Madam Speaker, I have a question for my colleague from Sault Ste. Marie. First, I am glad the NDP has changed its mind on the first reading of the bill. They are currently against Bill C-23, if I have understood correctly.
The reasons they say they are against it are quite questionable. There is a tendency toward greater centralization of national programs. In that sense, my colleague from Québec made our position very clear.
My colleague from Sault Ste. Marie raises the fact that they have reservations about this bill because a legal commitment and framework is needed to improve the services. I tried to follow his reasoning, but I did not really hear anything to that effect.
I understand why he finds it hard to come up with ways to improve it because it is hard to improve something that is not relevant. This bill is not relevant. The only thing it sets out to do is to institutionalize a structure called Social Development Canada in order to justify interfering in programs that do not come under federal jurisdiction.
My question is this. Should the bill pass, does my colleague realize that this is a way of creating a single window, which makes access to services even more difficult and facilitates making cuts to one department or the other?
I refer my colleague to page 280 of the budget to help him see that by passing the budget he would be authorizing the government to cut $2.4 billion from EI programs alone. We know how much the NDP cares about this issue.
How will they be able to justify authorizing $2.4 billion in cuts to employment insurance, as outlined on page 280 of the budget?
It is the same thing in other provisions in the budget, where cuts are already planned for the new Department of Social Development.
I would like to know what my colleague from Sault Ste. Marie has to say about this.