Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech by our colleague opposite. I must say that I fail to understand his position. In my opinion, it is not about whether such and such a program is to my colleague's liking. Rather, it is a question of whether the Department of Human Resources Development and the Department of Social Development should be one department or two. That is the question. So, it is a question of whether we want, in this House or elsewhere, a champion of all issues under the Department of Social Development.
Of course, it is not the same for every issue, but it could be children, child benefits or the early childhood initiative. However, programs come and go. It could be individuals with a disability.
Last Friday, we celebrated the International Day of Disabled Persons, under the auspices of the United Nations. A series of awards were handed out. I attended a ceremony as did many of my colleagues.
There are also all the issues related to disability benefits under the Canada pension plan. I know there was an agreement under which nine provinces joined together to create the Canada pension plan. Quebec refused to sign this agreement, as was its right. This was in 1967, if I am not mistaken. Nonetheless, these programs exist. Should this come under employment insurance or under a different department?
In my opinion, the government made a good decision by making it the responsibility of a different department. We must not forget the New Horizons program. Old age security was introduced in 1927. The Canadian government played a role in this plan. It is not a matter of whether it has this role or not. This plan has existed since 1927 in one form or another. Initially, there were premiums and then there were none.
In light of all these facts, would it not be more logical for employment insurance and related matters to be grouped together, and to have social development on its own, as the bill proposes? This is essentially my question.