Peter Adams

[Department of Human Resources and Skills Development Act, November 23rd, 2004]

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

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

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

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

[Department of Human Resources and Skills Development Act, November 23rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I know the members of the Bloc are very interested in the Canada-Quebec labour market agreement. The federal government and the Government of Quebec are interested in the labour market development agreement mechanism.

The Government of Quebec has submitted expenses under the Canada-Quebec labour market agreement for workplace based training for employed workers. This is the first formal request to use the employment insurance part II funds to help employers train employed people. Officials of both governments are having discussions aimed at clarifying admissible expenses for workplace training for employed workers.

We are committed to support eligible unemployed persons through employment insurance part II. Annual funding for Quebec has increased considerably since 1996. It was $427 million in 1996-97. In the last year it is almost $600 million. This is particularly notable when over the same period of time, unemployment rates have fallen substantially, from 11.9% in 1996 to 7.2% in June of this year, as has the province of Quebec social assistant client caseload.

In 2004-05 Quebec will again receive $596 million under employment insurance part II. Does the member not think we are debating the formation of a new streamlined department which will focus more effectively on the problems of the unemployed? Why is his party not supporting the development of a better mechanism to deliver funds of this magnitude?

[Department of Human Resources and Skills Development Act, November 23rd, 2004]

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

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

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

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

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

[Department of Human Resources and Skills Development Act, November 23rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate, as did my colleague from the NDP, the member's interest in this matter and in the anti-strike legislation. I appreciate his knowledge of it and his passion for it.

When he says, “this side of the House” doing something, I would say two things. First, as I said, this legislation has come from a standing committee that unanimously supported the idea of dividing the department. Second, in this day and age, when the two parties over there have finished voting, if they vote against this side, this side is lost. Therefore the power lies on that side.

I would simply repeat that I think he has a better opportunity to get a hearing for his anti-strike legislation under the bill which we are debating today than he did before.

[Department of Human Resources and Skills Development Act, November 23rd, 2004]

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?

[Department of Human Resources and Skills Development Act, November 23rd, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to what the member for Mississauga—Brampton South had to say, and I really enjoyed his speech.

Quite rightly, the member has stressed some examples of the grants which the federal government provides to students in post-secondary education. He mentioned, for example, the millennium scholarships, 95% of which are directly targeted to qualified students who have student debt. I know my colleague knows well from his personal and family background the problems associated with student debt. That is one example.

He also mentioned the first year grant for low income students, which was in the last budget and Speech from the Throne. This directly targets students from very low income families and helps them through the critical first year. It encourages them to go to first year college or university.

He also mentioned the disability grants. Each year of college or university, there now will be a grant for disabled students. Again, we welcome that. It seems to me that there are various areas that we have to focus on in terms of our performance in post-secondary education. We have the highest percentage involvement in post-secondary education in the world. However, we know that in low income families the participation is still very low and we know there are problems with inclusivity of disabled students.

My colleague is absolutely right in mentioning those things. He also put particular emphasis on the Canada learning bond. He explained very well the RESP program, now extremely well established. He quoted those figures of billions of dollars of private savings, which have been encouraged through the RESP program. In addition to that, he mentioned that there was a grant portion in the RESP program, whereby the federal government, up to a certain maximum, would give 20% as a grant to parents who invested in RESPs.

Once we are in the area of grants, just like the millennium scholarship program which is helping students directly, we are also into something else, and that is to encourage the families themselves to invest and think in advance of their children's educations. The Canada learning bond, as my colleague rightly described, is an even greater extension of that. Under that legislation, which is Bill C-5, for families that earn between roughly $35,000 and $70,000, the grant portion of the RESP will be increased from 20% to 30%. Therefore, there will be a greater incentive for the families in that middle income range to invest in RESPs.

The Canada learning bond itself is a grant to families who open an RESP account. Assuming this legislation is passed, for a child born this year or later, if a family with less than $35,000 of income opens an account, $500 will be placed in the account in the name of the child. Every year thereafter, until the child is 15, $100 will be placed in the account. Therefore, there will be a $2,000 grant for that child. However, because it is an RESP program, the family will accumulated interest over the 15 years.

The other possibility is that, even though the family is earning less than $35,000, it might be able to make some contributions itself. If it adds to this grant portion of the Canada learning bond, it will get a 40% contribution. For example, a $10 deposit in the account by the family will produce a $4 response from the federal system.

The purpose of this is quite different from the grants, such as the millennium scholarships or the first year low income student program that we have. The purpose here is to encourage families to think of the educational potential of their children from the very beginning. I think it is something quite special.

I would be most grateful if my colleague would comment further on this aspect of encouraging all families, not simply the wealthier families, to start thinking early about the post-secondary education of their children.

[Department of Human Resources and Skills Development Act, November 22nd, 2004]

Madam Speaker, as I mentioned, it is the Government of Quebec that is proposing that the program start in the year 2006, not the federal government.

The extension of parental benefits is about investing in our future. These benefits allow working parents to spend time with their child during the critical first year of life, when parental involvement is so important. Since January 2001 parents have had the flexibility they need to stay home with their baby for up to one year. We are pleased that our efforts to improve support to working Canadian parents are making a difference.

As we committed in the Speech from the Throne, the Government of Canada will continue to review the employment insurance program to ensure that it remains well suited for the needs of all of Canada's workforce.

[Department of Human Resources and Skills Development Act, November 22nd, 2004]

Madam Speaker, as the member knows, federal and provincial officials continue to meet and discuss Quebec's proposed parental insurance plan. While neither the member opposite nor I play a part in these discussions, I am sure that she could appreciate the details that need to be worked out between the two governments.

I am sure she will recognize, for example, that the agreement requires a financial mechanism for reducing EI premiums for employees and employers in Quebec so as to reflect the savings from no longer providing parental and maternity benefits in the province of Quebec. The Government of Canada has put in place a national system for maternity and parental benefits, and has been providing maternity benefits for more than 30 years and parental benefits for more than a decade.

There is a level of technical expertise that simply cannot be acquired by signing an agreement. That is why both the Canadian and Quebec governments agreed to a realistic timeline of February 2005 to finalize the agreement in principle. It also bears mentioning that the Government of Quebec has targeted the beginning of 2006 for the implementation of its provincial parental benefits program.

Finally, and I know the member is aware of this, the minister has shared with the House that he met with his counterpart in the Quebec government only a few weeks ago. They were both pleased with the progress of their discussion.

[Department of Human Resources and Skills Development Act, November 22nd, 2004]

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.

[Department of Human Resources and Skills Development Act, November 22nd, 2004]

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.