposition parties was brought forward in the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills Development, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. The goal was, indeed, to set up a subcommittee to review the employment insurance fund. Much to our bewilderment, who voted against the proposed subcommittee? It would have been in a position to do an assessment and then to submit recommendations to us, Parliamentarians, on the way money in the employment insurance fund should be distributed. It was the Liberals who voted against the creation of a sub-committee on human resources development in relation to the employment insurance fund.

So I was very much disappointed because they had promised, in the election, to bring changes to the employment insurance fund.

They say they want to strengthen social foundations and reach social goals. I do not believe that. I rather think they want to interfere in areas of provincial jurisdiction.

They say they want to improve management. If they really wanted to do so, at least in terms of employment insurance jurisdiction, we could at least have voted to create a subcommittee to study the issue. The report by all members of Parliament, including the Liberals was unanimous.

So, they in fact voted against what they had proposed themselves. This often raises doubts about the government's good intentions. What it really wants is to score some political points.

They now try to show they have a big heart by establishing an expanded Human Resources and Skills Development Department. They want to interfere in areas of provincial jurisdiction. It may be worth nothing that provinces were hard hit with the Canada social transfer. Quebec, incidentally, paid a large part of it. As a matter of fact, for years it forced us to have a zero deficit target.

I would like to remind this House what former Prime Minister Chrétien said: “They will bring in cuts but provinces will see that we will support the social security net and protect social programs in Canada”.

This was a very hard experience for all provinces but especially for Quebec. As a matter of fact, what Quebec has been implementing is probably going too fast for the Government of Canada. Quebec wants social development that meets the expectations of Quebecers.

As a result, I have considerable doubts about the tangent the Liberal government is going off on, after promising during the election campaign that it was going to take a new tack. In my opinion, they are attacking the problems raised during the election campaign in the wrong way.

Concretely, what the government wants to create is a new Department of Human Resources and Skills Development; to promote a labour market that it feels is working well, along with the system of lifelong education, including for students; and, in conjunction with Citizenship and Immigration Canada, to address a very important issue. The hon. member for Gatineau has raised that issue: recognition of qualifications and skills of newcomers, that is those who have chosen to live in Quebec or in Canada.

So we will get back to the creation of the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development tomorrow, since the bill will be debated here in this House then. We will then have all possible latitude to discuss the harmful objectives of this department: federal interference, creation of a social economy project, study grants for students. So we will be able to see how the federal government is creating piecemeal family and child policy. This is not one integrated policy, but a policy of bits and pieces, and we are opposed to the approach the Liberal government is taking.

I would also like to address just what the programs of this new Department of Human Resources and Skills Development comprise.They encompass: the whole employment insurance delivery program, employability, the workplace, on- the-job training, work, and two objectives relating to homelessness and support for service and benefit delivery. I would like to say more on the latter two later on.

There is also a very critical analysis of Bill C-23 with respect to four sectors of activity. With respect to employment insurance, we know very well it is nothing but an empty shell. We know very well that they did not want to examine it closely. They did not want to examine the unanimous recommendations of all members now sitting on the subcommittee on the employment insurance funds. Had it not been for the opposition parties, the Liberals would not have stopped to look at them.

As for the work done on the issue of replacement workers—the Bloc Québécois members have been working on that for years, of course—the anti-scab legislation is back on the rails. The hon. member who will follow me will speak to that, since it is one of his responsibilities.

Apprenticeship, skills development and the homeless are clear examples of institutionalized interference by the federal government. We know very well that the federal government—just like that—has decided to do something about the homeless, and appears with a project to spend a few billion dollars for all of Canada. For Quebec, that will mean $56 million, which is very small compared to Quebec's goals to improve its people's security.

We have met with groups in Quebec. We make recommendations every time the finance minister unveils a budget. We invite all social, economic and political stakeholders to come and tell us what they recommend and how they wish the government to enact measures that affect them.

As a result, we met, in fact, with a group concerned with homelessness in Quebec City, the Regroupement pour l'aide aux itinérantes et itinérants de Québec. They would like this budget to include not $56 million over 3 years but $100 million to meet community needs in Quebec.

We had to work hard to get the government to consider Quebec's approach. We know this is a first plan for the homeless. The government wanted to build a place where they could add beds to welcome homeless people who have nowhere to go. I agree that this is a commendable goal. However, in Quebec we had our own way of doing things. For many years we have been setting up facilities with beds. All we were urgently asking for was to take into account training and human resources support in this sector.

We had to really fight to make the federal government understand how we thought the homelessness problem should be handled in Quebec. They ended up understanding and set up an issue table called the Regroupement pour l'aide aux itinérants et itinérantes de Québec. This table has a committee that evaluates the various demands of the sector. It was just a waste of time and it provided very little money for truly achieving Quebec's goals with respect to homelessness.

Bill C-23 is bad. It will raise the federal government's profile. There are very clear electoral goals in this bill. We are against this bill.

On another note, the second objection to Bill C-23 is that it inadequately defines the Employment Insurance Commission, its structure, its function and its role. Clause 20 of Bill C-23 states that the Canada Employment Insurance Commission is continued. That means nothing is changing. The clause continues:

The Canada Employment Insurance Commission, consisting of four commissioners to be appointed by the Governor in Council, is continued.

(2) The four commissioners shall be (a) the Deputy Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development, who shall be the Chairperson of the Commission; (b) an Associate Deputy Minister, who shall be the Vice-Chairperson of the Commission; (c) a person appointed after consultation with organizations representative of workers; and (d) a person appointed after consultation with organizations representative of employers.

We see how transparent this government is in all this. It promises us in every election that it will be more transparent, but it loves to control the game.

The Bloc Québécois says no to that. It is totally opposed to such a structure. Rather, it proposes that the employment insurance commission consist of the following: a chairperson, two deputy ministers or associate deputy ministers from the Department of Human Resources, seven representatives for employers and seven representatives for employees. We are not opposed to the government having a seat at the table, but there needs to be greater input from the groups concerned, including employers and employees.

This is why the candidate for the position of chair of the commission should be proposed by the minister and approved by the House of Commons. We want this appointment to be endorsed by the House of Commons and to be the object of a consultation with employers' and employees' representatives. We do not want the reverse to happen, namely that the commissioners be appointed by the minister in office.

This process is much more thorough, it is more transparent and it is a more accurate reflection of the reality. Should the need arise, the chairperson has a casting vote. This is also something that we want. Employers' and employees' representatives are appointed by the government, from a list of names suggested by representative associations. It is rather obvious that the government did not want to make a move; it prefers the status quo, as usual. However, this is not what the Liberals had promised.

This approach reflects not only the Bloc Québécois' wishes, but also those of the employers and employees, to the effect that the fund be monitored by those who contribute to it. But the government is systematically ignoring that approach. Perhaps this is why it did not want a subcommittee to make recommendations on the employment insurance fund.

We know full well that $45 billion were put in the consolidated fund to, perhaps, pay off part of the debt, but also fund some of the programs that the Liberals are boasting about. They are bragging and claiming that they now want to help Quebec and Quebeckers. I do not think they understood the signal that we sent to them during the last election.

To show you again what the Bloc is asking for, I will give you yet another quote. Only a few days ago, Mr. Hassan Yussef, senior economist with the Canadian Labour Congress, testified before the Subcommittee on the Employment Insurance Funds of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills Development, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. He was once more recommending to the subcommittee that this employment commission be independent. He said, “--at arm's length to the government with independence to oversee and report to the public”.

We know that the government is not putting any more money in the employment insurance fund. It manages that fund and decides where the money goes. A new entrant on the labour market has to work 910 hours before qualifying for EI. Very often, he or she does not qualify and cannot receive any money. This is just another example.

There is also the issue of seasonal work, of people who work in an economic sector that is not operating all year round. We all know that there is a black hole before the activities resume.

We are thus completely against the status quo concerning the EI commission.

Finally, M. Yussef said:

Right now essentially you have a worker and an employer commission that has very little power in regard to its responsibility.

One can imagine sitting with a deputy minister and two officials who are also controlled by the minister. How can the employees feel free to say what they think or what pressure they could bring to bear on the government?

At this same meeting of the subcommittee, René Roy, the secretary general of the FTQ, added:

We wanted it to be just employers and employees.

He went on to say:

However, it would be fair for the federal government to join us.

So, they saved a place for the federal government, but just a place. They want to play a much greater part among those who are not well served by the EI fund. They are neglected by the system.

The government talks about one big management, about wanting to be fair and having a big heart. I guess we can think about it, because I do not believe a word it said.

I would also like to address the whole nature of this national homelessness initiative. This initiative has two objectives. The first objective is to develop support services to help homeless Canadians leave homelessness behind. The second one is to ensure that communities develop lasting capabilities to deal with homelessness by promoting leadership and that non-profit public and private sectors take a more active part in the fight against homelessness.

We know very well that homelessness is a societal problem requiring long-term rather than short-term managed action. What the government is proposing in this initiative is more along the lines of an arrangement with Quebec and the provinces, which could be renewed every three years.

What will happen? We saw what happened in other areas. Social housing, for instance, is a very good example. The Liberal government said it wanted to help the community. It threw money at the problem but, often, when a few million dollars are divided between ten provinces and two territories, that means very little money for each community.

When the federal government decides to stop investing, communities suffer. Structures that were created can no longer be offered to the people. This puts enormous pressure on the governments of provinces, namely Quebec.

Why, for example, not give provinces their just share in relation to the fiscal imbalance? Do you know how many billions of dollars the federal government has spent in provincial fields of jurisdiction? It has spent $66 billion. Do you how much it has spent in relation to its own fields of jurisdiction? It has spent $60 billion. There is an imbalance. The federal government does not take care of its own fields of jurisdiction. And I would like to say something on this subject, if I have enough time.

Before concluding, I would like to talk about the time it takes to review Old Age Security applications. This is federal jurisdiction. I heard that it takes six months to process these applications. Before, it was only two to three months. Can the federal government at least properly administer what comes under its jurisdiction?

[Michael John Savage, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-23, an act that will establish in legislation the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development which was created by a series of orders in council last December.

Today we have the opportunity to examine this legislation that establishes the department of HRSDC and sets out the powers, duties and functions of the minister and the minister's mandate. I would like to talk about that mandate and why it is important for our standard of living to promote a highly skilled and mobile workforce.

As the member of Parliament for Dartmouth--Cole Harbour, I am keenly aware of the role this department will play in the lives of my constituents and my community. I am pleased that the minister visited my constituency during the summer to learn about our region and to announce some important new programs in the community. I welcome him back any time.

The name of the department is appropriate, Human Resources and Skills Development, because of the role it will play in working with partners to help Canadians create better opportunities for themselves. Increasingly, in the knowledge economy, that means Canadians are recognizing the importance of learning and skills development.

One way of influencing a better outcome for individuals is to ensure that they get a good start right from the beginning when they are children. Maternity and parental benefits under the employment insurance program make it easier now for parents to concentrate on the health and well-being of their babies.

At the same time, parents and grandparents can make a commitment to invest in a registered education savings plan for their child or grandchild knowing that they will receive additional support for that child from the Government of Canada through the Canada education savings grant.

In the last budget the government recently enhanced the Canada education savings grant for low income and middle income families. For those parents entitled to the national child benefit, the government will provide a Canada learning bond giving them a further incentive to put aside some money for their children's further education.

Members will recall that 26% of children from families with incomes under $25,000 do have savings for post-secondary education. However, only 8% of these have savings in RESPs where they could get matching funds from the government.

I hope fellow members recognize the policy drivers behind these programs. We are working with Canadian parents to give their children a good start so they are ready and able to learn in school, and looking ahead to training and educational possibilities after high school.

Studies tell us that children take post-secondary education more seriously if they feel their parents are committed to a long term learning plan. Our goal is to get young people thinking of the value of education and learning from an early age so they will be motivated when it most counts.

HRSDC will also support families in another way through its national literacy secretariat which funds projects across the country to support family literacy. Literacy and essential skills are the foundation of lifelong learning, and enable us to fully participate in the workplace and society. Higher literacy results in a better quality of life through reduced poverty, lower unemployment, decreased assistance, and in fact better health for Canadians. The best security of course is a job, and the most effective route to employment is through learning, and acquiring the literacy and foundational skills so necessary in all occupations.

HRSDC will come into play later on in the lives of young people. Canada's youth employment strategy is active on many fronts in communities across the country. From hire a student activities in the summer to skills link projects for young people who have left school or are unemployed, YES projects count on local partners to help young people gain work experience and either continue their education or enter the workforce. The backdrop to our success as a country is our work with partners in our communities to spark the abilities and the talents of young people.

Some people have heard and seen the ad campaign that is encouraging young people to consider the trades as a serious career option. Through HRSDC, $12 million was provided to the Canadian apprenticeship forum and Skills/Compétences Canada to develop and launch this promotional campaign to attract more young people into trades. We are accomplishing two important objectives: expanding career opportunities for young people and renewing skilled trades. Like so much of the work at HRSDC the success of this campaign will depend on the apprenticeship stakeholders, business and labour groups, employers and educators.

The campaign also underlines the skills challenge facing Canada. First, we have a slowing of the labour force growth. Our labour force grew by over 2% a year 25 years ago. By the end of this decade it will be down to 1% per year. That is one reason why this campaign is happening. Regional labour shortages are already evident in construction, aircraft mechanics, machinists and carpenters.

The second challenge facing us is the relentless rise in skill requirements across all industries. Three out of four jobs now need some post-secondary education, whether a trade certificate, a college diploma or a university degree. Recognizing the urgency of this situation, the Government of Canada has made skills development and lifelong learning a priority.

Since first balancing the books in 1997-98, about one-quarter of all new federal spending has been devoted to education and innovation. That adds up to more than $36 billion. The Department of Human Resources and Skills Development is leading that charge. In the years ahead we will need to ensure that Canadians have the opportunity to gain the skills and the learning to succeed in an ever-changing labour market.

Very simply, our goal is to lay the foundation for promoting learning at every age and every stage of life. Part of this involves enhancing the accessibility and the affordability of post-secondary education so students can get a good education and skills.

Many students I have visited in my local schools are afraid that post-secondary education is beyond their reach. This is one of the reasons that I was interested in joining our party's post-secondary caucus and taking over the very distinguished leadership of the member for Peterborough. That is why our last budget improved the Canada student loans program and the Canada study grants to enhance access to high needs students, such as those with dependents, with disabilities or from low income families or those studying part time.

Helping students pursue post-secondary education is only part of the answer. Learning also occurs in and around the workplace. That is where workers' skills intersect with the current needs of the labour market, which also impacts on innovation and productivity.

We are working with other levels of government, business, unions, workers and sector councils to develop a workplace skills strategy. We are looking at issues such as literacy training and essential skills for upgrading of workers as well as encouraging apprenticeships in the skilled trades. Our goal is to allow workers greater opportunity to enhance and improve their skills for the workplace.

Under the workplace skills strategy we would like to first, help build a highly skilled, adaptable and resilient workforce; and second, see a flexible, efficient and productive labour market, and also respond to employers' needs for productive, innovative workplaces.

In our last budget we kick-started the strategy by providing new resources for union-employer training centres. Over the next three years we will invest $25 million in a pilot project to help replace outdated equipment for trades training.

The last budget also committed a further $5 million per year over four years to sector councils to help raise awareness of the need to better integrate skilled immigrants into the Canadian economy. In a time of skill and worker shortages, we need to work together to find solutions in assessing and recognizing the credentials of skilled immigrants. My own area of Atlantic Canada needs immigrants to grow our economy. We cannot afford to have skilled trained professionals who are unable to practise their profession.

The $5 million builds on a total of $40 million over five years announced in the 2003 budget to help create a foreign credential recognition program. HRSDC is spearheading the program by working with a number of partners, provincial and territorial governments, licensing and regulatory bodies, professional associations, employers and a variety of other stakeholders.

We have already reached an agreement on improved procedures for licensing foreign-trained doctors. Consultations will soon begin with allied health professionals such as pharmacists, occupational therapists, physiotherapists and medical laboratory technicians.

As hon. members can see, the Human Resources Skills Development Department is busy on many fronts and in many communities across the country. The work accomplished by HRSDC staff, through its partners and stakeholders, is truly in the long term best interests of this country and will reflect the priorities of Canadians. Our human resources are our future and HRSDC is showing leadership to meet the critical needs of Canadians.

[France Bonsant, Bloc, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, with your permission, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Beauport—Limoilou.

This bill gives a definition of the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development. Early in the bill, we read the following:

The powers, duties and functions of the Minister extend to and include all matters...over which Parliament has jurisdiction and which are not by law assigned to another Minister, department, board or agency of the Government of Canada.

Unfortunately, it is not specified that all these jurisdictions are provincial. In other words, this bill further entrenches the federal invasion of the areas of manpower development and education.

In the next few minutes, I will not come back to the employment insurance aspect, even though it is an important part of the new department. I believe that my colleague for Chambly—Borduas has very clearly explained the position of the Bloc Québecois in this respect.

Let me just recall a few facts. The employment insurance program became a federal jurisdiction when it was handed over by the provinces in the hard times of the second world war. Since then, the federal government, here as in a number of jurisdictions, has done as it pleased, completely ignoring Quebec and the provinces.

The current government can now demonstrate its good will by supporting Bills C-278 and C-280 as tabled by the Bloc Québécois. These two bills would implement necessary and efficient amendments to the Employment Insurance Act, the first in terms of procedure and benefits, the second concerning the EI Commission and its related fund.

Unfortunately, in my riding, EI is taking on growing importance, while the government does nothing to keep businesses in business. EI is and will continue to be very important for a great number of citizens in my riding. However, the current criteria are inadequate on both counts. Workers need a decent income to meet their needs. With all the federal programs that have been slashed for all age groups and for all workers, my riding is looking at a annual shortfall of $23 million, which is an unbelievably large amount.

That being said, let me return to the current bill which, as I was saying, highlights the federal government's interference in provincial jurisdictions.

The mandate of the future Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development will be, among other duties, to strengthen the social foundations of Canada. However—I repeat—these social foundations, as it is clearly said, come under provincial jurisdiction.

The skills development portion of the new department is nothing less than an education department in disguise. The learning bonds are a case in point. The federal government must transfer the money to Quebec and the provinces, rather than establish programs in jurisdictions that do not belong to it. With the transfer to the provinces, the Government of Quebec could help students by limiting debts incurred due to their studies and by providing achievable dreams to our young people.

Bill C-23 stipulates that the new “Minister may enter into agreements with a province or a provincial public body...or bodies that the Minister considers appropriate”. I should hope so; this is obvious. The sectors of labour development and education come under provincial jurisdiction. Provinces and provincial bodies should be consulted, unless, again, the Liberal government acts in bad faith.

In the area of labour development, I will again refer to the bill. It says that the Minister contributes to the achievement of these objectives by supporting the development of human capital, by improving access to post-secondary education, by supporting skills improvement in the workplace and by encouraging Canadians to embark on a path of lifelong learning.

I will provide examples from my riding to demonstrate that the Liberal government has difficulty in managing programs and that it would be well-advised to leave them, with their funds, to Quebec and the provinces.

In the Compton—Stanstead riding, after the closure of the CookshireTex and Cordelli plants, which fell victim to Asian competition, several employees took steps to retrain themselves. They sought to find their way back onto the labour market by becoming specialists.

Instead of encouraging them, the staff at the local employment insurance office thoroughly demoralized them. The federal employees there were saying that the newly unemployed people had more than enough qualifications to get retrained. Those who did not have all the qualifications were told that employment insurance would not pay for seasonal or long-term training.

Is that a show of goodwill? Is that what we call support for the development of human capital, for professional training and for continuous learning? I think the liberal government is laughing in the face of our fellow citizens. Instead of giving such absurd answers, the federal government should address the fiscal imbalance so that Quebec would have the necessary resources to take care of workforce development by itself, without having to go to Ottawa cap in hand.

I am asking my colleagues in this House to stand against Bill C-23, but to be in favour of Bill C-278 and Bill C-280, which, as I said, modify the Employment Insurance Act in an efficient manner. The Bloc Québécois also thinks that the Minister of Labour's mandate, as described in Part II of Bill C-23, is consistent with Bill C-263 on replacement workers. The federal government should support the initiative put forward by the Bloc Québécois by voting in favour of said bill, and thus modify the Labour Code without shaking up the entire Human Resources Department.

[Lloyd St. Amand, Liberal, Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the House for the opportunity to speak about the importance of Bill C-23 to articulate in legislation the new mandate and responsibilities for Human Resources and Skills Development Canada, HRSDC.

This legislation would ensure that the Minister and the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development will have the legal powers and tools needed to fulfill the minister's mandate. I can assure the House that HRSDC is working closely with officials from Social Development Canada to strengthen this country's social foundation.

This government believes in a strong Canada where every citizen has the opportunities and the tools to achieve his or her full potential to participate in the labour market and the community at large.

We believe that all Canadians should benefit from Canada's prosperity. We have a vision of a Canada where everyone has the right to learn and to keep learning throughout their lifetime. We are committed to fostering lifelong learning so that all Canadians can acquire the skills and experience required to participate fully in the workforce and in society.

As we move forward in the 21st century, Canada will require a more highly skilled workforce. The new economy calls for Canadians to become highly skilled and adaptable workers who not only embrace change but are prepared to drive it ahead.

I think most Canadians are aware that these days access to education and training is absolutely crucial to their job security and earning power. To meet the challenges of the 21st century, Canada's workers must have the opportunity to upgrade their skills, to improve their literacy, to learn on the job and to move onto the path of lifelong learning.

With this in mind, the Government of Canada is supporting learning and skills development at every stage of Canadians' lives. For instance, we are helping our youngest citizens through the Canadian education savings grants so that their parents can save for their children's education. The moment a child is born in Canada, its family and the government can begin to make contributions to finance their learning down the road. About 1.8 million Canadian children currently benefit from this innovative program.

Improvements have been made to support savings efforts made by low income and middle income families. All parents want the best for their children. That includes children achieving their full learning potential. The problem is that many families, particularly low income families, have trouble setting aside money for their children's education.

That is why the Government of Canada has introduced several new measures designed to encourage parents to start saving for their children's education right away. We recognize that our youth need education and training for challenging careers that will unleash their talents and bring them a bright future, but we must do more for families and students who feel challenged by the costs of post-secondary education today.

That is why we are working with our partners and key stakeholders to provide students with the financial assistance they require to pursue a post-secondary education. Through the Canada student loans program and a number of Canada study grants, we are doing much to help students cope with the rising costs of post-secondary education.

Over the last 40 years, the Canada student loans program has earned respect across the country by helping students meet the costs of a post-secondary education. About 350,000 Canadian students a year benefit from this program, which last year loaned $1.6 billion to students in need. We also introduced a new grant worth up to $3,000, which will help up to 20,000 students from low income families cover a portion of their first year tuition.

The Government of Canada supports post-secondary education in a variety of ways. A few examples are the Canada graduate scholarships, Canada study grants for students with dependents and for high needs students with permanent disabilities, as well as funding of higher education for aboriginal students and Industry Canada's support of distance education.

Members should be aware that Canada is the second biggest investor in the world in post-secondary education as a percentage of gross domestic product.

Our employment insurance program has continued to adapt to meet economic realities and will keep changing to meet the needs of Canadians. Canadians know they can count on employment insurance as a social safety net that is there when they need it, in times of job loss and economic downturns.

We are also giving unemployed Canadians new hope with special measures designed to help them get work experience, improve their job skills or start a new business. So far, more than 667,000 Canadians have been given these opportunities under the employment benefits and support measures of EI.

One of the pressure points of the new economy is finding enough workers with the right education and the right training. All new jobs require more education and skills than ever before. Roughly 70% of jobs now demand some form of post-secondary education. And on this front, as Canadians we certainly distinguish ourselves in the world, with the highest proportion of 24- to 65-year-olds with post-secondary education.

Despite this, we know that as many as 42% of working age Canadians already in the workforce lack the necessary literacy and other essential skills to meet these requirements. Too many good jobs are going begging in our country right now because we do not have people who match the right skill set.

There is a real disconnect in Canada between the need for a trained, skilled workforce and the opportunities available for workers to meet that need. We must close the skills gap if we are going to thrive and prosper as a nation in the 21st century. That is why we are committed to developing a new workplace skills strategy to ensure that Canada has the skilled, adaptable workforce it needs for the future.

We recognize that the workplace is where economic activity occurs. It is where Canadian workers' skills are put to the test as firms strive to become more innovative and more productive. As such, is an appropriate place for adult skills development. We intend to work with unions at their training sites and with businesses in the workplace through sector councils to develop this new workplace skills strategy, boosting literacy and other essential job skills for apprentices and workers.

I particularly wish to stress the important role I see unions playing in this process. Unions have resources and they have influence that will help in promoting more skills development. The workplace skills strategy will build on current federal programs and activities such as sector council initiatives, as well as apprenticeship programs, essential skills and workplace literacy initiatives, foreign credential recognition and labour mobility.

In all these activities we will collaborate with industry partners, employers and unions, as well as learning organizations and provincial and territorial governments, to promote the cost effective development of skills driven by the needs of the workplace. All these initiatives are part of the mandate of the new Department of Human Resources and Skills Development.

We understand that Canada is a stronger country when all people are able to contribute their skills and talents to our labour market and to society. I am genuinely excited about the momentum that is beginning to build as people start to understand the enormous potential for Canada in the new global economy.

With this ambitious agenda, our government is working to build the workforce for the 21st century in Canada, robust and strong and able to compete with the best in the world.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, before question period, I was on the point of discussing the issue of housing and homelessness among people with disabilities in the community. This issue has come up in the House today and in communities across the country. I wanted to cite a number of important statistics.

Almost half of the homeless population, which is growing, has a disability and one in seven persons with a disability has affordability problems with respect to housing. According to the 1986 census, more than half of the owned households where a person with a disability lived earned less than $30,000 per year. Over 80% of rented households where a person with a disability lived earned less than this. In Toronto 37.5% of persons with disabilities live in poverty. Most shelters cannot accommodate individuals who need support with daily living, and the structural accessibility of shelters continues to be a barrier for persons with disabilities.

One in five persons with disabilities need housing adaptations of some kind. Cost is the most commonly cited barrier for adults with disabilities not acquiring needed adaptations. Persons with disabilities in rental accommodations and rooming and boarding houses are least likely to be satisfied with their accommodations. Cost has been cited by persons with disabilities across the country, who wish to move yet cannot, as the major barrier preventing relocation.

I raise these issues in the framework of Bill C-23 because we are not doing nearly enough to address the important needs of persons with disabilities. Much more can be done. We can ease the financial burden upon those with disabilities by making the disability and medical expense tax credits fully refundable. We can provide child care and respite care for families who look after children with disabilities. That should be instituted.

Many people with disabilities today have trouble accessing adequate long term home care, and often only receive this immediately after being in hospital. This is simply insufficient. Living standards should be improved for persons with disabilities.

We have looked at the issue of transport. There was a time in the past when Canada was seen as a world leader in improving accessibility to rail and air transportation for persons with disabilities. We now find that the government's decision to rely on voluntary codes of practice rather than federal regulations has halted further advancement in this area. Many people with disabilities across the country believe the situation has regressed.

Navigating the waters, which I have brought up in the House, is a national employment initiative of the Canadian Association of Independent Living Centres. It has supported over 5,000 persons with disabilities by helping them upgrade their skills and find jobs, at a cost of only $950,000 per year. As I mentioned, that program has been threatened with closure because of inadequate federal funding. This is shameful.

We have a situation where the lives of persons with disabilities could be dramatically improved, yet they have not been addressed. We hope, by studying the bill in committee, that it will help to start to address these important issues for people with disabilities.

It is tragic to see that disabled people account for 41% of those who must rely on food banks. It is also tragic that close to half of the homeless are disabled people. So, these last 10 years have been terrible and full of challenges for the disabled.

We are looking forward to discussing these issues in committee, in the weeks or months to come. We will ask disabled people to come and testify and to talk about their lives, in the hope that we can improve this legislation, and that we can also begin to improve their lot in Canadian society.

Human Resources and Skills Development Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I am addressing the presentation of the government's proposed Bill C-23, specifically known as an act to establish to the Department of Social Development and to amend and repeal certain related acts.

The bill establishes the department of social development, over which presides the Minister of Social Development. The bill sets out the minister's powers, duties and functions. It also describes the rules for the protection and the making available of personal information obtained under departmental programs, other than those covered by similar codes found in the Canada pension plan and the Old Age Security Act.

The bill proposes to legalize in statute what the government has already done by order in council. The Government of Canada is asking Parliament to approve this human resources and skills development act, but we must never forget the order of things. The governments may propose, but Parliament must ultimately vote the appropriation. Parliament is not the government.

I observe that there have been many within the Liberal orb who have been on the inside and in power positions so long that they think Parliament is just another hurdle in a process, and often just an inconvenience to them for the senior bureaucrats to have their way. Too often it looks like they have their way with these, what I would describe, rather weak Liberal politicians. It seems they are quite comfortable that they can manoeuvre these less than visionary politicians around to have what they want.

It is an approach that says Canada will get what the Liberals deem is good for the country, what they know is best for the rest of us. That whole superior attitude is what I smell in this bill and also with sister Bill C-22. The two bills take care of each part of the old department which was divided into two, and this being the so-called social development side.

Now the hon. member for Eglinton—Lawrence was made Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development upon appointment to cabinet. One wonders if he has looked more like a deer caught in the headlights about all the manoeuvring around the creation of these two departments out of the former one large department known as HRDC. It certainly was not this minister's decision to do so.

Human Resources Development Canada was reorganized into two new departments: Social Development Canada, SDC, and Human Resources Skills Development Canada, HRSDC. Both departments are presently still governed by the existing Department of Human Resources Development Act.

The Prime Minister, somewhere with his unelected advisers, agreed to what had been put to them by the bureaucracy about this plan. The Commons standing committee from the previous Parliament had also been led along to believe that this was the way to go. However, it remains to be seen just how wise this move is. Any such disturbing change is disruptive to lower level staff. There is always a lot of internal energy wasted with office changes, clarifying mission statements, shuffling of staff and their physical offices, creating new positions and then staffing them with all the subsequent union appeals and the hurt feelings that go along with it. New reporting relationships with new materials in hand with unspecified and unclear budget authorities also come at quite a cost. There is also a huge loss in productivity when there is such so-called reorganization.

I have observed that the Liberals have not been very good managers in the past, so why should this scheme go any better than the others? The best ideas on paper often do not deliver meaningful and productive outcomes for the consumer of the service. The effort to get from point A to destination B and C at the same time, with different parts of an old team, can be quite inefficient.

The Government of Canada has tabled the human resources and skills development act, which contains the mandate of the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development and the Minister of Labour and Housing. The mandate is included in the act to provide a foundation and a rationale for the department's programs. For the first time, the legislation includes a proposed harmonized code governing the disclosure of personal information of Canadians. This new code is supposed to provide more consistency in administering personal information than is currently the case, given the various statutory and regulatory provisions governing the disclosure of personal information. The Liberals claim the bill provides a greater degree of transparency for Canadians. We will see about that. If anything, the government has been anything but transparent in the past.

We go back to December 12, 2003, when the government had to do something to look like it was a little different from the previous regime, so it picked on this one. By means of a series of orders in council, made pursuant to the Public Service Rearrangement and Transfer of Duties Act, various portions of the Department of Human Resources Development and related powers, duties and functions of the Minister of Human Resources Development were transferred to the new Department of Human Resources and Skills Development Canada, HRSDC, to a new Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development.

Therefore, the arrangement on the ground is a done deal, and the shuffling has been going on, money is being spent and lives are being affected, but Parliament has not yet granted its approval. This is the way Liberals do things. They now admit that department legislation is required to address these new mandates and responsibilities of Social Development Canada, SDC, and the Human Resources and Skills Development Canada.

Maybe Parliament should not be blackmailed in this way. Maybe we should say no. Then what? Maybe we should raise the low hurdle around here and make the government really make its case for why this move is wise at this time and why the changes will substantially raise the quality and the value for dollar to the taxpayer. There is absolutely nothing that I have heard about case examples of how this change will help one single individual in his or her specific life situation.

The government says that the drafting of the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development legislation provides the opportunity to ensure that the minister and the department have the legal powers and tools needed to fulfill the minister's mandate. When has that ever stopped a Liberal? They Liberals claim that the HRDC is working closely with officials from SDC on legislative issues of mutual interest. I certainly hope so.

The minister then goes on to say that the proposed legislation includes a harmonized code of governing the disclosure of personal information. Liberals say that there are some enhancements here that other statutes of privacy laws do not sufficiently cover. If this is so and more legislation is really needed, that fact poorly reflects on the core law of privacy in Canada. I suppose more will be revealed about this whole mess in due course. They claim that this new code will replace the current five statutory and regulatory regimes that govern the disclosure of personal information. If this is needed, then where is the agenda to fix the whole thing? In a way, it is an admission of legal weakness for privacy law, but they will never admit that now will they?

Liberals assert that the additional new code will provide more consistency in administering personal information than is currently the case, given the various statutory and regulatory provisions governing the disclosure of personal information. They say that it provides a greater degree of transparency for Canadians resulting from this harmonization, and codifies the current administrative practices to protect personal information used for research purposes. It also includes an offence provision for knowingly disclosing personal information violating privacy laws. The code also describes departmental commitments, these nice sounding phrases of reassurance to protect the privacy of Canadians, including both the use of personal information for internal research and the conditions for disclosure of personal information outside the department.

The Liberals say that they are committed to improving the social and economic well-being of all Canadians, including the most disadvantaged, and will deliver accountable and efficient policies and programs. They have not done it yet, so I do not see any evidence that this rearrangement of the deck chairs on the ship will do much in that regard.They have not made its central case.

They put it this way. Liberals say, in the promotional literature, that Human Resources and Skills Development Canada plays a key role in meeting the commitments through its efforts to help Canadians acquire skills to get productive and meaningful jobs. They go on and say that it will enhance the access to a post-secondary education, promote skills development and promote a cultural of lifelong learning. They boast that these efforts will result in a better quality of life for all Canadians. That is quite a mouthful. One can ask those who do not have a job or who cannot afford to upgrade training how they feel about what is out there now for those who want to improve themselves, and one will find quite a different story.

That group has been in power for over 10 years. The situation on the ground is their responsibility.

Then Liberals claim labour and housing programs will continue to promote safe, healthy, stable and cooperative workplaces and will continue efforts to help communities reduce homelessness. Such promises do not make the grade. Any average Canadian knows that homelessness is much worse now than it was, say during the period of 1984 to 1993. Just try to walk to Parliament Hill. One has to be blind not to see the situation. The last Liberal leader actually claimed that he talked to a homeless person. At least our Governor General tried in east side Vancouver this year to do it. When was the last time our Prime Minister ever stopped his limo cavalcade to talk to and tune into what it is like for those sleeping on the sidewalk by which he zooms?

For the bill, there is also the assertion that the legislation will provide the framework to ensure that the Government of Canada continues to make Canadians the best trained and most highly skilled workers in the world. We have never been there internationally as a whole and despite this kind of overblown rhetoric, I am skeptical that the department reorganization will deliver the kind of sensitive and comprehensive help that is really needed to meet those kinds of inflated objectives.

I want to hear the government really make its case for these two bills, Bill C-22 and Bill C-23. I am prepared to compliment the government when it goes in the right direction, but so far what we have seen and heard is a lot of bureaucratese and not much reality selling of substance to Parliament, where the ultimate approval must be made. I wish them well.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say at the outset that we do not oppose this bill. It is a position that we take, however, not without many reservations.

In the recent election campaign, one of the major messages I received from my constituents was their concern that there was a government in Ottawa, a Liberal government, that was rife with waste. They saw a lot of mismanagement. Their concern was to see a lot of this corrected. That is what they asked me to do here in Ottawa, in large part.

It is not a coincidence, I believe, that what we are seeing in this bill is really an effort to rename the HRDC Department, that my colleague had so much trouble recalling. It is a name of a department that many Liberals might wish to forget because of course the HRDC Department had a notorious track record for bad management and bad waste. That HRDC boondoggle is something that the government wants people to forget. Why not use the easiest device, in the finest traditions of George Orwell, of using language and names? The new name of HRSDC is one way of leaving behind that HRDC history and the bad memories that went with it. I believe that has a lot to do with why we are facing the bill in front of us.

However, in practical terms, there is very little that I see coming from this legislation that achieves any successful outcome in terms of reducing government waste and mismanagement. In fact, in a similar vein, my constituents wanted to see a smaller and more responsive government. That is very much something that they wanted to see from government that had been lacking from Ottawa in the past.

Through the process of these companion bills that would create the new Department of Human Resources and Skills Development and the Minister of Social Development, the effect would indeed be to create an additional cabinet post, a new department and , in fact a larger, more diffuse and bureaucratic government. I am not sure that is what my constituents want to see when they think in terms of a smaller and more responsive government.

Curiously, we see an aspect of the legislation that says there may be a labour minister. It would be an optional consideration. We do have a Minister of Labour in this government but, apparently, it would be an optional position, suggesting that once again we are looking at a government that is much larger than it needs to be. That is a question that we are all concerned about.

Overall, one of the most troublesome aspects of the course we have followed here, and we heard it in one of the questions across the way, is the question of the process that this has followed. It is a process that speaks to the continued arrogance of the government, and in fact a lack of respect for this House of Commons and Parliament.

This department was effectively created through order in council a year ago. It has continued to operate for a year without any bill ever coming before Parliament to create the new departments and to divide them. The fact that this bill is before us today to create that department suggests to me one of two possible potential rationales.

First, it is an acknowledge of the government that the process that has been followed was in fact inappropriate and that the government should have come to this House of Commons before creating that department. The only other option is that the bill is in front of us as indeed a waste of time, something with which to keep this House busy.

I do not believe that the government is interested in wasting the time of the members in this House. It values that. That leads me to conclude that we are facing a piece of legislation that would make legal what is in effect a fait accompli, operating by order in council for about a year. That, to me, smacks of a disrespect for this institution, the House of Commons, and the processes of Parliament.

I want to talk a bit about the importance of treating taxpayers with respect and treating taxpayer dollars with respect.

The reorganization of the departments does not come without a cost. Any reorganization of this nature does require time and effort. Restructuring always involves costs. Often, we want to see restructuring taking place in order to save money and create efficiencies. I do not see any efficiencies coming out of this, but I do see additional costs coming from that. I see a lack of respect for the taxpayers of Canada through the steps being taken in this process before us. I do not see the companion material benefit that we would like to have.

I did notice in the legislation a recognition of the continuation of the Employment Insurance Commission. That brings me to another important point that I think is worthy of some comment in passing in this House. The way that the employment insurance system has been run in this country for close to a decade is similar to the other concerns I have about the attitude of the government toward taxpayers who are really viewed as people from whom to grab revenues for the purposes of the government rather than people to be served.

There have been enormous surpluses generated out of that system. Those surpluses come from the real money paid by workers and by employers through their employment insurance premiums. Yet, while they think they are getting insurance for those dark days when they might face the need to search for a job when they lose theirs, in fact, that money has not been pouring into a fund. For several years now, it has just been pouring into general revenues.

Some $46 billion has been grabbed from the workers and employers in this country and diverted to the general revenues to be spent on programs entirely unrelated to the needs of workers and unrelated to their insurance for the dark days when they lose a job. That smacks of arrogance of a government that sees every program and every chance to reach into people's pockets as a chance to grab their money for the ongoing operations of government.

That is not what employment insurance is about. That is not what it should be about. That ongoing surplus will continue to run this year. One need only look at the numbers of projected economic growth and revenues that have been coming in to know that this tax grab will continue. That is simply unacceptable.

I hope that through the continuation of the commission the government will see the opportunity in the weeks and months ahead to bring in real changes to restore the operation of the employment insurance system to a genuine insurance system that serves the needs of workers and employers.

Right now it is serving as a tax. It is a tax on jobs. It is a tax on economic growth. It is a tax on prosperity. The worst part of it all is that it is a tax that is regressive. It hits those ordinary workers more than anyone else. That is because after a person passes a certain income level the government stops collecting the tax. That person has topped out his or her contributions. It is a regressive tax. It is a tax that hurts the constituents in York—Simcoe tremendously. People are working hard. They are trying to get ahead and make a better life for their family. That is something that we need to see changed.

I look at Bill C-23 and, other than the opportunity perhaps to use that vehicle of continuing the employment insurance commission as a vehicle for further change in the future, I do not see a great deal of improvement. All I see is a process that leaves us with a lot of questions about the way the government does business and its lack of respect for the elected representatives of the people of Canada.

However, that being said, what would be the implication if we were to oppose the bill and put back the genie in the bottle of creating a new department? At this point in time I expect that it would only create further additional costs from a further reorganization. That is why we on this side find ourselves in the very uncomfortable position of being faced with a decision on do we or do we not support something that happened a year ago? Do we or do we not support a reorganization and the creation of a new department that happened a year ago?

In those circumstances, the challenges of the choice that we have to make can be surely understood. That is why, reluctantly, we will not be opposing this bill. We will only support it because of our concerns with the potential cost of trying to roll-back that restructuring at this late stage in the game.

[Stephen Owen, 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 second time and referred to a committee.

First Nations Fiscal and Statistical Management Act

[Jeremy Harrison, Conservative, Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in support of Bill C-20, the first nations fiscal and statistical institutions initiative. The act would provide for real property taxation powers of first nations, create a first nations tax commission, first nations financial management board, first nations finance authority and a first nations statistical institute, as well as making consequential amendments to other acts.

The bill was tabled in the previous Parliament as Bill C-23 but was not passed before dissolution. The purpose of the act is to create the above-mentioned institutions with the intention that those institutions provide first nations with the tools needed for economic development primarily by facilitating access to capital markets for much needed infrastructure development.

We should make no mistake that infrastructure development is sorely needed on first nations right across the country. I know this first hand. In my riding of Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River there are over 30 first nations and 108 separate reserves. Many are in desperate circumstances with incredible and severe problems. Any access to additional tools for economic development and improvements to infrastructure are a positive thing.

The four institutions that would be created by this act are designed to provide participating first nations with the tools they need to build stronger local tax bases, infrastructure and economies. Economic independence is intended to be pursued by improved access to private capital.

Participation will be restricted to ensure that only those first nations that have demonstrated the requisite managerial and financial capacity will have access to the borrowing capacity of these new institutions. The first nations financial authority will allow participating first nations, like local governments, to raise long term private capital at preferred rates for infrastructure development. They will do so by securitizing a portion of their potential real property tax revenues generated under the bill. It is estimated that $120 million in debt financing will be raised over the first five bond issues. These funds will allow first nations to develop infrastructure that supports business and investments.

At this point I would like to stress that the legislation does not provide federal government credit backing or guarantees and that borrowing participation is voluntary, as are the advisory services. First nations choosing to participate in the first nations finance authority will pool together their capital. The FNFA will act as a central borrowing authority by selling bonds on the strength of the first nations collective credit. They will attempt to achieve an A credit rating.

The qualifying and participating first nations will be required to guarantee one another's debt. The finance authority will establish eligibility requirements, issue first nations debentures and re-lend the proceeds to those first nations participating in the borrowing. In concert with such borrowing, the on reserve property tax system will be gradually expanded to provide debt service cash flow. The result will be to provide qualifying first nations with the comparable credit for infrastructure expansion to that available to municipal authorities elsewhere in Canada.

The second new institution that would created under the act, the first nations tax commission, is essentially the natural evolution of the current Indian Tax Advisory Board. The ITAB has worked to build awareness of the real property tax system and provide the tools for its implementation. The FNTC will have the authority to approve first nations tax bylaws, a power that is currently exercised by the minister alone. The FNTC will also provide sample bylaws, training, education and an alternative dispute resolution process to prevent and resolve disputes.

At present, 100 first nations levy property tax, collecting $44 million annually from 28,000 taxpayers. The FNTC will be responsible for the development and regulation of first nation property tax systems. It will assume responsibility for the approval of bylaws, ensure compliance and provide dispute resolution mechanisms for on reserve taxation, providing an alternative to the Indian Act property tax system.

Another new institution mandated in the bill is the creation of the first nations financial management board. The initial task of this new institution will be to provide the independent and professional financial management assessment services required by participating first nations. It will provide professional advice to those first nations that have entered the FNFA borrowing pool and provide training and services related to policy development for all first nations.

The final new institution that would be created under Bill C-20 is the first nations statistical institute. This organization is intended to provide statistical data and analysis of the social, economic and environmental conditions of first nations. It will supplant Statistics Canada in the development of statistical information, support borrowing, credit rating, property taxation and provide information for marketplace investors. It is intended to address the current lack of capacity of first nations to maintain statistical systems needed to match their growing local decision making responsibilities.

I must admit that I have some problems with the creation of this institution. This institute will clearly duplicate the services that are supposed to be supplied by Statistics Canada, a federal agency that receives $600 million per year in funding.

Why does this institute have to be created? The answer is not entirely clear, but to me it would seem to indicate a failure on the part of StatsCan to keep adequate information on first nations across the country.

Although I have stated that I support this bill, I also am somewhat worried about the costs associated with the creation of the new institutions I have talked about. It is estimated that the cost over the first five years will be $67.3 million. This is based on a start-up of $9 million and operational costs over the five year period of $58.3 million. The objective of the financing authority is to be self-financing. I sincerely hope that this is the case. There are also opportunities for some cost recovery with the other institutions, although break-even, by even the best estimates, will occur in 2010.

Another concern I have is that this bill may also underscore a trend we are starting to see develop, namely, a schism between have and have not first nations. Only time will tell in this regard.

It cannot be stressed enough that this bill is an initiative of first nations leaders from across the country. These leaders are seeking the gradual removal of their communities from the Indian Act. They blame much of the on-reserve poverty, joblessness, and the minimal wealth creation on the poor quality infrastructure and institutional limitations of the Indian Act.

Mr. Manny Jules, spokesperson for the first nations fiscal institutions initiative, has said:

This legislation is the bedrock on which you can break the dependency cycle. The creation of the First Nations Tax Commission, First Nations Finance Authority, First Nations Financial Management Board and First Nations Statistical Institute will provide the information, certainty, a regulatory framework, confidence and infrastructure required to attract investment to First Nation lands.

The hallmark of this bill is its optional nature, which recognizes the diversity among first nations. This legislation will apply only to those first nations that have chosen to access the full range of services offered by the institutions in the areas of property taxation and financial management. Solid capacities in these areas are essential for the future of first nations from coast to coast.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

As my hon. colleague says, it is déjà vu all over again. I do not mind doing that because frankly I believe that with each incarnation the bill does in fact begin to take a form that we in the New Democratic Party caucus can work with.

We had a great number of reservations about the previous incarnations. We were not at all satisfied with Bill C-23 when it came before the 37th Parliament. I believe we have articulated those views and voiced them. They exist on the record. I do not think I have to belabour the point here today to make it abundantly clear that we rejected the first nations governance act as it was and we rejected this bill because it became part of that suite of bills which was known as the first nations governance initiative. We thought the timing was poor, the treatment of it was poor, and the content of the bill was poor. I suppose one could say we were critical of just about every aspect of that bill.

However, I do recognize the advantages of components of Bill C-20. I recognize that the finance authority borrowing pool idea could be advantageous for smaller communities that may benefit from sharing the risk and the lending or borrowing ability with other larger, more stable and established first nations.

I point out that this is an idea that finds its origins within the New Democratic Party, in fact, with members of Parliament from British Columbia who worked very closely with the provincial government and B.C. municipalities to form the B.C. Municipal Finance Authority, which in a similar way gives strength to those smaller communities that may in fact be able to borrow money at a better rate and get a better bonding rating in their efforts to finance economic development initiatives in their communities.

Another aspect of Bill C-20 is that it seeks to create another fiscal institution called the tax commission. When we are dealing with first nations taxation, we are dealing in this case with the rights of first nations communities to tax, for instance and perhaps, property owners who may be renting or leasing property from them. I think sometimes in terms of cottage property in some areas.

However, there is another issue of first nations taxation that we should comment on today. While I have the floor I wish to draw the attention of the members here to a recent change in the way the government treats first nations in terms of taxation and that is as it pertains to post-secondary students.

Many of the members may not be aware, but a fundamental change is taking place. For the first time ever, the tuition given to first nations students and their cost of living allowances and so on will be taxed. Thus, in my view, first nations will be able to send fewer students to university because those students have to pay income tax on these student loans and student cost of living allowances given to them by their communities so they can seek post-secondary education.

I raise this because even though there was a huge protest from the Assembly of First Nations, this will be implemented in the next taxation year. This is a shot across the bow on treaty rights, because by the Government of Canada saying it is going to start taxing student allowances it is also saying that it does not see post-secondary education as a treaty right. It sees it as a policy.

The government is trivializing and reducing the fiduciary obligation under aboriginal treaty rights to provide education per se. Nowhere in the Constitution and nowhere in any treaty does it say “education meaning kindergarten to grade 12” is a treaty right. It says “education” is a treaty right. This is a shot across the bow by the government to start to tax those benefits. I am very critical of this.

I want to recognize and pay tribute to the efforts of aboriginal students right across this country under the guidance and leadership of Algonquin College counsellor Kimberley Smith Spencer, who is also the president of the Ontario Native Education Counselling Association. She and a bunch of committed activists and students have developed a petition of 11,000 signatures of people across this country who think it is fundamentally wrong to make this policy shift and start taxing tuition fees and living-out allowances of first nations students, because the predictable consequences will be that there will be fewer first nations students in post-secondary education. It is as simple as that. What a glaring contradiction.

I met just last week with the Minister of Indian Affairs and he itemized for me what his main priorities would be for this parliamentary session. Let us guess what they were. Post-secondary education was number one and housing was number two. Those were his main priorities.

At the same time he is stating that post-secondary education is his main priority, his government is starting to tax this benefit that used to enjoy a tax free status so that first nations students could get the post-secondary education they needed and so that communities could build the administrative capacity they needed.

We all know that the way to go from poverty to the middle class in one generation is through education. Is there anybody here who does not agree that the most important thing we could possibly do as first nations communities are welcomed into the mainstream of Canada is to help them educate a generation of capable, competent and suitably skilled students with graduate certificates from post-secondary institutions?

I cannot help deviating from the topic in this way because we are called upon today to make a speech about the creation of a brand new first nations tax commission and one cannot mention first nations taxation without noticing this glaring contradiction in the policy of the government. It is like having an elephant in the bedroom and trying to pretend it is not there. I cannot not talk about what the government is doing regarding the practical problems that first nations students face.

I know of many communities and I will mention one. Chief Moses Okimaw spoke to me from God's Lake in northern Manitoba. He said his community can only afford to send a few students per year out for post-secondary education.

My time is almost up, but I will just illustrate the scope and breadth of the problem. Yes, post-secondary education is granted to aboriginal people as a treaty right. We view it as a treaty right; the government apparently views it as a policy decision. But it is a bit of a Catch-22 when there is not enough money within the community to send more than a couple of students per year. And now it is taxed. If a student is given $10,000 a year for a living-out allowance for school and has to pay taxes on it, that leaves the student with $5,000 or $6,000 to actually spend. Fewer students will be able to go to school by virtue of this policy shift. I believe it is completely contrary to the government's own stated goals and objectives.

It is completely contrary to all the romantic and flowery language we hear from the Prime Minister all the time that this is the generation of social justice for aboriginal people. If that were true, we would not see a policy direction like this as it pertains to education. The most effective tool to fight poverty in aboriginal communities is to put forward a generation of aboriginal kids who are trained and skilled and have the administrative capacity to lead their people out of poverty and into the mainstream of Canada.

I recognize, pay tribute to and celebrate the actions of the students who are sending this message to the Government of Canada. I know they have brought 11,000 signatures in a petition today, which I will be proud to table in the House of Commons at the earliest opportunity. I know that the people of Canada want the government to listen to this common sense and reasoning.