Debates of Nov. 22nd, 2004

Department of Human Resources and Skills Development Act

[Jim Gouk, Conservative, Southern Interior, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I actually enjoyed the comments of my colleague from the NDP. There are a couple of points coming from his party that I am very interested in. I just wanted to clarify them and see if I have indeed heard right.

One was that he endorsed generally the Irish system, which gives free post-secondary education based on one's skills and ability to learn. It is not free for everyone. It is free for those who have the aptitude and the capacity to learn and the will to do that. If indeed that is what the NDP is supporting as opposed to free education for all, it would be a switch in its policy.

Second was that there would be free boarding and/or free food, or at least grants towards that, and it would be based essentially on a means test. It would not be free for everyone; it would be free for those who need it. Frankly, I am very much in agreement with that.

The third thing is the advocating of free post-secondary education. He went on quite eloquently about it, explaining how the community benefits when these people come back into the community and the benefits they would provide to their communities, their regions and indeed the country. However, the problem we would have with this is that we already find that we are pretty heavily hit by campaigners and recruiters from the United States industry. What would we do if we provided free education for our students and the benefits then indeed went down to the United States in answering one of these recruiters?

Could he clarify those first two things, that they are indeed what he and his party are supporting, and on the third one, how we would deal with Canada providing free education and the United States, among other countries, getting all the economic benefit from it?

[Tony Martin, NDP, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his participation in this debate this afternoon. I will remind him of a time when he went to university, perhaps, as I did, a time when people applied for it if they did not have the means, but in Canada one still has to qualify.

I do not know about him, but I have four children at home, two in university now. They had to achieve a certain level of marks in the last year of high school in order to qualify for the programs they are in, so that is already here in this country. We already ask of our students that they achieve certain marks in school so they can move on and be accepted into university.

I do not know if he has any children who in the last few years have tried to get into certain universities, but it is quite competitive. As a matter of fact, it is very competitive. I have no difficulty with that. My problem, though, is the fact that there are a lot of young people who have the ability and have shown that they can participate and be successful, but they are not moving on because of the phenomenal financial circumstances they would find themselves in.

When I was going to university, as I started to say, we could apply for loans and grants. We got a certain amount in loan and a certain amount in grant. That grant normally went to help with those ancillary things one needs while at university.

I would have no difficulty with some of what the member has suggested. I would suggest that our party would not have any difficulty with it either. I think we need to enter into a very lively and constructive discussion around some of those things so that we can in fact make sure that this new ministry, as it considers that, puts this in place.

I think that education is only one part of a larger industrial strategy that we need to be talking about for this country, which would put in place those job opportunities for our young people so they do not have to go to the United States or to other countries out there that are in fact competing for their skills now. They would stay in Canada and work in those industries, which I think we have the potential to grow and to support in being successful in this country.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a brief question for my newly discovered cousin from Ireland. I have met him recently, but I know from my brother his real passion and commitment to social causes. I commend him for that and I share that.

I have a specific question. Earlier we heard a member from the Bloc suggest that the best way to achieve some of our social goals was for the federal government to give money to the provinces and have it administered through the provinces. Homelessness, I think, was the example he cited. As we know, post-secondary education and education in general are provincial responsibilities.

Notwithstanding his comments and how he feels about the money that the federal government has put into things like post-secondary education and in particular homelessness, how do we ensure that the provinces will have an equal standard across the country and that the money gets used? Becapse there is great inequity.

My own Province of Nova Scotia has money sitting in a fund that it has refused to match or do anything with for homelessness. I believe it is in the order of $13 million to $15 million in Nova Scotia, which is significant. Also, now that we have hundreds of millions of dollars going to the province of Nova Scotia in the health accord and equalization and this offshore accord that offers my province 100% of offshore royalties shielded from equalization, now that we have money going to provinces for things like that, how do we ensure that the provinces will have an equal standard across the country in ensuring that the money gets used? There is great inequity. In Nova Scotia, for example, we have the highest tuition.

My question is very sincere. I would like to hear if he has any ideas. How do we ensure that the provinces are willing partners on these programs?

[Tony Martin, NDP, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think we would do it in a way similar to what we have done in health care, where we put in place a legislative framework which insists that if the provinces get this money they in fact spend it in the places it is supposed to be spent. For example, on the national child care program, we are asking the Minister of Social Development to make sure there is a legislative framework in place such that the provinces, when they get this money, have to spend it on child care.

I would say the same thing for education. The federal government has to play a stronger role. It has to put in place those vehicles necessary to insist and to make sure that the governments spend the money where they said they would spend it when they got it in the first place.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the member for Sault Ste. Marie for his eloquence and also for his vision. After the last 20 years of what we have seen, first, in the 10 years of the Mulroney Conservatives, with the record cutbacks, budget deficits and financial mismanagement, and then in the last 10 years of the Liberal government, where we have seen consistent cuts putting the corporate sector ahead of the community, I found the hon. member's vision very positive and enlightening. At the beginning of this year, for example, record corporate tax cuts were brought in rather than funding adequately the communities that we know are impacted across the country. After all of that, I found the hon. member's vision very positive and enlightening.

He did mention GAP. He mentioned the disconnect between what happens here in Ottawa and what is happening in communities. He mentioned the GAP program in his area of northern Ontario. Earlier in my speech I mentioned Navigating the Waters, a wonderful employment program for persons with disabilities. It has been slashed and will end at the end of this year.

Basically we are seeing the country turned upside down. I want to ask the hon. member about this. In his opinion, how do we turn from the last 20 years, with the country being turned upside down and the devastating impact in communities, to turning this country right side up so that Canadians can finally start to benefit from an improved quality of life and we can start to address these important social issues?

[Tony Martin, NDP, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, certainly the program the hon. member mentions in his area is not dissimilar from the program that is being offered now or had been offered in northern colleges. It is an example of the sort of short term thinking that has been taking place over the last number of years in training and skills development. I think we have to get into more longer term planning. Significant money has to be targeted at some of these initiatives in order for them to have the potential to be as successful as we know they can be.

Let us get away from the short term, one-time, pots of money kind of planning to some longer term investments that people can count on and build and grow so that they will in fact work for all of us.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx)]

There are 30 seconds left on the clock, so we will have a very quick question from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development.

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

Mr. Speaker, it will be a comment, then, if that is all the time I have. I do want to caution the member when he is talking about Ireland and Finland, which I think he mentioned, because we have considerably more in post-secondary education than either of those two countries. We also have a significantly higher percentage of the workforce engaged in the workforce, or in other words, a potential workforce engaged, than either of those two countries. I am extremely wary of tests of the type that he describes. I think there are better ways of doing that, and in particular, better ways from the point of view of students from disadvantaged families.

[Tony Martin, NDP, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, of course I disagree with the member in terms of his view of which has more employment than the other. Ireland is reaching into eastern Europe now to find people to fill some of the jobs that are available there because all of its people are trained and working. That is not the case in Canada. In northern and rural Canada--

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Marcel Proulx)]

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Gatineau.

[Françoise Boivin, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first, I want to begin by quoting the Prime Minister who said:

We want a Canada where every child arrives at school ready to learn; a Canada where everyone has the opportunity for post-secondary education regardless of geography or means; a Canada where universal literacy and lifelong learning are part of the national fabric.

Full of wisdom and vision, these words summarize entirely the purpose of the bill that is before us today in this House.

In December 2003, the government established the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development through a series of orders in council.

Today, by means of a legislation, we are specifying the mandate and responsibilities of this new department. By the same token, this legislation will formalize the division of Human Resources Development Canada, that is HRDC, into two separate entities.

The goal is not to make economies of scale or reduce the operating expenses. The resources of the previous department, that is Human Resources Development Canada, are rather divided in two in order to obtain better strategic results. That does not mean that we should prepare a negative report on the performance of HRDC for the last decade. On the contrary, this department has rendered valuable services to Canadians, both on the social and economic fronts.

I am thinking of the improved and extended parental benefits plan that allowed thousands of families to fully enjoy their newborn. I am thinking of the implementation of the Canada child tax benefit, deemed the most progressive social action since the universal health care plan. I am also thinking of the youth employment strategy that allowed thousands of young people to regain confidence and to realize that there was a future for them in this country. I am thinking of the transition from unemployment insurance to employment insurance that steered our society toward employability.

In 2003-04, more than 700,000 Canadians received help from the department through the employment benefits paid under the Employment Insurance Act. In Quebec, more that 50,000 people re-entering the labour force received assistance.

I am also thinking of all the measures put forward to ensure that certain groups facing specific difficulties, like native Canadians, handicapped people, older and seasonal workers, can fulfill their dream.

All these measures, programs and initiatives are a testimony to the considerable efforts made by HRDC to strengthen the social fabric of Canadian life.

With this bill today, we are proposing to start writing a new chapter, without erasing the previous ones of course. In short, this bill gives the Human Resources and Skills Development minister and department the mandate, legal powers and tools to ensure that the labour market and the skills development programs, including support programs for students, work properly.

If we create this department, it is mainly because our government wants to pay more attention to some important issues, like giving workers more opportunities to develop and increase their expertise in the workforce. We are studying a few issues, including the promotion of training opportunities in skilled trade, literacy training and the enhancement of skills for workers.

This is why we are working with the provinces and the territories, businesses, unions, workers and the sector councils to develop a skills development strategy in the workplace.

Such a strategy would help to develop a highly qualified and dynamic workforce and a flexible and productive labour market, while meeting the needs of employers who want to create productive and innovative workplaces.

In this changing world where new technologies are redefining complete areas of our society, we have a duty to give all of our citizens, young or not so young, the means to educate themselves, to create and to innovate.

The Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development spent a good part of his career in education. I am convinced that he will be an important ally in our efforts to ensure that all Canadians can learn and develop at all stages of their lives.

Having worked a lot in the area of labour relations and in numerous businesses before being elected to this House, I can assure you that the successful ones are the ones who emphasize in-house training, the ones that are not just marking time,but who decide to go forward and ensure that their human resources will always keep up with cutting edge technology or with the environment in which they are operating.

Thanks to the new department, we will have the opportunity to intensify our efforts to assure that every youth in this country will be able to get a post-secondary education if he or she wishes so. It is estimated that, in the future, 70% of all new jobs in this country will require post-secondary studies. Moreover, only 6% of jobs will be open to people without a high school diploma. These figures are revealing.

As a country, we can't allow young people gifted with talent and potential to miss the boat of the information age because they lack the financial means to afford an education and to get on board. As a government, we must make sure that they can not only get on board, but take the helm, as soon as possible.

To this end, last month, the minister of Human Resources and Skills Development tabled Bill C-5, aiming among other things, to help lower-income families to save money to eventually pay for post-secondary studies for their children. The bill will also allow such families to take greater advantage of the registered education savings plans and the related subventions.

As you can see, that department will help us to promote access to higher education, but it is clear that its mandate will be extensive and far-reaching. It will help us to face other emerging challenges.

Estimates show that by the year 2011, our workforce will not be able to grow without immigration; by 2020, there will be a shortage of one million workers in Canada; and by 2025, our population growth will depend exclusively on new arrivals. This means that over the next two decades, we will have to ensure that our immigration policies are as effective as possible and allow a total and complete integration of immigrants. If we do not meet this challenge, our ability to ensure an harmonious future to our children and our grandchildren will be broadly questioned, as well as Canada's competitiveness at the international level.

This new department's mandate will be, inter alia, to cooperate with Citizenship and Immigration Canada, other federal departments, provincial and territorial governments, professional licensing bodies, sectoral councils, employers and a large number of other organizations on the important issue of recognizing foreign credentials, in order to facilitate the integration of immigrants in the labour market and in society.

May I digress for a brief moment to talk about the extremely important issue of the recognition of foreign credentials. No later than a week or a week and a half ago, in Gatineau, there was a symposium held by the Conseil interculturel de l'Outaouais, which I am sure you know as well as I do, Mr. Speaker. The theme of that symposium was indeed the recognition of foreign credentials. Having spent the afternoon with them and having had dinner with them, I can tell you that I was absolutely flabbergasted.

One does indeed hear about it. One does hear stories about medical doctors waiting to be recognized and so on. I tried to draw a very dramatic parallel between that problem and our shortage of doctors and nurses, and our shortages of all kinds of skilled people in the Outaouais, among other places. I was looking at that skilled labour which is there, which exists, just waiting to be recognized by Quebec and Canada who were supposed to welcome them with open arms. That really flabbergasted me.

I heard horror stories from people who showed up that day, for example, a dentist from Colombia, a physician from another country, people that Canada will not even have to train in any way, because they are ready to practice. Nevertheless, we must be very realistic; there is always the issue of protecting the public. On the other hand, we must be careful not to hide behind this notion of protecting the public, what I call the closed shop mentality of a number of professional bodies.

As I told the participants that day, on the other hand, we must carefully respect jurisdictions. In this respect, Quebec has obligations. No doubt we will have to work with the Government of Quebec. If we can help it, that will certainly be very much appreciated. I have talked to a few of my colleagues in the Government of Quebec, and they have told us how much this concerns them as well.

On the other hand, what came out of this symposium, which was attended by very diverse cultural communities in the Ottawa valley, and the following symposium, is that it is indeed the professional bodies that are making the admission process difficult, that are complicating the process and that are making it prohibitively expensive to get these qualifications recognized.

We let these people in and, then, we have a dentist who works on the cleaning staff of a hospital instead of working for the community.

I met a pharmacist. There is a terrible shortage of pharmacists in Quebec. These people are there, they are ready, they can be tested, but not one test after another at a cost of $2,000, $2,500 or $3,000. What my friend the dentist from Colombia explained to me that day is that the cost of these tests was close to $10,000.

This is the challenge we will probably face. We should offer our assistance to our friends in the provinces to ensure that we meet the needs of the people who elect us. Apart from the issues of jurisdiction, I believe that by working together we will find the solutions. Indeed, it was on that day that I realized that it was not just a few isolated cases.

I had a case in my practice. Without revealing any identities, I met a doctor and saw how complicated it was. There was a hospital, in this region, that was ready to accept the individual.

Unfortunately, because of the decisions of some professional bodies and their lack of openness to people from abroad, qualified people cannot practice their profession or sometimes end up on welfare, or they move to other provinces.

We can tell we really have a problem when a physician comes to Quebec and cannot work there, and he or she is accepted as a practitioner in a New Brunswick hospital.

Like the Colombian dentist said, Colombians and Canadians must have very similar teeth. And the rest of their bodies must be very similar too.

That was just an aside. The Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development minister has said that he intends to work very hard on a new Canadian strategy to recognize the credentials of immigrants. That is great.

In Quebec, as I said earlier, it will be most important to get certain professional bodies to understand how important this is for Canada, so that it can function properly, particularly given the shortages we are experiencing in certain professions. These shortages are sometimes acute in some provinces, including Quebec.

This strategy will focus particularly on crucial sectors—so much the better—like medicine, nursing, where we are already feeling the first effects of the manpower shortage.

Briefly then, these are the mandate and objectives of the new Department of Human Resources and Skills Development, a department that will have a free hand in helping us tackle the challenges of the knowledge economy, a department that will focus on the development of human resources and the acquisition of skills.

Our government is in minority, but certainly does not intend to tread water. For us, the status quo is not a viable option nor is living constantly in the past, going back 10 or 15 years and looking at what has been done or not. This is 2004; we must move forward. The needs are huge and we must respond to them.

This new department that we want to create will allow us to pursue the efforts of recent years. However, first and foremost, it is further irrefutable proof that we are still innovating to ensure an even better future for our children, our youth, our retirees, our communities and our businesses.

Our government wants to make Canada a land of ever wider horizons, where each citizen will be able to benefit from the new economy. I was talking earlier about cultural communities that come here, to Canada, believing that they will find a land that welcomes immigrants and that they will be able to lead a productive life; they cannot wait to do so.

Words alone will not do. We will have to help them and ensure that these people feel totally integrated into the Canadian society.

I know, because I was told during the seminar to which I alluded earlier and which took place last week. I congratulated them, because this was one of the first times that I saw a variety of cultural communities sitting in the same room and not arguing with each other, but working towards a common goal and trying to find sustainable solutions, not only for cultural communities, but for the whole country.

Among other initiatives—and surely everyone heard about this, but I will mention it just in case—they are preparing a petition and they are preparing to sign it. Therefore, while the House is sitting, I urge hon. members who live close to my riding to sign this petition, which will be tabled at the Quebec national assembly. I made a commitment to do the same by adapting it for the Canadian Parliament.

This area and this issue concern us all. In all fairness, we have to get moving and ensure that we find solutions.

In conclusion, as our Prime Minister so aptly said it when he took charge of this country, “The world is not waiting for us, it is evolving, changing. So we must be ready to meet new challenges with new solutions, new ideas.I am not talking about changes that will be required 10 years from now; I am talking about today, about now”.

Today, I invite hon. members to support this bill, which shows our will to act now to help Canadians, and which builds the foundations of the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development. As I like to say, if it is good for Canada, it is also good for Quebec and for the riding of Gatineau.

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

Madam Speaker, I am glad that my colleague, the member for Gatineau, is able to put things into perspective by identifying two different entities as far as political culture is concerned when she speaks about Quebec or Canada. She has a clear understanding of things by doing so.

However, she does not have a clear grasp of things, because she found out only last week that people of various ethnocultural backgrounds could end up in the same room and discuss.

I worked for 30 years in labour relations. I have been dealing for 30 years with different ethnic communities, cultural diversity, labour relations and all work-related issues, including of course the employment insurance fund and everything that derives from it. This is the first finding. I am surprised by it. I am glad that it came out last week. It is one phase. Nonetheless, cultural diversity has existed in Quebec for a long time.

The second thing she must also realize, before I ask her my question, is that this situation also exists in Quebec when we compare the assessment of the qualifications necessary for members of ethnic groups to be able to get a job or pursue a vocation with the credentials they gained in their home country. The difference is that there is legislation in place to make sure that not just anyone can practice. That is also something she ought to realize.

However, the hon. member and I agree on the concerns regarding professional training. We all agree on that. Fighting will not solve anything, but neither will saying offensive things such as I just heard.

Third, and this brings me to my question, I wonder if the hon. member is aware that, beyond professional training—since she sang her government's praises in connection with the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development—no one thinks that the employment insurance fund is working. Is she aware that everybody is criticizing the Employment Insurance Commission and saying that the people in charge have complete power over its management, especially considering that the people paying money into it are not even there to manage it?

I will stop here, because I want to hear my colleague from Gatineau react to the second part of my intervention. As for the first part, she need not worry; we all understood quite well her thought process regarding ethnic groups. I would like to hear her thoughts on the part regarding the understanding of the bill that is before us today.

[Françoise Boivin, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Madam Speaker, I understand that my colleague might not be interested in hearing what I have to say on the first part, but I think that I will still repeat a few little things that he does not seem to have understood.

I was not talking about his own experience. Good for him. He is very lucky. However, in Gatineau, at the end of this well coordinated day organized by professor Roger Blanchette who is probably well known by my friends opposite, we came to a conclusion. It was very interesting to see all those communities in Gatineau gather in one room and work toward the same objective.

I did not discover anything new. I just had an opportunity to observe that various cultural communities can work together. It is something that I wanted to see in my region for a long time already. I think it important to make that point because I would not want to give my colleagues opposite false or misleading information.

With respect to the regulation, I agree with my colleague. I said so earlier in my digression on the issue of professional backgrounds and recognition of professional credentials. Protecting the public is very important, no doubt about that. If we want to let somebody practise law, we have to ensure that this person will be able to act as a lawyer. The situation is the same for a doctor and so forth.

However, all of us here and in the provinces will have to ensure that the professional bodies will not invoke this sacrosanct principle to avoid integrating cultural communities into their organization. We have seen so many cases that we could make a pile right across Parliament.

When people talk to me about the employment insurance fund, of course, we heard a lot about that in recent years, at different levels. I would simply say to my colleague across the way that it is all right. We have, for that matter, agreed to review our processes. Looking at different aspects of what we call the employment insurance fund, such as the way it works or who will make certain decisions or who will participate, that is part of the debates of the House of Commons or in committee, which will come back to us later. That is fine.

I believe it is significant when we agree to examine something another time. We said ourselves, during the election campaign, that many aspects of the employment insurance had to be reviewed.

Where I am offended, it is when big bad words are used to scare people. Our job is to find solutions, and we will try to do it.

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

Madam Speaker, earlier an NDP member made the point that we are dealing with a patchwork of things in the federal system. He is quite right.

It seems to me that we are trying to focus far more and have much less of a patchwork than we have had in the past.

I enjoyed what my friend for Gatineau had to say. Even though I support the legislation and I hope it will streamline many of these areas, one of the difficulties is it is an incredibly complex area. The member for Gatineau really brought this out.

For example, in the matter of employment, our colleagues from the Bloc mentioned unemployment particularly, but unemployment is related for example to the quality of education people received. People can be unemployed perhaps because as very young children they did not receive the appropriate care and when they became adults, they were unable to find continuous employment.

Unemployment and lifelong learning, which the member was talking about, are linked. We cannot predict what is going to happen in the workforce. There are changes in technology. People need to be retrained. The facilities are not there at that time. These are very often unpredictable things.

Literacy is a key feature of employment. The provisions for literacy in this new department and in all other federal departments and in all provincial departments are extremely important in terms of employment.

The member mentioned foreign credentials. English and French as first and second languages are extremely important. There are people in the trades and professions who are superbly qualified but lack one of the official languages. The teaching of English and French is an aspect of employment and is a factor in unemployment.

Very often these things are unpredictable. We simply do not know in 10 years' time what is going to cause a certain person to be employed or unemployed, or what sort of work the person might be doing. Years ago these things were much more predictable.

It is my hope that we are setting up a flexible, but still focused, department which would be better able not only to do things we know should be done now, but better able to adapt to the work and lifelong learning environment of the future.

I wonder if the member would care to comment on that aspect of the new department.

[Françoise Boivin, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Madam Speaker, my esteemed colleague has hit it right on. I worked for close to 20 years, and actually it would have been 20 years in two days, in the fantastic and always changing world of labour relations. It is a complex area.

We are dealing with people. We always say wherever we go, and we have heard it so many times in the House, how the civil service, just to use as an example, is such an important part of this whole system of Parliament because it is the people. If we do not have the people, the trained resources, we are nothing. It is so true.

If a system does not work, it is quite often because we are unable to ensure that our human resources appropriate the system itself. When the member is telling us about unpredictability, it is also true. We do not know exactly what the needs will be.

All this to say that I think we must move toward flexibility.The key word here is “flexibility”. It is the key word that we hear in this government, with regard to our federal-provincial relations—we are talking about flexible federalism—but also with regard to this bill.

[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?

[Jean-Claude D'Amours, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Madam Speaker, I want to ask my hon. colleague a question for various reasons.

But first, I suppose that my hon. colleague made a mistake when she said that the Liberal members voted against the formation of the Subcommittee on the Employment Insurance Funds. As far as I know, Liberal members voted in favour of forming this subcommittee. We had a disagreement about a particular amendment, but not about the existence of the subcommittee itself. We will see what the hon. member says about this. In my view, it is important to set the record straight on this matter.

One thing must be clear, and this is where I am getting to my question. One must not think that the situation with employment insurance is limited to Quebec. In New Brunswick and in many other provinces and ridings of this country, there are problems with employment insurance. In fact, we can say there is a will to improve things.

There is one thing my hon. colleague will be able to say. In my case, as a member of this committee, I work extremely hard to make sure that we can work on improving the situation with employment insurance, seasonal work, and so forth.

I would like the hon. member to explain to us why, when the formation of the Subcommittee on the Employment Insurance Funds was being discussed, they did not agree that the whole Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills Development, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities should discuss this issue?

I thought it was extremely important to talk about employment insurance because my riding is in a critical situation. Why is the hon. member suggesting today that we voted against the formation of the subcommittee?

Also, does she perhaps not remember that she did not want all the members of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills Development, Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities to discuss this issue? She decided that it should be discussed by a few members only, one member per party, and she worked hard with the opposition to have her position prevail.

I thought it was very important to talk about the EI program, and I did not get the opportunity. But I was very lucky to be named to the Subcommittee on the Employment Insurance Funds. Otherwise, I would not have been able to say a single word on this issue. I would like the hon. member to explain that to me.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Madam Speaker, what bad faith on the part of the colleague who sits on the same committee as I do.

He knows perfectly well that I was not against the committee members sitting together. I too would have liked that.

However, why did we come to this solution? It is because we had work to do within the larger committee. On the political agenda of the work of the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development, Skills Development, Social Development and Status of Persons with Disabilities, we could not work on the recommendations regarding the employment insurance fund.

Consequently, we had to come to an agreement. I would have liked to mention the name of the riding of the NDP colleague who also sits on the committee, but I do not recall it. However, I can tell you that they finally voted, but they did everything to stop it. This is what happened. There is a whole procedure.

In the end, they saw the truth. They were all alone on their side. What I mean—

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think that the member should be asked to withdraw some of those remarks.

I agree and my colleague agrees that it was a good idea from the Bloc. First, her statement that the Liberal members voted against it is untrue. I do not say that lightly in the House. Second, she implied that we tried to stop it. We did not. As I recall, and I could be wrong on this, the amendment that we were discussing was that the subcommittee should report by December 17, or some date. Our feeling was that it perhaps should have longer.

I believe the member made a mistake. She was wrong when she said the Liberal members voted against this subcommittee. We did not. It is true that we voted against a previous subamendment of the Bloc. We did that in good faith because we wanted to make the subcommittee as strong as possible.

[The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine)]

With due respect to the member for Peterborough, he made some excellent points, but they were really points of debate.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague. There was indeed quite a battle, the goal of which was to be able to obtain the support of all members.

One has to acknowledge that we have been very nimble about this file. I can recall giving a hand to NDP colleagues so that we could see to the drafting of recommendations. We do not need to go into all the details, but we came close to losing the vote. Amendments to the amendments were necessary. The goal was to form a subcommittee. It is well known that within the standing committee, there was a desire to delay the creation of this subcommittee until after Christmas. On our side, we were saying that there was an obligation to the public to consider this file on a priority basis. We mentioned the urgency of the debate.

Thus, there are some little subtleties, but, at the end of the day, we can say that the opposition parties worked very hard towards the emergence of a subcommittee. We are all happy about it today. We impatiently await all of the recommendations. I thank my colleague for these additional explanations.

The colleague who asked me the question said there was a concern about the whole employment insurance system, namely that it did not necessarily meet the concerns of voters in his riding. On the other hand, if one wants to be candid with the unemployment insurance monies, taking into account restrictions, the exclusion of some recipients for all kinds of reasons, the limit of funds granted and, also, the duration of benefits, we must all work on it so that we will be able to meet the expectations of the public. Those $45 billion belong to those who contributed to the fund, to the workers as well as to companies.

We will remember that the Bloc Québécois has fought some epic battles on the EI fund, and the way all those who lost their jobs but did not qualify for benefits were treated. I remember the numerous speeches made by my hon. colleague from Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup on this subject. I sat on the committee myself. This is nothing new; it has been an issue ever since we came to this place in 1993. Since then, we have fought epic battles to make the government realize that it was on the wrong track. They laughed at us, saying it was not so, that we were fantasizing, that the situation was not that urgent. Even today, the minister's answers seem to indicate that all is well and under control. We have heard about our skilled workforce and ability to meet needs. Earlier, I listened to the hon. member for Gatineau, who sounded like she was living in a wonderful world.

At the same time, we can see the problems encountered by those who lose their jobs in certain regions in terms of support. Needs are not being met either in the whole file of atypical jobs through measures relating to the EI fund.

I must state very seriously that I have been here since 1993 and can say that the Bloc Québécois has worked very diligently on this issue. Colleagues over the way ought to at least acknowledge that: we have never backed off. We could have thrown in the towel, but we have persevered. Certain groups have come to see us. We have set up files on EI horror stories. Now today we are being told how the Liberals are setting an example, how they want to have better administration. They want to see the manpower development and educational sectors made more efficient. FIne, but let them also recognize provincial jurisdiction.

We in Quebec feel very vulnerable when the federal government keeps too much money in its coffers, whether in general revenues or the foundations it sets up. We are well aware that Quebec's desire to make social advancement, to advance as a society, is a lost cause. One need just look at the emphasis put on health during the election and then look at the post-election situation. There is always consensus, not just among the Bloc Québécois, but also with hundreds of Quebec leaders who have come here. Then we get accused often of petty politics, when I feel instead that what we are doing is looking after Quebec issues. That is why we were elected and why we were given such a strong mandate. Our goal, first and foremost, is to look after the issues of concern to Quebeckers.

If Canada wants to develop in a different direction, and if some communities want to adopt the objectives of Quebec—

[The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine)]

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member for Québec. The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health.

[Robert Thibault, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

Madam Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me to speak to this bill which concerns a department of great importance to all Canadians, the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development.

One of the responsibilities of this department is the literacy initiative. If people can write the name of this department, they are already doing quite well. Perhaps it could have been given a simpler name, but we must recognize nonetheless that the department provides services of importance to all Canadians from infancy to adulthood, including child care, joining the labour force, going to university, and other stages. All through our lives, we need this department. In all communities large and small, the department plays an important role. The flexibility and the presence of people from the department in each community are very important.

In Nova Scotia a short while ago, people were leaving rural communities and moving to urban centres, and right away we noticed the absence of these people to help take part in the programs of all the other departments, Canadian Heritage, or ACOA, FedNor, CED or Western Economic Diversification Canada. All of these agencies work in partnership with this department on site in the communities, municipalities, cities, and with individuals. This department plays an extremely important role in many sectors, including education, economic development, and all aspects of life. It has a very important role to play.

Reorganizing this department at this time is a very good idea. It is also a good idea to create a department that is responsible for the social aspect, early childhood, child care and all that, under the direction of a competent minister.

Today we are providing the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development with all the legal powers and tools it will need to fulfil its mandate. This is just the beginning. The mandate of the new department is to provide all Canadians with the tools they need to thrive and prosper in the workplace and community.

We speak quite a bit in the House and in Canada about unemployment but the wider problem is under-employment. People who perhaps are not achieving their level of capability are not finding the type of work that best meets their skill sets or their training. This department, working with unions and with other federal departments, provincial governments and communities, can help. It has a great role to play in retraining and refocusing on the continuing education of people so they can reach their full potential.

When people in my father's day had a grade 12 education they went out into the workforce, got a job and stayed there forever. That has changed. People in our my time need more skills. They need a university degree, or community college certificate or trade school certificate. It is quite normal nowadays for people to continually change jobs. In the future it will be even faster.

People of the age of our pages see a different world. In my community 100 years ago there were blacksmith shops every 10 miles. They disappeared. In my day there were video stores every 10 miles. They are now being replaced by the Internet where people can buy videos directly from the Internet. Computer stores are now being replaced with the Internet.

There are changes and it is necessary for communities, big and small, to address those changes and for the workforce to adjust. I heard statistics indicating that the average person can now look forward to seven careers in his or her adult life. That is a lot.

Employment is the most important form of security. This is why Human Resources and Skills Development Canada works in your community.

In 2003-04, the department helped more than 667,500 Canadians through active employment measures set forth in the Employment Insurance Act. We help unemployed Canadians re-enter the labour force. We also help young people gain experience on the job market, pursue their education or enter the job market through the Youth Employment Strategy.

These are essential and very difficult issues which require much discussion. I am pleased that the committee is studying these issues and that we are discussing them. We can see the problems in the communities.

In communities with seasonal employment, like my community, some people have a great deal of difficulty finding work twelve months a year. These people are not necessarily good candidates for skill development. They might well be prisoners of these jobs. Sometimes, they are older people, single mothers or fathers, and they are caught in the circle of seasonal work.

My riding has known periods of incredibly strong economic development, but it does not help these people. It puts them at a disadvantage, for as the employment insurance rate goes down in my riding, they must work more weeks to be eligible and they receive fewer unemployment benefits. This is a good system, but not for them.

We need changes. I am happy that the members of this House are studying this issue.

I would like to talk now about education and training. Nowadays, the cost of university education is very high.

It is very difficult for many young Canadians to attend university if their families cannot help a lot or if the family has more than one child going to university. The costs of attending university are high and those young adults accumulate huge debt before they start in the workforce. I always encourage them by telling them that within 10 years of graduation they will pay more for a car than the debt they accumulate in university. It is true that university graduates get better employment.

However it does not mean that we should not be doing more to help every young Canadian afford the type of education for which he or she has the capacity and that they do not limit their choices in accordance to the cost. All forms of education are good, from trade schools to community colleges to universities to post-graduate studies and so on. I want young Canadians to develop their capabilities according to their capacity and not in accordance with their financial abilities. We must work more in those areas.

We have had advances in the last few budgets but I do not think we can stop there. We have to continue looking at where it is.

One last element I would like to discuss quickly on these points is the famous question of the employment insurance fund.

I would now like to talk about the employment insurance fund, which members of the Bloc Québécois often refer to. Actually, that fund does not exist and it is unfair to talk about a fund to Canadians.

What we have is an employment insurance program. We pay a part of our salary as a contribution to that program. Employers and employees both contribute. That contribution is given to the federal government and it is put into the Government of Canada's consolidated revenue fund, so that when we are in need, we have access to a program and revenues.

Should we modify the accessibility or the revenues? Obviously, we should in several cases, for instance with seasonal jobs, as I was saying. In the southwest part of Nova Scotia, it is important to do so. I hear the same thing in other areas of the country, be it in agriculture, fisheries, tourism or other areas.

Now, we cannot talk about a fund, say that this is workers' money and that it is not being given back to them. If we now have a surplus in that program, which has more revenues than expenses, it is because we had a good government. We will not always have a Liberal government, and we may then find ourselves with a deficit.

Without a Liberal government, unemployment will rise. And the government will have to pay. It will have to make sure it wipes out the deficit of the program. You cannot tell Canadians that the last dollar was paid out last week and that no one will receive money to buy food and pay their rent.

The fact is, in the last four years, we have reduced taxpayers' contributions to this program.

I do not remember if it is three, four or five years, but every year the amount of money that we have to pay is reduced, so to say that it is a fund I think is being dishonest with Canadians. It is a program. We can always modify it and improve it but I do not think that we should fool Canadians.

Some programs that we were able to--

[Marc Boulianne, Bloc, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member has used the word “dishonest” three times now. I think it is an unparliamentary word. I would like him to withdraw his remarks.

[The Acting Speaker (Hon. Jean Augustine)]

If the word is not directed to an individual, it is not a word that could be classified as unparliamentary.