1993-03-18

Mr. Charles A. Langlois (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 52 petitions.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


Mr. Gilbert Parent (Welland -St. Catharines-Tho-rold):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the report of the legislative committee on Bill C-110, an act representing the Northumberland Strait Crossing, with amendments.
I want to make two brief comments about the bill, mostly about the procedures. The witnesses were extremely helpful to us in our deliberations and there was complete co-operation of the members. I especially want to single out the clerk of the committee who helped us through some rather ticklish situations. I want it on the record that I do appreciate that.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings. ]



HOUSE MANAGEMENT


Charles A. Langlois: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the seventy-second and seventy-third reports of the Standing Committee on House Management concerning the list of members to sit on the legislative committees on bills C-72 and C-73.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



EXPORT DEVELOPMENT ACT


Hon. Paul Dick (for the Minister of Industry, Science and Technology and Minister for International Trade) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-118, an act to amend the Export Development Act.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 68(2), the motion is deemed adopted.
Mr. Dick (for the Minister of Industry, Science and Technology and Minister for International Trade) moves that the bill be now read the first time and printed.
Pursuant to Standing Order 69(1), the motion is deemed adopted.
Bill read the first time and printed.

Routine Proceedings



NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT


Charles A. Langlois: Mr. Speaker, I move:
That a special committee of the House of Commons be appointed to consider and report on the subject matter of Bill C-115, an act to implement the North American Free Trade Agreement;
That the Standing Committee on House Management appoint the membership of the special committee and present its report which shall be deemed concurred in upon presentation to the House of Commons no later than five sitting days after the adoption of the motion;
That the said special committee be composed of eight members, that changes in membership of the said special committee be effective immediately after notification signed by the member acting as the chief Whip of any recognized party has been filed with the clerk of the committee;
That the committee have all the powers of a standing committee of the House of Commons pursuant to Standing Orders 108(1), 120 and 121;
That the committee have the power to adjourn from place to place in Canada along with the necessary staff;
That the committee have the power to engage one expert staff person to be attached to each recognized party represented on the committee;
That the order for second reading of Bill C-115 be amended to refer the said bill to the special committee for committee stage consideration of Bill C-115;
That the special committee report on Bill C-115 to the House shall be the committee's final report.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops):: On debate, Mr. Speaker. I want to thank my hon. friend for introducing the motion which of course we oppose.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It is not debatable. Is there consent?


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: There is no consent. Therefore it is not debatable. I am sorry.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. I simply want to make a very short intervention to say why I did not give
unanimous consent. Normally we would be inclined to do so.
The wording of the motion my hon. friend has put forward really limits the amount of debate-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I have heard the terms. I asked for unanimous consent. There was no unanimous consent. There can be no debate on this.


PETITIONS
Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast):: Mr. Speaker, subject to Standing Order 36 it is my pleasure and honour to present a petition signed by several hundred residents of Alberta in Edmonton, Calgary and Red Deer dealing with the utter tragedy going on in Bosnia-Hercegovina.
I will just give the substance of the petition as it is very short. The petition states that innocent men, women and children who are ill-equipped to defend themselves continue to be slaughtered in Bosnia-Hercegovina and Croatia by heavily armed aggressors.
The petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to demand that the UN take immediate military action to stop the fighting. Failing that they request the UN arms embargo be lifted so that the victims in Bosnia-Hercegovina and Croatia can be properly equipped to defend themselves. As in duty bound the petitioners will ever pray.
As I say, several hundred people have signed that petition.


David Kilgour: I have a second petition. This one relates to Vietnam. The petitioners are mostly from Ottawa, Nepean, Kanata and Montreal. I will just give the conclusion because this petition is longer. The petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to request the Government of Canada to use its good office to urge the Hanoi government to meet the following legitimate demands as a precondition for economic aid and trade relations.
March 18, 1993

Abolish the communist dictatorship and establish a democratic and plural political regime in Vietnam; respect human rights and organize free elections under observation by United Nations; and release all political prisoners including religious leaders and members of the former armed forces and government of the republic of Vietnam who are being detained in various concentration camps in the country.


Gilbert Parent: Mr. Speaker, I too have the honour to table a petition forwarded to me by a group of constituents. They are most upset that one million Canadian children are currently living in poverty.
It was not long ago that Canada ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. My constituents are of the opinion that we all have a moral obligation to alleviate child poverty and suffering in Canada.
It would seem to me in this day and age that we as Canadians should be able to take care of our own children. After all, it has been mouthed in this House many times that they are our future. In that sense they are a great investment for our nation.


Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to present a petition that deals with the situation in Bosnia-Hercegovina and Croatia.
These petitioners are demanding that the United Nations take immediate military action to stop the fighting. Failing that, they request that the United Nations arms embargo be lifted so that the victims in Bosnia-Hercegovina and Croatia can be properly equipped to defend themselves.


Mac Harb: Mr. Speaker, I have another petition which deals with the question of human rights in Vietnam.
These petitioners are calling on this House to urge the government to do whatever it can in order to help abolish the communist dictatorship and establish a democratic and free political regime in Vietnam by means of
Routine Proceedings
a free election, as well as to urge the present Government of Vietnam to respect human rights and release all of the political prisoners that are presently held.


Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Federation of Students represents over
450,000	college and university students in Canada. This petition is from the students of universities in Regina and Saskatoon and of the community college system in Saskatchewan and Manitoba..
They call upon the government to eliminate the 3 per cent tax on student loans, increase the weekly loan limit, keep the six months interest subsidy, respect the current limits for minimum course load and maintain the special forgiveness provisions for students with disabilities and the total borrowing time.
They ask the government to amend the Canada Student Loans Program to enhance accessibility, to guarantee 100 per cent of student loans and improve accessibility for part-time students. They fear the new government program which is going to be handled by the banks. They think it might limit accessibility.


Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, allow me to present a petition from the people of Barraute, Dubuisson, Malartic, Saint-Mathieu, Amos, Lan-drienne, Riviere-Heva and Val-d'Or in Abitibi, who say that violent movies on television are dangerous and therefore unacceptable because they incite more violence.
They say in the petition that all toys which incite violent games are unacceptable and should not be made. These citizens express the opinion that freedom of the press in reporting acts of violence should be limited and that information on violent acts which is repeated too often on all television stations and on radio can incite others to commit the same acts of violence.
Therefore the petitioners humbly ask Parliament to legislate on the above-mentioned points in order to eliminate violence in our society, so as to protect our children more and ensure a better quality of life for all our fellow citizens.

March 18, 1993
Routine Proceedings


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to present petitions on behalf of a number of residents throughout British Columbia. They are deeply concerned about a plan to divert the North Thompson River into the Columbia River basin and consequently sell that Canadian water to the area of San Diego, California.
Members of the First United Church in Kelowna, British Columbia collected these names. They are simply asking the government to ensure that our water will not be sold to the United States through water diversion and that water be identified as an area of exclusion under the North American free trade agreement.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, on another matter that is unrelated, once again the petitioners are by and large from Alberta. They state that Canadians wish to designate a day of recognition of Canada's original inhabitants to honour native cultures and that June 21 is the most appropriate day to recognize our First Nations.
The petitioners call upon Parliament to enact Bill C-268, an act respecting a national solidarity day for the aboriginal people of Canada.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Charles A. Langlois: Mr. Speaker, Question No. 453 will be answered today.


Mr. Flis: With respect to the total number of contracts awarded to the private sector for consulting services by the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA), (a) what are the selection criteria (b) how many were awarded to each province during the past five fiscal years?


Hon. Monique Vezina (Minister for External Relations and Minister of State (Seniors)):: With respect to the total number of contracts awarded to the private sector for consulting services by the Canadian International Development Agency, the detailed answer is as follows:
(a) Selection Criteria
A unique set of criteria is established for each selection which reflects the particular requirements of the assignment to be contracted. In broad terms, these criteria normally include:
1.	Professional and Technical Expertise: this might include the requirement for a professional designation or accreditation (i.e. chartered accountant, engineer, agronomist) specializing in a particular field (i.e. a chartered accountant specializing in the establishment credit systems for small or medium sized firms; or an electrical engineer specializing in alternative sources of heating such as biomass, or new and renewable energy).
Note: CIDA classifies its professional and technical requirements in some 700 different sectors, subsectors and areas of specialization.
2.	Experience: might include the number of years of practical experience in a given field; experience in doing similar work-planning, execution, monitoring, evaluation-under similar conditions; international, regional or country-specific experience.
3.	Language Capability: The language preference of the recipient country (usually English or French) is the determining factor. There are sometimes requirements for other special language skills, such as Spanish, Portuguese, Mandarin.
4.	Availability: This refers to the availability of the recommended consultant to provide the services within a specific time frame i.e to attend a scheduled international forum; to be a member of organized mission team.
5.	Cost: In keeping with government contracting policies and practices, CIDA seeks to obtain the best value for the Crown (best services at a fair market price).
March 18, 1993

(b)
Provincial Distribution by fiscal year Contracts #
Province	1987-88	1988-89	1989-90	1990-91	1991-92Alberta	53	45	28	46	26British Columbia	88	95	81	61	46Prince Edward Island	5	4	4	2	3Manitoba	27	28	27	14	8New Brunswick	16	9	18	8	3Nova Scotia	23	24	9	11	16Ontario	630	852	872	717	584Quebec	553	635	586	491	420Saskatchewan	16	10	9	9	4Newfoundland	6	9	6	4	31417	1711	1640	1363	1113


Charles A. Langlois: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question enumerated by the parliamentary secretary has been answered. Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand-Norfolk) moved:: That this House condemns the government for policies regarding jobs and job creation, post-secondary education and job training and retraining that are having the effect of robbing a whole generation of young Canadians of their legitimate aspirations.
Ele said: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak on our opposition day motion today:
That this House condemns the government for policies regarding jobs and job creation, post-secondary education and job training and retraining that are having the effect of robbing a whole generation of young Canadians of their legitimate aspirations.
Undoubtedly a crisis faces young Canadians today which this country can no longer afford and we as
Supply
members of Parliament can no longer afford to relegate these youth issues to the bottom of the political agenda. For this reason, I welcome the opportunity that this opposition day motion gives us. It allows us to bring to light many of the problems facing these young Canadians.
I would like to begin by putting a question to my colleagues on the other side. How many times have we heard that young Canadians are this country's greatest asset and our greatest resource, that they represent the future? Unfortunately our future, the youth of this country, have lost hope. They are demoralized. They are marginalized. They are a lost generation. They are generation x.
The problems facing young people in Canada today are overwhelming: acute unemployment of close to 18 per cent; fears over job security and changing labour requirements; drastic cuts to education; inadequate skills to cope with increasingly technological change and a knowledge based economy; over a 30 per cent high school drop-out rate; a dramatic increase in the number of street kids; drugs and sexually transmitted diseases; and finally, a lack of direction or coherent government policies to deal with these problems.
The youth of this country feel lost and alone and they are tired of government inaction. They know what the problems are and they know what the solutions are. The time for action is now.
Chronic youth unemployment and under-employment has demoralized the young people of this country. In fact the biggest problem facing youth today is unemployment. As a country, we need to give back to Canadians purpose and hope. We need to get them back to work.
Unfortunately there is a present void in our government's youth policy in this area. Why? Because the government has never explicitly stated a specific policy geared to putting youth back to work. In other words, they have no game plan to get Canadians working again.
I believe that for young people today, no other policy program is more important than getting them a first job. We know that on-the-job experience is a critical part of developing marketable labour and skills. Of course, the problems facing young Canadians today is that they have not been able to get that first job. Otherwise, they tend to be marginalized until there remains but one big question: How do we get young Canadians working again? How do they get that all-important first job? How do we give them back that hope and confidence and let them know that this country cares about their future?

March 18, 1993
Supply
In the short term, young people can be put to work. They can be put to work to do environmental and community based service. A Canadian environmental youth corps would give young people the opportunity to participate in environmental rehabilitation and education projects. I feel this would be an investment, not only in our youth but in our communities which are today suffering. To give young people career experience, summer employment opportunities must be maintained by the government. In fact, the government must acknowledge that giving youth summer job experience is an investment in our future.
Since 1985 the Challenge program which has provided summer job opportunities has been slashed by more than half. In 1985 it was $205 million, today it is $101.9 million.


An hon. member:: Shame, shame.


Robert (Bob) Speller: Mr. Speaker, if we are serious about any future jobs for our young Canadians, we need to give more importance to these summer job experiences and first-time jobs for students.
What about the long term? What are the long-term prospects for our Canadian youth? What are the challenges that this country, especially its young people, face going into the next century? The fact is that this country is undergoing extensive restructuring as world economies become increasingly integrated. We are told that we must face globalization, that we must be ready for change.
Therefore, the greatest challenge facing Canada and Canadians will be to become more competitive and a more innovative country. However, as this country has been slow to respond to this international challenge it represents more of a problem for today's youth, both in the short and the long term.
The biggest problem facing youth today is unemployment, specifically structural unemployment. This means that the demand for labour is changing faster than the supply of labour can adapt. This is problematic for our young people because although there is demand for high-tech, high-skilled jobs, young people do not have the training for these jobs and they cannot compete.
It stands to reason that until we give our young people the tools they need in order to compete, they will be condemned to remain in the marginal aspects. They will remain marginal workers taking temporary, low-skilled and low-paying jobs with little job security. Imagine the feeling of low self-esteem resulting from being chronically unemployed. It is ironic, is it not? The future of this country, our youth, feel that they have no future.
We should not lose sight of the implications of high youth unemployment, both on the victims and on Canada's future competitiveness. How do we become more competitive? How do we change the mind-set of a country that seems slow to adapt to this change? How do we encourage Canadians to embrace the technology of an information economy as opposed to resources and manufacturing?
In my opinion, education and continuing education is the basis of a productive and competitive society. If we want to compete globally we must place a high priority on education. Canada's commitment to education must be unequivocal. It is fair to say that our poor economy and our future prospects are tied to the quality of our education system. Therefore, a revamped education system must be ready to give young people better job-related training to help them beat the vicious cycle of structural unemployment.
First, some fundamental problems must be addressed, and these problems are obvious. Federal government cuts in transfers to the provinces have left provincial treasuries empty with little choice but to make drastic cuts in important areas such as education. Within the school system teaching must be ready to adapt to the many changes that are going to take place over the next decade.
We also have to acknowledge that two-thirds of graduating high school students do not go on to university or to post-secondary education. This represents a large pool of untapped resources that do not see conventional post-secondary education as a viable option. Because our secondary schools are oriented toward academic subjects and because our school system does not encourage vocational programs, there are thousands and thousands of students who feel that they have been given no practical alternatives within this system. This represents a tragic waste of .potential.
March 18, 1993

Only about 10 per cent of students are enrolled in apprenticeship programs. Moreover, the present apprenticeship program system is highly concentrated in manufacturing and construction trades, instead of meeting the growing demands of the technological revolution.
Between 1996 and the year 2000 the percentage of the work force requiring high-skilled jobs is going to increase from 45 per cent to 64 per cent. However, the percentage of Canadians actually acquiring high-skilled training is declining. Think about it. We are simply not prepared for the next century. It is today's young people, the youth of this country who are going to suffer.
Therefore, in order to effectively target educational resources and new and changing demands in government, we must create a national apprenticeship training program. This would enable our young people to acquire the specialized fields they are going to need for the jobs of tomorrow, something that universities today do not seem to be able to provide.
A change in the educational system must also include an extension of co-operative education. A promoted and expanded co-operative education program would bring together government, business and labour to give these young people a career experience that is essential for their futures.
Moreover co-operative education, besides giving valuable work experience, provides students with the ability to finance their education and it is therefore cost effective for governments. It also gives youth opportunity to understand their discipline and to improve their ties within the corporate community. For government, co-op education gives all partners-government, business, labour and our local communities-a chance to work together in the best interests of Canada's young people. As we become more competitive we must learn how to consult and to collaborate with one another.
Obviously there is a correlation between education, the quality of the labour market and the performance of our economy. For this reason government along with all players must act quickly because the education system in
Supply
this country is simply not ready for the changes and the challenges of tomorrow.
I would like to take a moment to talk about the unique challenges of rural youth. It has become apparent to all Canadians that small rural communities across this country are in a state of decline. It includes fishing communities in Newfoundland, it includes farming communities all over Canada, including my riding of Haldimand-Norfolk and other resource based towns.
Sadly, rural Canada increasingly cannot retain its young people. Rural youth feel that they have no choice but to leave their homes and to leave their communities. In many cases the education system can be blamed for the way that it socializes people off the farm or away from the fishing community. Of course many young Canadians leave their communities with the hope of finding jobs. Unfortunately high unemployment is both an urban and a rural problem and even when they leave these homes they do not seem to find jobs.
As I have already noted, education skills experience is needed for most of today's jobs. Many young people from rural communities end up on the streets. In fact, we were told in our task force hearings across the country that one-third of the homeless youth in urban centres come from small town Canada. They come out of small towns and end up on the streets of these urban centres.
The point is that we on all sides of this House from all parts of Canada must consider very seriously the crisis facing rural Canada and the implications of a decaying rural infrastructure and the effect that has on our rural youth. We have to come together and develop strategies to deal with this.
It is time for all Canadians to realize that rural Canada is a vital and an integral part of a strong and united Canada. We cannot afford to lose our young people.
Government is always key to restoring hope to a country hit hard by tough economic times. It is government that must take a leadership role. The private sector has been slow to respond and to adapt to the changes facing this country. I believe in the short term government can be the engine of economic growth because government sets an example for the rest of the country.

March 18, 1993
Supply
If we want Canadians to start spending again, if we want the private sector to be ready for the challenges of globalization and if we want to show young Canadians that we care about their future, then we have to show them that government is willing to act and take the initiative.
Government should not have to apologize for discriminate spending in this area because fiscal responsibility means more than just slashing and cutting. It means more than just a bottom line because once this country, especially its young people, loses confidence and hope then bottom-line fiscal policy means very little. For young Canadians the prospect of a strong economy restores the sense of confidence in what their country can do for them, both in the long and the short term.
Young people are worried. They are also worried about the deficit and debt reduction. After all, they are the ones who are going to have to deal with them. I do concede that there is a temptation within governments to indiscriminately spend, and this must be tempered by fiscal responsibility and a consideration of our long-term goals and objectives.
However, I maintain that the best way to restore hope in young Canadians is to give them back their lost sense of pride, their confidence and their self-esteem. To get them working again is to empower them and to give them back all they have lost.
All Canadians, not just government, must take more seriously these challenges facing young Canadians. Governments must work co-operatively with, each other, business, labour and local communities to develop these policies and programs geared toward young people.
Working co-operatively means pulling together to find constructive solutions. Instead of arguing about who is to blame we have to concentrate on constructive ways to solve this problem and get young Canadians working again, because young Canadians need solutions now.
If we continue to ignore the problems of generation x we risk losing the unlimited potential of an entire generation of Canadians. We have to be willing to invest in our future. We have to give young Canadians a renewed sense of hope and confidence. After all, this is our future we are talking about.


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, I understand that Germany produces 400,000 apprenticeships a year. I think Canada produces 24,000. Could the member make some comments as to how we might try to catch up to Germany and start to do more for youth who are not, for one reason or another, able to go to university or pursue post-secondary education?


Robert (Bob) Speller: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for that question. He does bring to light one of the examples that we have seen as we have studied this issue across the country. We went across this country and talked to all Canadians about it. A number of people mentioned the German experience.
The real fact of the matter is that Germany creates more of these jobs for almost half of the money we spend in this country. It not only has more apprenticeship spots, it not only has people who come out of this system trained not only in the construction or manufacturing trades but in those jobs of the future such as the high-tech and biotech areas, but it does so for half the money we spend.
We as a country need to seriously examine this area because it is money well spent. It is an investment in our young people, and it is an investment that does not cost Canadians a lot of money.


Mr. Dennis Mills (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, there are approximately 960,000 small businesses in this country right now. They represent the greatest hope for new job creation because most of the larger corporations are downsizing and restructuring. I know that the minister responsible for small businesses supports this position.
I would like to ask the hon. member a question in light of the fact that there are so many of these small businesses right now struggling to make ends meet and stay viable, and many of the entrepreneurs who are operating these small businesses are working 70 to 80 hours a week and sometimes six or seven days a week, while at the same time there are close to 400,000 young people, some of whom have just graduated from school, who are basically sitting at home because there is not a lot of job opportunities out there and so we are disbursing close to $8 billion to $10 billion through unemployment insurance and welfare.
March 18, 1993

Would it not be a much better approach to try to link the job creation program for youth directly to the small business sector? The person working with the small business person would be learning a skill. That person would be learning a craft, a trade or some sense of business practice and entrepreneurship. Would it not be a much better approach to link those people who are unemployed with the small business sector of this country?
For probably an extra couple of thousand dollars on top of what we are already paying in welfare we would not only be giving people this new skill and opportunity but would also be returning their dignity to them.
I wonder if our party's critic for youth could respond to that.


Robert (Bob) Speller: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his input. He is always talking about small business and this is one of the areas in which small business can play a key role.
We do allow small businesses to have students through the SEED program, albeit the money has been cut off in that area. The hon. member knows, because he brought this to my attention, that small businesses are the people who are training Canadians today. We could increase the money going into training because it would help young Canadians by giving them their first job experience and it would help small businesses by giving them trained people and people to help them.
I know the hon. member knows this, but I want to bring to the House's attention that a 1991 report by the National Advisory Board on Science and Technology said that the average Canadian worker currently receives only seven hours of training annually. Compare that to 17 hours in Australia, 170 hours in Sweden, or 200 hours in Japan; and we are wondering why we are lagging behind in this country.
It is not small business that is lagging behind because it is doing its fair share. Both government and big business in this country are going to have to sit down and address not only the needs of Canadian youth being trained but the needs of businesses for the future.
It is they that lack these people with training. There is a complete lack of training in jobs, the government says so itself. It says that there are thousands of jobs that
Supply
cannot be filled because Canadians are not trained for those jobs.
The time is now. Germany, for instance, has within the last three years increased its funding in this area by some 45 per cent while we in Canada have slashed ours. Germany knows the answer. Japan knows the answer. Sweden knows the answer. It is time this country did what was right and discovered the answer.


Hon. Pierre H. Cadieux (Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport) and Minister of State (Youth) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, I believe that we have a very serious subject to discuss here today.
I thank the hon. member for raising the issue. Of course I do not agree with the wording of the motion as it was put by the hon. member. I could be tempted to underline that I sense a little partisanship in the wording, but notwithstanding that I believe it is an important subject worth discussion in this House.


Dennis Joseph Mills: And you've never been partisan?


Pierre H. Cadieux: Absolutely not, but I am thinking about it. That being said, it is important to raise these issues and to discuss them.
The wording of the motion gives the impression that this government has done absolutely nothing with respect to the youth situation in Canada. I regret that my hon. friend has taken that slant, which is that nothing has been done and consequently it is a desperate situation. I do not think it is an ideal situation but it is certainly not a desperate one.
The best way for me to respond to such a wrongly worded motion is to review a few of the things we are doing to help young Canadians. I know that my time is limited and I will not be able to touch on all the subjects, but I am sure that my colleagues who will be addressing this important question today will complete the list of programs and initiatives of this government with respect to youth in Canada.
Let me begin by pointing out that despite the tough economic conditions that we have been experiencing the
17.8	per cent youth unemployment rate in 1992, which is totally unacceptable, was below the historical high of
19.8	per cent in 1983 when by coincidence my friend's party formed the government.

March 18, 1993
Supply
The gap between the general unemployment rate and the youth unemployment rate is lower now than it was between 1981 and 1982, also a period of Liberal government.
As well, the youth unemployment rate fell to 16.7 per cent last month at a time when there were 4,000 more young Canadians active in the labour force than in the previous month. This was the result of strong employment growth and a decline in unemployment.

Employment and Immigration Canada knows the employment situation in this country better than anyone and it also knows better than anyone how to help young Canadians find their feet in a rapidly changing labour market.
We know that two-thirds of all jobs created in Canada during this decade will require a level of education beyond Grade 12. We know that 40 per cent of these jobs will require at least five years of post-secondary education. Nevertheless, we know that nevertheless, more than 100,000 young people drop out of high school every year. This represents a national dropout rate of about 30 per cent.
So what are we doing about it? Let us look at some of the ways in which Employment and Immigration Canada tries to help the young people of this country.

The first step in preparing for employment is a good education. We launched a five-year $296.4 million stay-in-school initiative, which is now concluding its fourth year of operation. Stay-in-school is a national dropout prevention strategy comprising three components: public awareness, mobilization of stakeholders, and programs and services.
Stay in school programs and services aimed at young people at risk of dropping out are delivered under START. Funded under the national stay-in-school initiative, the START option provides funding for a variety of labour market programs and services designed to keep high school students from dropping out.
Business, community organizations, municipal governments, public health or education institutions and band
councils all co-operate with Employment and Immigration Canada in START initiatives.
START activities include many innovative approaches aimed at giving young participants life skills training, personal financial management ability and work experience.

Because we must keep working at reducing this 30 per cent dropout rate-even during the summer holidays- about 420 student employment centres are open during the summer. This year we will celebrate the twenty-fifth anniversary of the centres, which were created to help young people find summer jobs.
Canada Employment Centres for Students help students find jobs and they help employers find workers. The staff in these centres are university students themselves. Their job is to offer students the practical guidance they need to find a job, including advice on how to look for work, draft a curriculum vitae and prepare for an interview.
Canada Employment Centres for Students also offer information on various federal and provincial programs. In 1992 the centres made more than 171,500 placements across the country. In addition, more than 106,200 people took advantage of information sessions organized by the centres.
The Canada Employment Centres for Students also help employers. The centres offer direct access to placement and posting services as well as information on remuneration levels, federal and provincial legislation and programs for young people, and information on the number of students available.
We are understandably proud of our efforts and success in this field.

Take the challenge program which has helped tens of thousands of students locate summer employment since 1985. Challenge helps students gain practical work experience that will assist them to make the transition from school to work. It encourages employers to create jobs and to sponsor on-the-job training for young people.
March 18, 1993

Challenge '93 will maintain a strong link to the national stay- in-school initiative. It focuses on helping those who have the most problems finding work. Employers are encouraged to hire high school students who traditionally have the most trouble in finding summer jobs.
Challenge offers five options to employers, students and young people. SEED, the Summer Employment Experience Development option, provides wage subsidies to employers to create summer jobs for students. As far as possible, SEED complements provincial and territorial student employment programs, a co-operative process started under this government in 1985.

Last month, I announced that $88 million will be spent on the Summer Employment Experience Development component of Challenge '93. That is an increase of $5.1 million over the amount set aside last year for SEED.
I also decided to extend for one week, until March 19-tomorrow-the deadline for applying under SEED. By extending the deadline and increasing funding, we want to encourage employers in the private sector to create as many summer jobs as possible this year.
We believe employers realize that by creating summer jobs for students, they are helping Canada's labour force of the future. Despite the prevailing economic climate, students should not give up on finding a job.
We also increased funding for the Student Business Loan Program, from $0.9 million to $1.14 million.
The purpose of the Student Business Loan Program is to help young people who would like to start a business to create their own summer jobs. Under the program, students can get loans of up to $3,000 to operate their own small business during the summer.
In 1985, first year of the program 101 loans were approved and 229 summer jobs were created. In 1992, the number of loans approved was 995 and as a result 2,218 students were able to find summer jobs.
This component is offered through the Federal Business Development Bank, in co-operation with the Royal Bank of Canada and the National Bank of Canada.
This year British Columbia will join the group of provinces that offer this component of the Challenge
Supply
Program: Newfoundland, Quebec, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and the two territories.

The business drive for jobs is a collaborative effort by business organizations and companies to challenge their members and the business community to create additional employment for students during the summer without using government wage subsidies.
With its local hiring emphasis the business drive for jobs helps both students and employers. Students gain work experience and learn about career opportunities in local businesses. By the same token, the employers are introduced to potential future employees.
Another challenge option is the Native Internship Program which creates employment opportunities within Employment and Immigration Canada offices for aboriginal students. It is designed to enhance the job search skills of participants and to introduce them to public service as a possible career.
Another of EIC's youth initiatives is the co-operative education program which channels funds to educational institutions to assist them in running provincially approved work-study programs.
Last August I announced almost $25 million in new funding for co-operative education for the period 1992-96. This is an increase of about $4.5 million over the 1991-95 allocation. It will go toward co-operative education programs at 135 secondary and post-secondary institutions across Canada.
As I said at the time, co-operative education plays a significant role in helping young people gain valuable work-related experience. It is an important bridge between the classroom and the labour market.
Altogether, EIC programs specifically for young people, including stay in school, co-operative education and SEED, spent over $211 million nationally in 1992-93 helping young people find temporaiy employment and preparing them for full-time participation in the labour force. This is on top of our regular employment and training programs that are also widely used by young people.

Supply

We are accused of not keeping our commitments to the young people of this country. I disagree. We also have agreements with Newfoundland and New Brunswick concerning the Youth Strategy. These agreements were first signed in 1988 to help young people in these provinces continue their education and get the training and experience they need.
Perhaps the hon. member would care to explain to 17,600 young people in New Brunswick who took advantage of services provided by access centres financed jointly by the federal and provincial governments in what way this government has failed to meet its commitments. These centres offer young people counselling and evaluation services and direct them to training, study and job creation programs offered by the federal and provincial governments. Most of the young people who come to the access centres are between 15 and 24 years old. About 45 per cent dropped out of high school very early on and need basic training.
When we asked young people whether they had a place to go to talk about jobs, training, education or personal problems before the access centres were created, 64 per cent of the young men and 71 per cent of the young women replied they did not. When asked whether they were satisfied with the help they received at the centres, 86 per cent of the young men and 90 per cent of the young women said they were satisfied or very satisfied.

I suggest the hon. member talk to these Canadians.
Federal and provincial contributions for the Newfoundland agreement total $56.5 million of which $39.5 million represents federal contributions. As of late 1992 there were approximately 2,200 participants actively involved in Youth Strategy projects in Newfoundland. A total of 9,500 youth had participated directly in projects sponsored under the Youth Strategies since 1988-89 and another estimated 50,000 youth have been directly affected by these projects.
These are just a few of the ongoing efforts by this government to help Canada's young people. Rather than "robbing" young Canadians as the motion alleges, this
government has moved to do precisely what needs to be done.
Of course we need a competent and highly qualified labour force. Of course the government is concerned about the problems facing young Canadians on the labour market.
What will the future be? There will be stimulating opportunities, but also certain realities that will be more difficult to cope with. Young Canadians can choose from a range of more than 15,000 occupations and a wealth of innovative courses that will help them acquire the knowledge and skills they need.
On the other hand, the labour market is becoming increasingly complex. Because of global competition and new technologies, Canada's labour force of the future will have to meet tougher standards. Today's youth will have to stay in school longer and have more skills than past generations. To be competitive students must have a solid grounding in mathematics, languages and science.
As I just explained, we are doing what has to be done to help the young people of this country prepare for the challenges of a constantly changing world. We are certain that our young people and the entire country will be able to meet these challenges.


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, the minister spoke about problems of financing. The government has found $5.8 billion for helicopters which chase submarines. Does he know that if that money were spent on things like youth programs, I am told there would be up to 75 times more jobs created. That is if the money were spent that way rather than on submarinechasing helicopters.

I must say to the minister that I fully support this program, which is intended to help people continue their education. But can he quote any figures to indicate the level of funding for this program? Does the program have any funds left, and which regions will be able to take advantage of this funding? Apparently there is a lack of funding in some of Canada's regions.
March 18, 1993

Finally, I also have a question about the school dropout rate. I will quote what was said in Agenda for Youth, a report by the Liberal Senate and House Committee on Youth, published three months ago. It indicates, for instance, the partial illiteracy rate among individuals between the ages of 16 and 34 and born in Canada. Among young people between the ages of 16 and 24, the illiteracy rate is almost 30 per cent, while innumeracy is almost 45 per cent. Among 25-year-olds the illiteracy rate is nearly 20 per cent, while innumeracy is about 30 per cent.
What do the minister and the government opposite intend to do in this rapidly changing world, to deal with this effectively-and I am not talking about what they said they would do, because it is easy to say a lot of nice words that don't mean much-what will they actually do to help young people across Canada?


Mr. Cadienx:: Mr. Speaker, in concluding the hon. member said that nice words are not enough. That is quite true. We are accustomed to hearing that sort of thing from hon. members opposite, words that fail to offer any solution whatever. For instance, the Official Opposition wants to get rid of the GST but they will not tell us now what alternative they have in mind and how much it will cost Canadian taxpayers.
That being said, I agree with my hon. friend that words are not enough, and it' he had listened to all 20 minutes of my speech in which I mentioned some of the practical steps that have been taken by the Government of Canada to help the young people of this country he probably would not have put his question. But he did, which again goes to show that to them what you say is more important than what you do, although they would never admit it.
Again, I regret the fact that my hon. friend, and I assume this is part of their strategy, tried to compare the helicopter program-because that is what he was referring to-to other programs in other envelopes of this government. I may remind him that although these are hard times, the government invested-and I am getting back to his second question-$296 million in the Stay in School Program to deal with a very serious problem. I don't think we should play politics with the high school dropout rate in this country, since these young people are tomorrow's labour force and some of them will take our seats in this House.
We must do something about this fundamental problem. Education will provide the necessary tools to meet
Supply
the challenges of the future in a rapidly changing world, a global economy, and a world of fierce competition. We must concentrate our efforts on dealing with this problem. The hon. member would have Canadians believe that the Challenge budget was cut in half, but he is wrong, Mr. Speaker, There was some redeployment of funding within the program in order to focus on the fundamental problem: the school dropout rate. However, the other initiatives and options in the program are there to deal with other problems. Yes, funding is still available. This is a five-year program, and we allocate funding by region, as we have done since the beginning of the program.


Mr. Mike Breaugh (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister. He has laid out for us some of the initiatives the government has taken. I am somewhat surprised he did not mention the fact that in the late seventies and early eighties when the Liberals formed the government they began the process of cutting back on transfers to the provinces. They began the process of capping the transfers.
Research we have done into this seems to indicate that the major provinces, those that are seen to be healthy, had the biggest change in funding. In the province of Ontario that amounts to something like $4.4 billion in different types of funding that has been removed from the province's budget.
I am surprised that the minister did not at least acknowledge that the Liberal government began this process. It is true that his government has embellished it, but when one makes a major structural financial change such as that in how schools are funded, how can one possibly be suqmsed and shocked that the drop-out rates have escalated, that illiteracy continues to flourish and that children still live in poverty? When one initiates a major fiscal change such as the Liberals did the end result of that surely is obvious. All of the resultant problems are right there in our educational system today.
I am somewhat surprised that the minister did not even give credit where the credit is due, to the Liberal Party of Canada.


Pierre H. Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated a little earlier, I do not fall easily into partisanship and I am taken somewhat by surprise at having to arbitrate debate. From what I can understand, that would be better addressed between my friends on the other side.

March 18, 1993
Supply
I am sure that during the day, acknowledging that we have done everything that had to be done, they could pursue the discussion among themselves to find out what went wrong in the seventies and the eighties, or perhaps what is going wrong in Ontario today. However, I absolutely do not want to deal with that specific issue. I will leave that to hon. members to debate among themselves.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, I will make my question short.
The problem we have is that the minister gets up and talks about all the programs the government has been responsible for initiating, all the statistics and all the numbers. The problem is that there is a difference between what is happening in the programs and what is going on in reality.
I am convinced that the lack of action on these programs is something that many members of Parliament are not focusing on. There are a lot of good programs in the Government of Canada and some of them go back many years. They are not just Conservative programs, a lot of good programs are Liberal programs. But we are having a problem today actioning these programs.
We have these kids out on the street who hear about the Challenge program or the retraining programs but when they go to either fill out the forms or try to get involved in one of them they come back empty. What they are asking is: "What good are all these programs"?
It is not unlike the Small Businesses Loans Act. I have been made to look almost like a fool in the last two weeks by the government promoting the Small Businesses Loans Act. It sends the small businessmen to the local banks and they come back not knowing anything about it because the government has not actioned its own policy.
I wonder if the minister would care to react to that and maybe in the spirit of non-partisanship admit that even though there are some good programs in the hopper, they are not being implemented fully.


Pierre H. Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend raises a few interesting points. Some of them I am prepared to acknowledge. It is true that some of the programs in place right now were in place before this government
came to office. Because those few we kept were good, we have enhanced them and maintained them. I am prepared to admit that.
We have also brought in the other programs that go hand in hand with those in order to give the greatest number of opportunities to our young people.
When my friend suggests that there are some programs that are either misunderstood or perhaps even not applied, that is probably true. In some cases it is because programs have been changed or are in the process of being changed. Perhaps some people, rightly or wrongly, did not get the appropriate information at the right time to respond to the people to whom my friend is referring. That of course has to be corrected.
There is absolutely no question that if the programs need to be enhanced or corrected this minister is prepared to look at that very seriously. In fact, the prosperity initiative is going to permit us to do more in order to make sure that all of our initiatives address the entire picture, not just piece by piece. Sometimes the puzzle does not fit.
I think we all agree that we need the appropriate education, the appropriate training programs, the appropriate initiatives and also the connection between all this, particularly to address the step between school, college, university and the labour force. This has to be ironed out and the prosperity initiatives address that. The means and needs are going to be put in place in order to make sure that the system works and works properly.


Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-St. Clair):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to have this opportunity once more to participate in a debate on policies which are designed to provide young people with some answers to some of the serious problems of employment and social and economic dislocation that they face these days.
I suppose the point at which to begin this debate is to refer to the year 1985. That year was declared by the United Nations to be International Youth Year. I led a New Democratic task force on youth that went across the country talking to young people that year. They were given an opportunity to express their views on what their concerns were at the time and what the solutions might be.
March 18, 1993

.(1115)
It should be understood that one of the concerns within the United Nations was that in the industrial nations of the world there were accumulating large numbers of unemployed youth, youth who not only did not have jobs but who had very little prospect of jobs. There was concern that not having jobs would ultimately lead to a group within society that would constitute a serious social problem.
At that time, the government also sponsored a number of youth fora across the country within the context of International Youth Year. A number of us in this House attempted to get the government to introduce a coherent youth policy. We just heard the minister say that the prosperity initiative was somehow going to address the issue of a coherent youth policy. That just demonstrates one thing: that the government at the time, having made the promise it would adopt a youth policy that would address the issue of youth unemployment, failed to meet its promise. Now in 1993 we have yet another promise that will address the issue. There could be no clearer, more dramatic demonstration of the failure of this government's policies with respect to youth.
The report provided by Stats Canada in January entitled "Labour Market Trends for Youth 1989 to 1992" is interesting because it corresponds to the introduction of the free trade agreement as well as the beginning of the recession, really a depression, that exist now.
No matter what the minister may have said about the immediate short-term gains in youth employment, the fact is that between 1989 and 1992 youth unemployment rose from 11 per cent to 19.3 per cent. Unemployment among youth grew from 303,000 in 1989 to 431,000 in 1992, beginning to mimic the situation in the years 1984 and 1985.
What I think is significant in all of this is not only that youth unemployment has increased, but the number of youth who are looking for jobs, that is the number of youth in the labour force, has dropped. This is an expression of the hopelessness that plagues youth these days, that same kind of hopelessness which was identified back in 1984 and 1985.
We can refer to another bit of information which has been given broad public debate and discussion in recent
Supply
months and that is the appearance of generation x. It is the product, the predicted product, of the failure of the governments of the eighties, including this government, in 1984, 1985 and continuing to this day. Unless something dramatic is done we may face yet another kind of generation, perhaps generation omega, those who are completely through and those who are completely disillusioned, disenfranchised and disempowered and consider themselves outside the pale.
The fact is that we have a serious unemployment rate. We have a serious problem with respect to the ability of young people to adapt to the new knowledge-based economy we now face.
We identified dramatic changes in 1985 in our task force report which have to be addressed. Youth must be prepared, but those initiatives simply have not taken place.
It is interesting to recall that just a few days ago the House justice committee published a report in which it indicated that if one really wants to address the issue of crime prevention in Canada, one has to focus increasingly on young people at risk and the underlying social economic factors associated with crime and criminality.
Certainly, if we are going to address crime then we have to address its roots. Crime is one of the expressions of the disillusionment and disenfranchisement of young people. Since 1984, the year before International Youth Year, there has been a 405 per cent increase in violent crime committed by youth. In general it would be too simple to describe it in these terms, but at least in part it is an expression of the frustration that inevitably will come to young people who are looking for jobs in the absence of any coherent policy to provide them with jobs and the training for those jobs in a population that has a 30 per cent innumeracy and illiteracy rate, which is an issue that has not been adequately addressed.
It has to be admitted that the illiteracy rate among youth is no higher than the general population, but in this day and age one would expect the educational system to provide better preparation than that. There is a 35 per cent drop-out rate in our school system. That reflects some of the concerns we heard when we had our task force. Youth thought their schools served them poorly. For example, we found, insofar as vocational

March 18, 1993
Supply
counselling was concerned, that the average high school student in this country faces a situation in which there is one counsellor for each 1,000 or 2,000 students. They need more help in that regard. They also said they wanted more co-operative programs and more work experience programs associated with schooling at the high school level.
There were a number of things that we suggested should be done at the time. Among those was to increase the funding available for co-operative and work experience programs. More important, we suggested a number of approaches to improve the situation with respect to training and education for youth. I will come to these in a moment.
We heard the minister bragging about the tremendous initiatives this government has undertaken. I have already indicated that this government's youth policies have been a failure. One might wonder why, in view of the large number and diversity of programs cited by the ministers, they are nevertheless inadequate. Well, they seem to have multiplied in a very peculiar way; they have increased in number but decreased in size.
We heard the minister, and it bothered me immensely, brag about the youth employment centres. The youth employment centres on college campuses right across this country have been closed down. We heard him talk about the Canadian Jobs Strategy and what contributions it was making to youth training and retraining. The fact is that while the Canadian Jobs Strategy, to an extent of 40 per cent, serves youth the government has cut $200 million from that program. It multiplied the programs and decreased the resources.
We heard the minister talk about the SEED program and the Challenge program. This is one area where we must concede to the Liberals. When this government came into office it cut the amount of money available for student summer employment from $240 million ultimately to $180 million right now.
We heard him talk about the SEED program. We heard him talk about co-operative programs. In order to fund work experience or co-operative programs for high school students the government took money from the
SEED program and shifted it over to the high school level, resulting in $140 million being cut to $80 million for the SEED program. We heard the minister say that the SEED program has been increased from $80 million to $88 million over the last four years. While all that was going on the unemployment rate has almost doubled for young people, particularly in the summer.
That is hardly a record to stand before this House and brag about. We have heard my colleague mention what the government has done with respect to its obligations for post-secondary education. The accumulated cuts to the university and college system as a result of this government's actions, as well as those of the Liberal government before it, will amount to about $10 billion in a decade.
What is the result of that? The result is that universities find themselves severely cash-strapped. Libraries are in a state of deterioration. Laboratories are using archaic microscopes. I dare say that if the present trend continues the microscope of Antoni van Leeuwenhoek will be used in some of the laboratories of this country.
Not only are students gaining access to a university and a college system that cannot do a good job of preparing students for a new technological future, but to get there it costs more. Tuition fees have increased right across this country. I will give some examples. Between 1985-86 and 1991-1992 tuition for engineering undergraduates increased 145 per cent at McGill, 82 per cent at the University of Saskatchewan, and 92 per cent at Simon Fraser.
Meanwhile, because of these increased tuition costs
70,000	students were turned away from the universities and colleges of this nation last year.
This government's policies, which are intended to encourage university graduation and encourage students to gain an education, have resulted in a situation as a result of the real actions of this government in which on many campuses there are food banks. There are food banks at the University of Toronto, Simon Fraser University, the University of Manitoba, the University of Alberta and Dalhousie University.
March 18, 1993

Where do students from ordinary families get the funding to go to university or college? They get it from the Canada Student Loans Program. What is happening to that? This government is in the process of making it worse and worse. Just recently Bill C-76 passed through this House. Let me just mention something about Bill C-76 and the promises the government made back in 1985 about consultation and concern about youth. That bill went to a legislative committee which refused to hear from students, refused to hear what students would say about the fact that this government had imposed a 3 per cent tax on student loans and then turned around and eliminated the six-month interest-free period.
The government tried to make it sound good by promising those same students that the 3 per cent tax on student loans, which means that a student goes in and borrows a couple of thousand dollars and before he can get it home must pay $60 out of his pocket right then and there, would be eliminated when it eliminated the interest-free period. It did not do that.
Students have had the government stick its hands in their pockets for a total of about $70 million in additional costs to students across this country for a program which is supposed to encourage accessibility to universities.
Now it intends to make it a single bank program in which student loans would be made available on the same basis as any other private loan, a single bank perhaps will do it. It is going to insist that a student carry at least 80 per cent of a full load thus making it more and more difficult for part-time students to gain access to university. This government has a lot of nerve coming into this House and bragging about what it has done for young people, who are hurting right across this country.
We urgently need a coherent, broadly-based program to eliminate illiteracy among youth, to ensure that every child in this country, as our party suggests, will have access in this new socio-economic environment to the necessary preparation for school through a broadly-based increase in the availability of day care, not day care for just care but day care for education.
Supply
We need a program that will provide broader access to work experience such as the national community youth service that we suggested. We need a program that will provide funding, as we suggested in our task force report, for youth between the ages of 18 and 24 for two years to make it possible for them to go to college or university, to engage in entrepreneurship, to be retrained or to take apprenticeship for two years. That would ensure that more and more of our youth would have access to a reasonable choice about what kind of training or educational alternatives, and therefore vocations, are suitable to them and it would not be dictated by their ability to pay. These are the kinds of programs we need.
Mr. Speaker, if you want to see a government that is interested in youth then contrast the cutbacks by this federal government to the 70 per cent increase in youth training funds in Ontario, to the JOY program of last summer which appealed to so many young people.
I want to congratulate the Liberals for having introduced this motion. I want to congratulate them for having had a report on the needs of youth. That report was an excellent report in reporting the needs but it was very short on describing the solutions. They are calling the kettle black when they accuse this government of not having policies. They came late to the scene.
I hope in identifying the problems as the Liberals have in that report and in condemning the government for what it has done that they will do in this area what they have not done in very many areas, and that is come up with policies that will address the issues they have raised in more specific terms than they seem inclined to do.


Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, I listened very closely to what my hon. colleague was saying. I would like to ask him about his colleague at Queen's Park, the premier of Ontario. They both are members of the same political party. I would like him to comment on some of the actions taken by Mr. Rae with regard to students.
The member knows that education is primarily a provincial responsibility. As I understand it, his friend and colleague, Mr. Rae, the premier of Ontario, has cut

March 18, 1993
Supply
back on funding for students wishing to attend post-secondary institutions. That is the first part of my question.
Second, I would like to have the member comment on what it would cost to implement some of the very worth-while programs he was suggesting a few moments ago. f do not think there is much disagreement in this House with regard to some of these programs. However, the NDP are quick to suggest new programs but very rarely does it attach a price tag to any of these specific programs. Is it any wonder that the NDP is so lacking in credibility when it comes to these matters?
Can the member comment on Mr. Rae at Queen's Park, and can he provide this House with some specific costings for each of the programs he is suggesting? Once he has done that, can he explain how he would pay for these new programs. Would it be through increased taxes or by way of other programs being cut? Can the hon. member please comment?


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has perhaps been in this House when I have expressed deep concern about the action by the Ontario government in eliminating grants to students. However, it should be understood that the grants to students were coming out of provincial coffers. When we really look at it, that was one way of shifting the cost to the Canada Student Loans Program and therefore increasing the available provincial funding to universities.
This is a direct result of the cuts in EPF initiated by the Liberal governments beginning in 1975. Yet I would say the new super-minister of education and training, my colleague Dave Cooke in Windsor, agrees with me. I have no doubt a re-examination will take place with respect to that.
In respect to some of the programs I have suggested, I suppose there would be some curiosity among the Liberals about the ideas that the New Democrats have brought forward. The Liberals will inevitably see what they can borrow. That is why their youth report contains so little substance. We will be specific about those programs I have suggested.
In fact the child care program we have suggested will cost $100 million in the first year and ultimately $1.7 million in the last year. This is within the context of a broadly-based program of worker empowerment training and education and investment. After five years it will ultimately lead to a $10 billion cut in the deficit.
With respect to the program I have advocated concerning youth prospects which would provide two years of training to young people between the ages of 18 and 24, this was costed. In the first year it would cost about $400 million and ultimately about $1 billion. That of course does not take into account the expenditures already being made with respect to the administration of other student aid programs which would incur a savings if this kind of program were introduced.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, my friend raced through those numbers so quickly he hardly had time to breathe. He talked about a $10 billion return. Is he really serious about that with regard to the first program he was mentioning? Where does he propose to get the money from? In the second program he talked about $400 million. He said it so quickly it almost sounded more like four cents or 40 cents. That is a lot of cabbage. I am sure that my friend will agree.
Where does he propose that money will come from? He knows as we speak that his friend Roy Romanow is about to cut the civil service in the province of Saskatchewan. He is about to cut loose all his friends in the labour movement. Bob Rae as we speak is talking about cutting back tens of thousands of civil servants in the province of Ontario.
While they are talking about cutting back at the provincial level, they have their youth critic here in Ottawa talking about spending, spending, spending, in a very irresponsible fashion I would submit. I would hope that the hon. member and his party, before they start talking about all these new programs, would be kind enough to inform us in detail where this money is to come from.
Rather than simply saying that we give it time and as the economy improves we will end up paying for it, someone has to pay the bill every month. It seems that members of the NDP are always inclined not to worry about the fact that there is a mortgage payment or a rental payment coming up at the end of the month; they are just prepared to put this country and this province further into debt.
Is it any wonder they have so very little credibility?


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, I do not know how this hon. member has the gall to stand up here and talk about
March 18, 1993

credibility. He has already demonstrated to the whole nation watching this debate on television that he is an extremely slow thinker, even for a member of the right wing of the Liberal Party.
I know I might have gone too fast for the hon. member. I think it is important for him to understand that we are talking about a federal issue here and the role of the federal government.
We are not going to talk about the cutbacks. We are not going to talk about the cutbacks in the civil service by a Liberal government in Newfoundland or a Liberal government in New Brunswick or a Liberal government in Quebec. We are not going to talk about the fact that those Liberal governments have higher proportional and faster growing deficits than Ontario.
We are not going to talk about that, but I will continue to go as slowly as I can so that this right wing deficit preoccupied member of the Liberal Party who seems to be so slow in grasping things will understand.
I did not say, for example, that day care all by itself would lead to a $10 billion cut in the deficit. What I said was that an over-all program designed to produce jobs of the sort that the Liberals have been challenged by almost every newspaper in this country to produce and will not, will lead to in context over all a $10 billion cut in the deficit over five years.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member's time has expired. I am sure he will be able to read it in Hansard.


Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (York North):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to address the House on this motion as proposed by my good friend the hon. member for Haldimand-Norfolk. It is a fact that young Canadians are confronted by numerous challenges. Steps we take to help them will have a direct impact on all our lives.
Last year I had the privilege of serving as co-chair of the Liberal Senate and House of Commons committee on youth. My colleagues and I travelled across Canada. We went to every province and the Arctic and met with hundreds of Canadians, both young people and those interested in helping them.
We met with teachers, students, fishermen, farmers, police officers, people who run drop-in centres as well as
Supply
aboriginal groups and multicultural groups. Through those meetings we learned a great deal about the state of youth in Canada. I can say that for many of them the situation is bleak.
Young people today are faced by rising unemployment, fears about job security and feelings of alienation. They are frustrated by an education system that cannot help the 100,000 high school students who lose hope and drop out of high school every year. That is 100,000 a year, one million in a decade. It is a system that fails to address the high illiteracy and high innumeracy rates that afflict our youth.
Young people worry about not having the skills needed to find jobs in tomorrow's knowledge-based economy. They cannot understand why the federal government will not provide them with opportunities.
Everywhere our youth committee went, whether it was in Moncton, Quebec City or in Edmonton, the message was always the same: Young Canadians feel that they have no future. Many are deeply troubled by the present situation. They are desperate for a new vision of Canada, a vision that will restore their hope and show them a future.
Young people, their parents, their teachers, people in youth-serving organizations all look to the government for guidance and leadership. Sadly, this government has turned a deaf ear to their concerns.
For the past two years our youth have struggled alongside other Canadians through the worst recession in recent memory while the government turns its back on the human misery created by the recession. Is there misery in this country? Ask the two million Canadians lining up at food banks. Forty per cent of that number are under the age of 18.
That neglectful attitude is also evident in other areas. Look at the unemployment rate. While the general population now has a rate of 10.8 per cent, youth unemployment stands at 16.7 per cent which means that almost 400,000 young people are listed as unemployed. That is a trend which has maintained itself throughout the recession.
The youth unemployment rate has always stood at approximately six percentage points higher than the general unemployment rate. The number of unemployed youth has risen steadily since 1988, going from 303,000 to
431,000	in 1992.

March 18, 1993
Supply
How did this Progressive Conservative government respond? Well, it responded by diminishing opportunities for young people. Because of government cuts the jobs created by SEED, the summer job creation program, went from 94,115 in 1985 to 53,800 in 1991.
The government has also cut deeply into funding for post-secondary education and in training programs for youth. In 1991 the Conservative government cut transfers for education by almost a half billion dollars and in the 1992 budget another $800 million was cut.
This assault on youth has to stop. A new generation of political leadership in this country will achieve that.
I was born in 1960. My generation grew up believing that if we worked hard and received a good education we could expect to do better than our parents did. But as we see, times have changed and that is no longer the case.
As a member of Parliament I have spent the past four years listening to the voices of young people throughout Canada. I can say that an entire generation of young Canadians is learning that the rules for inclusion in our society have changed. Instead of an unlimited future, today's youth are confronted by diminishing opportunities.
The Liberal Party of Canada is determined to restore hope and offer a future to Canada's youth. We are determined to get our economy moving again, rebuild Canada's economic leadership, create highly skilled, highly paid jobs and reclaim the future for our children. We want to create a society that will be able to compete globally, protect the environment and provide opportunities for its members.
Young people are an important part of our vision. That is why we are committed to giving them the tools they need to build their future in the new economy, an economy where young people will be full partners.
We call on all our economic partners-business, labour, all levels of government-to join us in a program to eradicate illiteracy and innumeracy among our youth. We call on them to help us promote co-operative education, to encourage work place training and to help us develop national education strategy goals.
The Liberal Party of Canada is committed to establishing a national apprenticeship training program, to creating a Canadian youth service dedicated to environmental protection and responding to the social needs of our communities.
The Chretien plan outlined earlier this year offers the promise of developing an educated work force with world-class skills. It offers the promise of a globally competitive economy and a learning culture that can easily adapt to change.
This is the direction in which we want to go. This is the Liberal vision of the future. We are determined to make that vision a reality.
The message we have received from young people is clear: They do not want political leaders to sit idly by; they want them to act. Government has a moral responsibility to provide opportunities for its young people. In turn, young people have a moral responsibility to make the most out of those opportunities.
Young people understand they have an important role to play and they are ready to take up that challenge. They also understand that the future is not a gift, it is an accomplishment.
We know on this side of the House that by building an effective partnership with the key stakeholders and young Canadians we can achieve the vision that we have outlined today.
The future of this country depends largely on the political will to act and to effect positive change for young generations. For far too long, this government has been silent on developing an effective agenda for young people.
I think that we, as an opposition party in Parliament, have outlined to the government what we as a party in government would do. It is a serious program that I am sure will make a difference. Together with young people we will make it happen.


Mr. George S. Rideout (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, I just want to compliment the member for York North on an excellent address that outlines a direction and a policy. I think that all members should be cognizant that this particular member has done a lot of work with respect to youth and the agenda for youth.
March 18, 1993

I know that in the process of preparing for the new direction that the Liberal Party is going to offer with respect to youth the member for York North travelled around the country and consulted. Therefore the recommendations and the views that are expressed have come from the bottom up rather than from the dictatorial methods employed by the government.
I wondered whether the member could tell us of his visit to Atlantic Canada. I know he was in my own riding of Moncton. What feedback was the member getting from youth and what directions did they indicate that we as a government should take?


Maurizio Bevilacqua: I would first like to stress the point made by the hon. member that I think is of extreme importance. We as Liberals realized a long time ago that there must be a new style of politics in the 1990s and that people must be partners in the development of policy with our party and indeed within our country.
I may tell you that 3 of these 10 recommendations that are part of the agenda for youth are now a part of our electoral platform. Unlike what the members opposite often say about opposition parties that do not make their agendas available early on, I can sincerely say that we have been telling the Conservative government since January what our agenda for youth will be.
On the point raised about Atlantic Canada, there is a generation of young Canadians in Atlantic Canada who reflect the national concerns. They have fears about job security. They are concerned about the unemployment rate. They are concerned about how the federal government has not been able to equip them with the vehicles of opportunity to deal with global changes, the global economy and global competitiveness.
What is of major concern to Atlantic youth is also that their economy is being restructured but nothing is being done-not only for them but for their parents-during this adjustment period. They feel shut out and alienated from the entire process of government.
The Liberal Party, as the modern party that it is today, has decided to open the doors wide to ask Canadians at the grass roots level to tell us what they think and what their concerns are. I am proud to say that the agenda for youth is not only the work of parliamentarians but it is the work of young people from the Atlantic to the
Supply
Pacific, from coast to coast to coast. That is the way this party will proceed for many years to come.


Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, I would first of all like to commend my colleague from Haldimand-Norfolk for this opposition motion because I believe that the subject is extremely important. I would also like to commend the member for York North for co-chairing the committee which studied the problems of youth throughout Canada. I believe that these two events will hopefully make a tremendous contribution to this great challenge facing the country today. For me, the fundamental question today is this: What should we do, what do our young people need today?

Let us look at that. It seems to me that what Canadians want-young people in particular-is hope, empowerment, dignity and an education that will lead to jobs. Clearly that has to be the focus of government because our future, yours and mine, Mr. Speaker, depends upon our young people being well educated and well trained and having the kinds of jobs that can not only sustain that which we have in our country today but also that which can be used to build upon for future generations.
The recession is supposedly over and yet we are talking about unemployment rates of 16 per cent and 17 per cent. In some parts of the country for our young people it is in excess of 20 per cent. If we were to go to certain groups in our society, for example our aboriginal people, it would be very, very close to total unemployment. This is a far cry from full employment.
That depresses me. I take it that that concern is shared by all my fellow parliamentarians.
I remember travelling across Canada a couple of years ago to talk to the young people in our colleges and universities and other young people who were in the work force to ask them about how they saw the country and their future. There was uncertainty. There was not the enthusiasm that one normally sees among our young people. I noted and they reminded me that both education and jobs are rapidly escaping the grasp of many of our young people today.

Supply
Between 1985-86 and 1992-93, tuition fees have skyrocketed out of sight. Let me give some examples. The fees have grown by 69 per cent at Memorial University and 185.7 per cent at Northwest Community College in British Columbia. I could give more examples that are even more striking.
Those are tuition fees. We often forget to talk about incidental fees, which are those other fees that students need to pay. They have grown in certain sectors by even greater percentages.
For the first time in our history the young people of Canada are paying the goods and services tax on books and reading materials so they are being hit again. They are unable to find suitable employment. The summer of 1992 was one of the worst ever for young people. They either had no jobs or if they did have jobs they were poorly remunerated short-term jobs so they were unable to save and contribute as fully as they could have to their education this year. It was a real disaster. I am really hoping, as I know my colleagues are, that things will really change.
What has been the government's record with respect to post-secondary education and making it more accessible? Without being partisan whatsoever I assure you that it has not at all been laudable. I will let the people be the judge.
Let me share this with you. The criteria for the allocation of student loans was set in 1984, almost a decade ago. What has changed? Absolutely nothing. This is totally inadequate. Obviously the costs have gone up dramatically. I will give an example of someone who is going into the faculty of dentistry in my province. The loan money that he or she can get will not even cover the fees for that particular student. Surely that is inadequate. Surely we are reaching the level where education becomes available to those who are the richest in society.
Quite apart from not changing the student aid program in a positive kind of way, the government did some very regressive things. It imposed a 3 per cent tax on student loans Mr. Speaker, if you, and I had to borrow as students it was because we did not have enough money. Obviously that is why we borrow. Yet at the same time it has imposed a 3 per cent tax on that. Those who do not
have to borrow do not have to pay the tax. However, those who do not have the resources have to pay the tax.
What else did it do? There used to be a six-month interest-free period so that I, as a student, could graduate, get a job and then start repaying my loan. What has happened? Now it is in the process of changing that. There is going to be six months' interest more to pay. It is interesting that the 3 per cent tax is going to yield to the government coffers, according to government estimates, $22.5 million. This additional six months' interest would yield to the government coffers, once it is fully instituted, $35 million. That is an additional almost $60 million out of the pockets of our young people.
That is what the government has done.
What has happened as a result of that? Obviously student debt has gone up at an exponential rate. It is really going out of sight.
I want to share the following example with you, Mr. Speaker, because I know how interested you are in young people. There has been a 500 per cent increase in the number of students who graduate with a total debt burden in excess of $10,000 during the last four years.
Now the government is talking about the first step toward privatizing the student aid program. It sends out submissions to banks to ask them if they could handle it. The students are very clever. They say: "Just a minute, there".

What criteria will guide the decisions in making student loans? Then they asked who will set these criteria and what the role of the bank or banks will be in this whole process.
Mr. Speaker, I assure you that students are very nervous. Why? Of course if they have money there is not so much of a problem. However, if they have few resources what will happen? Will colleges and universities be less accessible? Will these young men and women who want to pursue their education be able to do so with a loan that they will have to repay later?
March 18, 1993



I want to recap and point out that the government has cut transfer payments to the provinces for post-secondary education. I have said it time and time again in this House. In roughly a decade of government control it will have reduced and cut back the grants and the transfer payments for health and education by $30 billion. It is not $30 million but $30 billion. It is about $20 billion for health and about $10 billion for education.
As a result, as I indicated, the universities have increased their tuitions and incidental fees. Student loan criteria have not changed since 1984. There have been some regressive measures such as the 3 per cent tax and the addition of six months' interest. All of that, quite apart from the goods and services tax, is penalizing students. They have taken hit after hit after hit with no relief.
These students are graduating with huge debt loads and the prospects of a job are not particularly good; they are either over the short term, poorly remunerated or they do not exist.
Let me share some examples as to how the student aid program, quite apart from the 3 per cent tax and the additional six months' interest, has really caused difficulty-
There is a young woman in my riding-and I could give a dozen such examples of this-she is the mother of three. She defaulted on her student loan because she was unable to find a suitable job. She was unable to find any job. Now she is being threatened with the possible seizure of her child tax credit on her income tax return. She really is. This is the absolute truth. Besides that, she is being harassed by a collection agency.
I understand that one has to try to collect the money but one cannot draw blood from a stone. Surely a mother of three who has done her best to get a job should not be harassed by anyone for money that she cannot repay.
In another instance, I have a constituent who took out a student loan and decided to take a three-year program at university. He studied for two years, ran out of money and went back to work in a responsible kind of way. He then wanted to go back and complete the third year. Lo and behold, that was not possible because he had supposedly defaulted on his loan.
Supply
Now he has to wait. Will he be able to borrow money again? After he has gone through a number of hoops and hurdles, I suspect that it will be possible.
Can one agree with me that this is not the kind of program that we need? This is not the kind of program that you and I and other parliamentarians want. We need a program that is going to be truly sensitive to the needs of young people and will encourage them to finish their education.
I know I am running out of time. I do wish I had another hour. I am sure that I could share some insights that would be useful not only to my parliamentary colleagues but as well to Canadians. I am sure some members of government will disagree with me, but let me say that even our training efforts are not particularly appropriate.
Many jobs are available today and yet training is unavailable to respond to those jobs. I am delighted that the leader of the Liberal Party has started to make very important statements about where the party stands with respect to education, on the job training, a Canada youth service, and our commitment to education. He issued a statement saying we want the best education training and retraining programs in the whole world so we can be competitive.
We need to make education accessible. We need to improve training and retraining to make apprenticeship and vocational training as well as a whole gamut of educational programs available if we want this nation to be a leader among nations and our young people to be leaders rather than followers.


Robert (Bob) Speller: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. friend for his comments on education.
As he knows from travelling across the country, as he did from university to university talking to post-secondary education students, there really is a feeling out there of despair. We have a whole group of students coming out of university with no hope of a job.
As was seen in the The Globe and Mail this morning, the article headed, "Escaping the Student Debt Trap", we have hundreds and hundreds of examples of how students are going through university piling up debt upon debt. A student piled up $20,000 in government loans.

March 18, 1993
Supply
He then got out of university and had no chance of paying those debts back because he could not get a job.
I know the hon. member has talked to thousands of students across the country. He brought out a great report on ways he feels universities and governments can better adapt to these changing times in order to help students not only to get jobs but to get the education they need to find these jobs in order for Canada to compete internationally.
I want to ask my hon. friend where does he feel the government should be putting its priorities today in terms of education? Given that we have limited resources and that when the books finally come out in the next budget it is going to show that our national finances are in extremely rough shape, where should we be putting the priorities in terms of education?


Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question.
He indicated was there were three reports that were a result of travelling across the country and consulting with young Canadians over the last three years. They are available and I would be delighted to share them. They are non-partisan documents. They simply identify the issues, concerns and challenges.
With respect to where priorities ought to be placed, I think we should listen very carefully to young people, for example the Canadian Federation of Students. I presented a petition today on behalf of students from Saskatchewan. They represent over 450,000 students. They and the community colleges are telling us the following:
We understand we are in very difficult financial times. We are willing to do our part, but we also have to ensure we do not save money today and sacrifice tomorrow. We have to ensure not only that there is adequate money for education, training, retraining, literacy programs, research and development, but that the money is spent in the best way possible to respond to Canada's challenges.
What are those challenges? We all agree that economic development, the creation of jobs for young people, those who need jobs has to be the first priority. We also recognize, and I have said this through petitions and oral questions, that one of the greatest challenges this country faces-quite apart from economic development, the creation of good, long-term, well-remunerated jobs-are our social challenges. Look at the poor today. There are five million Canadians living at or below the
level of poverty, most of whom are women, over one million who are children. Over two million Canadians will be fed at food banks. Over two million Canadians will receive social assistance.
These groups are often powerless. They do not have the necessary skills and education to integrate fully into society. We have to target moneys to those particular groups to make sure that they can, by themselves, have that which they need in order to get jobs and contribute fully to society.
We have to recognize that when they are not doing that they need to collect assistance from the public purse, and when they do that they do not feel very good about it. They want to be contributing to the public purse. That is what I would do, absolutely.


Mr. Marcel R. Tremblay (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I will comment on the dynamic leading role which the Department of the Secretary of State plays in helping our young people grow, develop and become competitive in Canada and in the world.
To contribute to the full development of youth, the Department of the Secretary of State as well is doing its full share in five major fields of activity: funding post-secondary education, the youth participation program, the Canada Student Loans Program, official languages in education and special activities like Voyageurs Canada '92.
The government has a big role to play in education. Although education is under provincial jurisdiction, the federal government's expertise and funding means equal opportunity for all young people in Canada.
[English \
The action plan for Canada's prosperity released in 1992 called for a major effort on behalf of colleges and universities across Canada to become more responsive to the educational needs of Canada.
Canada spends approximately 2.2 per cent of our gross domestic product on post-secondary education. This may at first appear to be a modest amount, however in dollar terms in 1991-92 that amounted to almost $14.9 billion. The majority of that investment comes from the federal government. It reflects our commitment to developing highly qualified human resources which are critical to our future.
March 18, 1993

We support post-secondary education directly and indirectly. Through Established Programs Financing arrangements and other forms of support the federal government will channel about $8 billion into post-secondary education in 1992-93.
Contrary to what my friends opposite may suggest, this government has not cut funding for post-secondary education. We have been forced to impose restraints on spending to control our national debt and we are proud of our government's record in this area. Even in this time of restraint we are well aware of the need for investing in our future. To that end the total funding available for post-secondary education has continued to increase.
Established Programs Financing support for post-secondary education has steadily increased by nearly $100 million in 1990-91, by another $182 million in 1991-92 and by more than $72 million this year. The total Established Programs Financing support for post-secondary education now exceeds $6 billion. This is just basic support for post-secondary education.
The federal government has in 1992-93 forgone some $3.6 billion in tax revenue and contributed about $1.4 billion in cash. The federal government also provides direct support to post-secondary education through other programs. The Department of the Secretary of State is the lead department for co-ordination between departments and agencies for education matters. Without the involvement of the federal government, post-secondary institutions and their students will lose almost $2 billion worth of direct support including $123 million for post-secondary schools directly funded by the government. To put this contribution into perspective there are roughly the equivalent of one million post-secondary students in programs across our country.
Our support for each person registered in a post-secondary education program amounts to $8,000 a year, or about $30,000 for a four-year program. We are investing $8 billion in our future this year. That is certainly not robbing a generation of young Canadians of their legitimate aspirations. That is how we must build a strong and prosperous country.
Supply
Mr. Speaker, I would now like to talk to you about the Canada Student Loans Program. By helping needy students pursue their post-secondary education through the Canada Student Loans Program we are promoting the full development of the nation's youth. Basically, a Canada student loan is an investment in someone's future.

About a quarter of a million students are now in post-secondary studies with the help of the Canada Student Loans Program. More than half of the recipients are women and more than a quarter of the total are over 27 years of age. In every region of our country the Canada Student Loans Program assists needy students with a helping hand. This represents $740 million in Canada student loans for 1991-92, $100 million more than the previous year.
This sustained commitment to investing in the individual has resulted in Canada's enviable rate of participation in post-secondary education, about 62 per cent in the 20 to 24 year old group, second only to the United States at 68 per cent.
The program also contributes to the development of a well educated, skilled and adaptable labour force which is critical to increasing Canadian activity, competitiveness and our quality of life.
We have through the Canada Student Loans Program provided support for students to pursue their educational goals. This is an ongoing commitment to the potential offered by our young people.
This government has also committed itself to modernizing the way we fund and operate the Canada Student Loans Program in order to enhance assistance for needy students and to strengthen the program even further. There is more to post-secondary education than just the hard dollars invested in our future and our young people.

Activities to promote our two official languages are also part of our educational objectives. The Department of the Secretary of State is committed to co-operating fully with the provincial and territorial governments so that minority anglophones and francophones can receive education in their own language in their communities and help other people become familiar with the other official language.

March 18, 1993
Supply
Two major advantages flow from such a commitment. For one thing, it helps fight illiteracy and school dropout by encouraging French and English speaking youth to acquire the skills needed to be competitive. For another, it is clearly advantageous on the world market for Canadians to know both official languages.
About 2.9 million young Canadians have benefited from the Official Languages Program of the Department of the Secretary of State and thus acquired essential skills for our common future. In 1990-91, our provincial and territorial partners invested $3 for every dollar allocated by the federal government to official languages in education. That clearly proves this program's success in motivating not only students but also those directly responsible for the administration of education in the provinces and territories.
According to a study of the Official Languages in Education Program conducted in 1992, the provinces and target groups believed that federal aid was absolutely necessary at all levels of the education system. Furthermore, 74 per cent of the parents questioned in that study want their children to learn both official languages in school. The promotion of official languages is a key to encouraging young Canadians to pursue higher objectives by calling on skills in which the federal government has invested.
Several components of the Official Languages in Education Program have yielded amazing results. For example, about 7,000 students take part in French or English immersion courses every summer, thanks to a special program.
Every year about 1,200 students have part-time employment as teachers' aides in courses in French as a first language, under the Official Languages Monitors Program. In addition, the program helps some full-time monitors in rural or remote regions.
The Official Languages Promotion Program funds some 20 organizations of young francophones throughout the country that are committed to fighting assimilation and promoting the feeling of belonging to Canada.
In Quebec the program helps young anglophones continue to play an active role in their own language in Canada.
In co-operation with all provinces and territories, various programs promote the growth of post-secondary institutions in all parts of the country that teach the official languages. Right here in Ottawa, the Department of the Secretary of State and the ministry of education of Ontario are helping to finance the Cite collegiale. This is not just a small grant; it involves creating a whole new French college in Ottawa.
The Cite collegiale is one of many projects in which the department is taking part all across the country. The government is interested in the issues that concern all Canadians. It is not satisfied with mere rhetoric; it does not hesitate to participate financially and to act on the strength of its many years of experience, competence, planning and deep commitment.

Speaking of actions, the government is also involved in outreach youth through our other programs. Many of our programs target the youth of this country as a principal audience or as a specific subset of the main audience. Programs like Stay In School encourage high school-age young Canadians to graduate from high school. Funding for 10 official language minority community radio stations speak often to the youth in their own language. Also, our involvement directly creates 200 jobs.
The Education Support Branch of the Department of Secretary of State is also responsible for funding Canadian studies learning materials. The department co-operates with the Department of External Affairs to ensure the effectiveness of our participation in international education forums and activities. As well, the Education Support Branch is involved with non-governmental organizations that are active in education. The Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada, the Canadian Association of University Teachers, the Canadian Federation of Students, the Canadian Federation for the Humanities, the Conference Board of Canada and the Canadian Education Association are just a few of the organizations with which the department deals on a regular basis.
March 18, 1993

We must also mention our work with the Commonwealth Youth Program, the International Council for Canadian Studies and Canadian Information Centre for International Credentials as part of our UNESCO commitment.
The Department of the Secretary of State produces hundreds of publications for educators, teachers, administrators and resource centre staff. As an example, they produce the Guide to a Good Exchange which shows voluntary organizations how to maximize the over-all success of a reciprocal student exchange with tips on fund raising, organization and planning.
The department works with people who have disabilities through National Access Awareness Week and the Disabled Persons Participation Program. Both include youth involvement.
The Native Citizens Directorate programs feature community-based programs that target the youth of this country.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, we come to our special programs. My friend opposite should be familiar with Voyageurs Canada 92. Indeed, his own riding of Haldi-mand-Norfolk was paired with Dartmouth, Nova Scotia as part of the Voyageurs Canada 92 program. One hundred young Canadians between the ages of 16 and 21 left Dartmouth and travelled to his riding last summer to experience life in another part of Canada first hand.
Another 95 young members of his riding travelled in turn to Dartmouth to see life through Nova Scotia eyes.
On behalf of the Secretary of State, I would like to thank the hon. member for joining us to create such exciting educational experiences for our leaders of tomorrow.
In all, nearly 28,000 Canadians took part in Voyageurs Canada 92 as part of the Canada 125 celebrations. Thousands more people, not just young Canadians, but Canadians of all ages, felt the effects of Voyageurs Canada 92 through the joyous exchange of stories and memories and even the learning that comes from spending time with someone from a different part of the country.
Supply
Since 1986 some 100,000 young people participated in exchanges funded under the OHC. An example is the Encounters with Canada program at the Terry Fox Centre here in Ottawa, which brings approximately 3,000 students between the ages of 15 to 17 to enhance their knowledge of Canada and, again, a greater awareness of our country by participating in one-week workshops.
One participant in the exchange organized by the YMCA, another organization funded under the OHC program, had this to say: "Many more of these programs are needed to help bring Canadians together. We have so much in common yet all we ever hear is what divides us. These exchanges are vital".

The hon. member for Haldimand-Norfolk moved a motion which says that this government has robbed a generation of young Canadians of their legitimate aspirations.
Perhaps he did not know the extent of this government's commitment to advancing our youth. Perhaps he did not know that we have invested $8 billion in post-secondary education. Perhaps he did not know that the government has forgone $3.6 billion in tax revenue from post-secondary institutions, thus helping these institutions make better use of their resources. Perhaps he did not know that a quarter of a million students in our colleges and universities are counting on help from the Canada Student Loans Program to obtain their certificate or diploma in order to build their career, to build our country.
Perhaps he did not know that 2.9 million young Canadians are gladly learning our two official languages. Our country will benefit from that long after my colleague has left his seat in this House.
Perhaps he did not know that 1,200 university students have part-time work as teachers' aides in first language French courses, not only in cities and towns but in rural communities and remote regions.
Perhaps he did not know how committed the Department of the Secretary of State is to helping official language minorities in colleges and universities, not only through financial assistance but by providing expertise in specific projects, together with the provinces and territories.

March 18, 1993
Supply
Perhaps he did not know that we participate in thousands of projects, large and small, with teachers, administrators, researchers and students to find solutions together, through dialogue and information sharing, to common problems in post-secondary education.
Perhaps he did not know that the Secretary of State has relations with very many organizations, volunteer groups, associations, government departments, companies and countries in order to provide the best possible quality of post-secondary education in Canada.
Perhaps he has even forgotten that about a hundred students from Dartmouth visited his riding to get a glimpse of another part of the country.
Hopefully, he now understands this government's deep commitment to education much better. It is not only a commitment to post-secondary institutions, primary schools, rural schools or schools for the French or English minority, but also a deep commitment to the whole process of acquiring skills to succeed in life.
Our Canadian youth have not been robbed of their legitimate aspirations.

We have provided as many tools as we can to train the scientists, teachers, technicians, politicians, lawyers and decision-makers of tomorrow.
We give the youth of Canada the encouragement, the head start and even our trust and silent hope for a better future. We have tried to describe for all who come later a path that will see our country grow and prosper. By investing in the individual, we ensure that every young Canadian has a fair' chance of success along the path.
We are giving our young people the education, the courage, the skill and the common sense to make their own way along their own road to success, whatever that might be and in whatever direction that might be. That is the record of the Department of the Secretary of State.


Robert (Bob) Speller: Mr. Speaker, I want to sincerely thank the hon. member for his speech. It was a non-partisan speech that outlined a
number of the programs the government is bringing forward. Frankly, we do not have any problems with a number of those programs because they do address a number of needs out there now, not only in terms of education, but keeping young people in school.
What we question is the real commitment of this government to actually recognizing the problems with generation x. There is a whole generation out there that has no hope for a job. They have no hope for a proper education and they have no hope that this government even recognizes the seriousness of the problem.
Preventive medicine is always a good direction to go. I do congratulate the government for putting money into keeping kids in school. As we know, that is a very important area. I congratulate the government for the Voyageur program which the hon. member talked about.
All the people from Haldimand-Norfolk had a fabulous time in Nova Scotia. They got to learn some of the problems and the unique differences within this country by going on that program. I hope the hon. member by saying that is suggesting the program is going to come back for another year. I did not quite hear the hon. member say that but I would hope that maybe one of his colleagues could clear that up for us. I know there are people in our area who would be more than willing to again volunteer their time and services to make sure the program continues because it was very worth while.
My question to the hon. member is this. The hon. member knows that the federal government, having all the physical, fiscal and all the trade responsibilities, really has the responsibility to control the economic direction of this country. The federal government has the ability to set a labour force, to set the training, to set the education for a whole country and for a whole group of young people who just do not have that opportunity.
Does the hon. member agree that the whole problem with generation x, and I know the hon. member understands what I mean when I say that, is that whole lost group which is hundreds and hundreds of thousands of young people who are unemployed, many of whom have never had a first-time job, and if you look at the statistics many have never had a first-time job, has increased dramatically over the years?
March 18, 1993

Supply
Does the hon. member think the government could do more, that there are more programs the government should be bringing forward for these people? Does he not think that what the government has now brought forward is just a light brush over all these problems?


Marcel R. Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I wish to thank the hon. member for his introductory remarks. I must say I have a lot of empathy for our Canadian youth. I have three children myself, two of whom are teenagers, and I must say it is a full-time job to bring them up and ensure they can look forward to a promising future.
1 also want to take this opportunity to mention my personal involvement in the Voyageurs Canada 92 Program. We were twinned with not one but two ridings: Nipissing in Ontario and Brandon-Souris in Manitoba. Every time, I personally picked up our visitors at the airport and went to say goodbye to the young people representing my own riding before their departure.
I also took part in many of the activities that were organized in my riding, together with the families that opened their homes to our visitors. We are now completing our review of this experiment and as far as I am concerned I have nothing but praise for this initiative, and I am sure there are people who will want to repeat the experience.
Regarding further programs or incentives to help tomorrow's youth, I reviewed the measures we introduced since 1984, including the Stay in School Program. I was involved in a number of seminars attended by teachers, parents, people from the various LCSCs and students themselves. These programs are constantly being adjusted to make them right for our young people. The department is also constantly seeking new initiatives to ensure that we have young people we can be proud of tomorrow. We must also bear in mind that we inherited a deficit that weighs heavily on this country and puts a number of restrictions on what we want to do. However, we intend to spend and do what we can to ensure that our youth can look forward to a promising future.


Mr. Greg Thompson (Carleton -Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, I just want to comment on what I have been hearing this morning and put a question to the member for Quebec-Est.
This morning I have heard a lot of doom and gloom from members of the opposition with regard to youth and their future. I think it is somewhat too negative, to be blunt about it. I say that in the context there are great opportunities out there for all Canadians and in particular young Canadians.
We all know that the western world is going through some difficult times but I want to remind the opposition and I want the member for Quebec-Est to reflect on this. In terms of a global society, if you wish, Canada is doing pretty well. In fact this year our economy is expected to outgrow or outperform the economies of every country in the civilized world by something in the order of 3.5 per cent. That figure is very significant because jobs and opportunities for all Canadians, young and old alike, grow or are created from that. It is something I want the member to reflect on.
There is another point I want to make. I want to take the opposition to task on this in terms of our commitment to training and our commitment particularly to the university sector and post-secondary education. I want to pass this statistic along to the member for Quebec-Est to comment on. Every year we transfer to the provinces $6 billion for post-secondary education. Even in times of restraint-we are going through times of restraint now- we have increased that funding and not diminished it. In fact we have increased funding to the post-secondary sector through the provinces by 43 per cent from 1984-85. We are also providing $1.9 billion in training and research to the provinces.
I want the member to reflect on that and comment on what we are doing as a government given our fiscal resources.


Marcel R. Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the hon. member mentioned that Canadian policies and programs are often quoted as an example in other countries, and that is quite true.

March 18, 1993
Supply
I purposely did not mention transfer payments to the provinces earlier on, and more specifically the amounts allocated for occupational training because my speaking time was limited, but I am glad the hon. member raised this very important point. With these payments, the provinces and the territories can spend the money directly on training for our young people.
Mr. Speaker, in recent years there was a trend toward one-shot programs for our young people, which were not that successful. During the 1984 election campaign, I often said that the only permanent thing about these programs was the signs. In fact, the signs stayed up well after the programs ceased to exist and all the money had been spent.
Subsequently we made a number of radical changes by redeploying this money in ongoing programs, where program development and investment impact can be evaluated.


Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I am very proud that the Liberal Party has chosen to spend a full day in the House of Commons to acknowledge the plight of our youth. What better way to spend taxpayers' money than on our youth, their future and Canada's future.

I repeat, the best investment we have is our young people, who represent the future of this country. We must create programs aimed at reducing and eventually eliminating the dropout problem by providing these young people with the training they need to find permanent and satisfying employment.

Last week Statistics Canada reported that since the last election from 1989 to 1992 there were 409,000 fewer young people who had jobs. The UI rate for young men between 15 and 24 years of age is 19.6 per cent in Canada. The UI rate for young women between 15 and 24 is 14 per cent.
What does that mean for our society as we try to come out of this devastating recession? The very people who should be full of energy, full of hope and willing to take risks to reach the positive goals they have dreamed about-the young people of Canada-are disillusioned.
They feel undervalued. They are a generation of lost hope.
That is why I am particularly pleased that the Liberal member for Haldimand-Norfolk has put forward the motion that this House condemn the government for policies-maybe he should have said lack of policies-regarding jobs, job creation, post-secondary education and job training and retraining that are having the effect of robbing a whole generation of young Canadians of their legitimate aspirations.
If this Conservative government had spent more time in the past eight years considering long-range goals for our country, our youth would not be in the terrible situation in which it finds itself today.
It is not just the young people. What about their parents who have sacrificed to allow their children to stay in school? These are parents who want the best for their children. These parents want to see some prospects of a healthy, profitable and productive future for their children.
When the UI rate for our youth is twice that of the rest of society, what does that say about this Conservative government? The Conservative ministers and members have jobs but they do not have vision. For eight years they have not had the vision to see that the youth are our future.
The Prime Minister and the finance minister keep saying that 9,000 new jobs were created last month in Canada but the truth is that we lost 5,000 full-time jobs. The figure 9,000 comes from the creation of 14,000 part-time jobs minus the 5,000 full-time jobs lost.
The government has let the youth of this country down. It is saying that it will give them part-time jobs flipping hamburgers but it is doing nothing to find them full-time jobs.
The hon. member for York North and the Liberal Senator Philippe Gigantes travelled across Canada and then prepared a comprehensive report Agenda For Youth. This task force has made many great suggestions. One of them is that the federal government in concert with provincial governments, the private sector and voluntary associations commit to eradicating illiteracy and innumeracy among Canadian youth. How can we expect our youth to attain the highly skilled jobs needed in the world today if they cannot read or write or if they lack the necessary mathematical skills?
March 18, 1993

Another suggestion is for the federal government to adopt a tax base system to encourage workplace training. Instead of always blocking the way with disincentives, the Liberals suggest using incentives to encourage private enterprise to participate in training our youth.
With the Liberal Party ideas do not stop with the report. The Liberal Party under our leader has already committed to some definite measures for the future of our youth to make these recommendations a reality. In his January 27 speech the Liberal leader stated in part that a Liberal government will work to create a national apprenticeship program to help keep young people in school and to help the transition to work. He also stated that a Liberal government will establish a Canadian youth service designed to allow young Canadians to gain skills and work habits.

Has the government thought of the future? Has it thought of our young people, who are about to begin their adult life without hope, without jobs, without adequate training and without interest? Why not set aside some money for youth development and training?

The youth of Canada know the devastating record of this government. We certainly heard from the Liberal youth task force travelling across Canada. In my riding of Hamilton Mountain students from Mohawk College and from McMaster University spoke of their lack of hope for the future. Students in the high schools in my riding-Barton Secondary, Caledon, Crestwood, Hill-field Strathallan College, Hillpark, Sir Allan MacNab, St. Jean de Brebeuf and St. Thomas More schools-all know the precarious future they face.
That is a good enough reason for young people of this country to defeat this government in the next election and to vote for the Liberals who have a vision for Canada and who want to participate with the youth of Canada in realizing the potential of our great country and every Canadian in it.


Gregory Francis Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I listened with a great deal of interest-but
Supply
concern-to some of what the member for Hamilton Mountain had to say about this government in particular.
She mentioned long-range planning in her speech. I tell her most sincerely that we have engaged in longterm planning for the youth of this country and for the economy. I take her to task on that. When I say that, I go back to the task force report that she obviously has with her this morning. It was set up by the Liberal Party regarding youth, the economy and employment opportunities, et cetera, to which she has alluded.
I am wondering if that document has been tabled in the House or made public. Perhaps it has and I hope that it has. I hope they do not use that internal Liberal Party document on tax reform which the Liberal Party refuses to make public because in that they talk about the business transfer tax and some of the other things that they will have to do-distasteful things-if they do form a government.
I suggest they probably will not form the government. The Canadian people will determine whether that happens or not.
In that tax reform package they really do discuss within that document what they are going to replace the GST with. Unfortunately, they will not make that document public. As I have mentioned, I hope this document is made public and I hope it is tabled here in the House so we can examine it.
I will caution the member that much of what the member had to say has been stolen from our pages and our government. There is no question about it, we do have a plan for the youth of this country and it is working very well. If given the time later on I will mention some of the statistics. However, we have a number of projects on the go and they are long range.
One we can talk about today is the Labour Force Development Strategy. The member has not mentioned that one. Another one is the moneys we commit through the UI funds to training and retraining. She has not mentioned that one which accounts for about $2.2 billion per year. She does not talk about the 530,000 UI claimants that will benefit from that package. She does not talk about the billions of dollars transferred to the-

March 18, 1993
Supply


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member's time has expired and questions and comments has expired. If he could give the hon. member at least one minute for an answer, I would appreciate it.


Elizabeth  (Beth) Phinney: Mr. Speaker, it will not take me a minute to answer.
This has been tabled for several weeks. It is too bad the member does not have it. Tens of thousands of them have been mailed out across Canada.
The hon. member is right. The Canadian people will decide. It was the youth of Canada we listened to. The youth of Canada told us they are not satisfied with what the present government is doing.


Mac Harb: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to have the opportunity to participate in this debate. The motion deals with education, job training and retraining.
Over the past four years there have been many discussions on all sides of the House on the whole question of education, training and retraining. Members of the House of Commons had and still have concerns about the state of the economy and about what is happening in the community in terms of the lack of opportunities and so on. I do not think anybody would disagree with that. However, I think where there is disagreement is that actions speak louder than words sometimes.
So far we have not seen any kind of tangible action taking place, whether we talk about the government in terms of dealing with the question of job creation for youth, training, or transfer payments when it comes to education.
In terms of the NDP, what we have seen day after day in the province of Ontario unfortunately is an attack on the youth of Ontario when it comes to post-secondary education when it comes to grants and when it comes to tuition fees.
Rather than spend my time talking about the lack of action from both the federal perspective as well as the provincial NDP perspective, I want to share with this House some of the things my colleagues and I have done in the past.
In terms of our caucus position on this whole question, a youth report was tabled a number of weeks ago. For those who would like to obtain a copy they can call any Liberal member of Parliament.
The report contains many interesting points. We call for the establishment of national apprenticeship programs. We call for the establishment of some sort of an organization that helps out youth in terms of those who want to participate in the work force. We have tax incentives being proposed in order to help business create jobs. Those are the kinds of things that are needed.
What we need more than anything is a cohesive and co-operative approach that would deal with the whole question of education. There is one segment of this whole debate I would like to focus on specifically. That is the question of literacy.
I know my colleagues have spoken very nicely on education and post-secondary education. I want to share with the government some of the proposals I am working on as someone involved in the area of literacy. I want to divide my proposal into four sections and specifically tell the federal government what its role should be in this whole area.
Over 38 per cent of Canadians are considered to be functionally illiterate. As a result of that these people have difficulty finding jobs and the jobs that are available may not be available to them. The cost of illiteracy is in excess of $10 billion, which is almost 25 per cent of the national deficit.
What is lacking now? We lack a national literacy strategy on the part of the federal government. We do have the National Literacy Secretariat. It was set up five years ago and is in its last year now. The minister made a statement sometime around December saying he wanted to continue with it. However, we have not seen one single penny being allocated in terms of funding. We have not seen any kind of additional commitment with respect to the secretariat for the next five years and beyond.
The government has to look at this whole area of literacy with a little more seriousness than it has done in
March 18, 1993

the past. We can no longer just give lip-service to the communities out there. We need to set out a strategy.
This is what the minister could do. He could establish a strategy at the national level. It would include the policy of national minimum standards on literacy and an awareness campaign. These standards on literacy should be set and met at all levels from elementary school and through to employment training. As well, it has to address the question of adult training programs. Only then can we ensure good quality literacy training across Canada.
We cannot just set up an agency and hope that everybody will run to the agency asking for help. We have to have a pro-active secretariat. We have to give the secretariat the needed funds. We have to give it the tools it needs in order to move out further.
We have to set up a strategy whereby we could bring the relevant groups together. We could bring in the provinces, the private sector, the school boards, the special interest groups, the families, the illiterates and organizations working on behalf of illiterates. We could get them together and move forward.
An ad hoc approach is not going to help us. It is not going to get us out of the ghetto we have found ourselves in for the past few years. We need to have action. That is something my colleague from Hamilton spoke about so eloquently. There is a definite lack of action.
We have a literacy secretariat that is in place for five years, but what about the next five years? Why do we not provide the secretariat with a long-term funding formula so it does not have to come begging to the minister every five years? Why do we not have an act of the House of Commons that will make the secretariat a permanent body of this government? Why do we not have an act? As it is now, there is only a government memorandum concerning the setting up of the secretariat. There is no action plan other than a statement in terms of what will be done in the next 10 years and what we are going to do beyond the next 10 years.
I know the government has stated that it wants to increase the level of literacy. It wants to increase the number of people who graduate from school. What are we doing to achieve that? What is the mechanism the government would set in place in order to do that? It spent over $20 million on consultation which is wonder-
Supply
ful. I have to commend it on that because I think it is imperative to have the consultation. What is next? Where are we moving from here?
My colleagues and I are alarmed at the high unemployment rate our youth are faced with. An unemployment rate of 15 per cent to 25 per cent is incredible. It is a national crisis when our youth find themselves on the streets without jobs and without opportunities.
Those are the kinds of issues we are concerned with. Those are the kinds of issues we would like to see the government take action on.
We are also concerned that when the government is in the process of introducing any kind of act the people affected by that act are not asked for their views on it. I refer here to the loans act when it was introduced and put in place a few weeks ago. The student body was not allowed to appear before the committee to give its reaction to the proposals.
It will be recalled that the government made a commitment last year. The minister promised in this House on February 25, 1992 that the government would eliminate the 3 per cent tax on student fees. Have you heard anything on that? It has been one year and there has been no action on this issue.
I know my time is up and we are approaching one o'clock. All I wanted to say is for the country's sake let us sit down and come up with some sort of cohesive plan to deal with the question of unemployment, with the question of youth, with the question of education.
Let us stop this harassment we are embarking on when it comes to our student population. I believe that what we are doing is harassing our youth rather than approaching them with a proper plan.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this afternoon, pursuant to Standing Order 24(2). The hon. member will have five minutes questions and comments if he comes back at three o'clock.
The House took recess at 1 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
March 18, 1993

Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland -Colchester):: Mr. Speaker, this morning at the transport committee amendments were made to Bill S-8, relating to the Motor Vehicle Safety Act, which will provide Canadian consumers with a consistent Motor Vehicle Safety Act and related safety regulations while providing the Canadian automotive industry with a level playing field when competing with the U.S. industry.
I want to commend the three ministers of transport who addressed these concerns with me over the past three years, the officials from the department who have shown great patience, and the members of the committee from all parties who worked together to give Canadians a high standard of motor vehicle safety.
Under the amendment all vehicles whether imported or non-imported will be required to meet the same safety standard, thereby eliminating the double standard which has existed since the implementation of free trade.
If vehicles do not meet this standard at the time of importation they will be required to be upgraded prior to licensing. This will assure Canadians that they will continue to have the highest standards of safety in the world.


BOSNIA-HERCEGOVINA
Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, the situation in Bosnia-Hercegovina continues to degenerate. The insidious practice of expulsion and the senseless and brutal genocide of people based on their race and religion must be stopped.
Last July the immigration minister promised relaxed criteria to allow 10,000 refugees in to Canada. Yet so far only slightly more than 1,000 have arrived. Improved terms and conditions are needed. As well, let us consider the example of Israel which is settling refugee families on an interim basis until peace is restored.
As international citizenry we should have learned from past massacres that it is our responsibility and our duty to avert this kind of devastation, but when it occurs we must act expeditiously and with human compassion.
Canada and the international community have been slow to move in the face of this genocide, this abominable, this deliberate ethnic cleansing.
In 1993 how can civilized nations afford to allow this practice to continue and not act? Remember, silence can be deafening and the women are being tortured.


MERFIN HYGIENIC PRODUCTS INC.
Mr. Stan Wilbee (Delta):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate Merfin Elygienic Products Inc. of Delta for the astounding contribution this firm has made to B.C.'s exports.
This company's German parent established in B.C. in 1986 and now operates a 151,000 square foot plant employing some 65 people. The company introduced a unique European paper-making technology to North America and has plans to spend up to $18 million in the next two years on increasing plant capacity.
In 1992 company sales were up 60 per cent over 1991, and the company has established itself as a major exporter. Nearly 80 per cent of its 1992 revenues were generated by sales in the U.S., Europe and the Pacific Rim.
Congratulations to Merfin Hygienic Products Inc.


AIR CANADA
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to protest the loss of Air Canada jobs in Winnipeg.
Diners Club/enRoute, an operating division of Citibank Canada, thanks to the sale of enRoute last year, announced last week that it will be creating 100 new jobs in the Montreal area.
What it did not announce was that approximately 80 current enRoute jobs in Winnipeg will be lost as a result of this same decision. Winnipeg's history of losing out to Montreal continues unabated and no voice on the government's side is raised on its behalf.
March 18, 1993

I am told that another 48 Air Canada jobs in Winnipeg are at risk because of a scheme by Air Canada to farm out its revenue accounting systems program to an American company, using a system developed by Air Canada employees which they thought they were designing for their own use.
Remember when we used to have a publicly owned national airline? Contracting Winnipeg work out to a U.S. firm would have been unthinkable then. Now the whole city seems to be dispensable.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River):: Mr. Speaker, it is with total disbelief that I read today in the Montreal Gazette that the Minister of National Revenue will not even attempt to collect over half a million dollars in GST payments that were supposedly mistakenly refunded to the yes committee in last October's referendum.
As an excuse he said that the yes committee is officially disbanded so the government simply cannot collect.
Now Canadians finally realize where the GST is going. It is going to line the pockets of the big three: the Conservatives, the Liberals and the New Democratic Party. It is absolutely unconscionable that the taxpayers of Canada, a majority of whom voted against these three parties in the referendum, are actually subsidizing these parties through the loss of this revenue.
The minister should resign for funnelling GST tax dollars to his friends involved in the yes committee's activities. At the very least, the Tories, the Grits and the socialists should pay back the money they owe to the Canadian taxpayers.
My constituents say no once again to the yes committee. They say: "No you may not get off GST-free. Pay your debts".
5. 0. 31 QUEBEC


Mr. Larry Schneider (Regina-Wascana):: Mr. Speaker, earlier this week I gave Parliament evidence that Jacques Parizeau expects that a sovereign Quebec will be reliant upon France.
As well, in an article in the June 1992 issue of The Financial Post the member for Lac-Saint-Jean said that as a sovereignist he, and I quote: "expects a lot from France". Perhaps Quebecers should be asking the member for Lac-Saint-Jean what the sovereignists expect from France and what Quebecers will have to give up for this.
The Parti Quebecois and the Bloc Quebecois are insisting that Quebec can make it on its own, yet the evidence suggests otherwise.


CRIME PREVENTION
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I questioned the Minister of Justice on what preventive measures were being undertaken by his government to address the root causes behind criminal behaviour.
I also drew the minister's attention to a letter sent over four months ago that was signed by myself, MPP Tony Ruprecht, metro Toronto councillor Derwyn Shea and city councillor Chris Korwin-Kuczynski. It pleaded with the minister to apply federal resources to fight the rampant drug and sex trade in Parkdale-High Park. To date we have not received a response to our request.
For the minister's benefit, I invite him to attend a public forum that I am co-hosting along with the hon. member for Scarborough West next April 3 at Metro Hall in Toronto.
In the meantime, I will leave the minister with the comments I received from one of the senior citizens in my riding. I quote: "Seniors cannot go out at night. We deserve to go out and enjoy music and the arts but we are victims in our own homes and feel that we are in jail permanently".

March 18, 1993


CANADA-UNITED STATES FREE TRADE AGREEMENT
Mr. Terry Clifford (London-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, the Canada-U.S. free trade agreement has thrown open the doors to opportunity for industry and workers in my riding of London-Middlesex.
I point to the Kaiser aluminum extrusion plant recently built in London, Ontario. Kaiser's Canadian sales manager says the Canada-U.S. free trade agreement made it all possible. The elimination of a duty on aluminum products crossing the border has eliminated a major obstacle.
Sixty per cent to seventy per cent of this plant's production will be sold in the U.S. A further example of the free trade agreement's benefits is the $675 million U.S. deal between General Motors' diesel division in London, Ontario and the leading U.S. railroad company, Burlington Northern. General Motors will build 350 locomotives by 1997.
Free trade is paying off. Just ask my constituents. Mexico can also be good for Canada. Let us get on with the deal.


HEALTH CARE
Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, the New England Journal of Medicine has pointed out that it costs 40 per cent more per patient hospitalized in American hospitals than it does in Canada. It also points out that not only are our costs lower but that we have lower costs in administration, that we use high technology much better, and that we target children much better than the Americans do.
I am delighted with my leader's comments about his commitment to the Canada Health Act and its five principles, as well as his unfailing commitment to medicare in Canada and its universality.
I am really quite disturbed, as are many other Canadians, by the comments of two leadership candidates of the Conservative Party suggesting that perhaps user fees or universality of medicare would be compromised. As well, there was another leadership candidate who agrees. This is very disturbing to Canadians.
I might also add that the Filmon government in Manitoba has decided to cut and slash hospital programs. I think it has not seen this particular study.

Let us leave the scalpel in the hands of those who know how to use it and not in the hands of those who do not know what to do with it.


CANADA POST
Gregory Francis Thompson: Mr. Speaker, we have some good news for small, weekly community newspapers and paid circulation magazines. These businesses would have faced a drastic increase in postal rates on March 1, 1993. Rate increases will be limited to 10 per cent a year for the next three years as opposed to a 50 per cent increase.
This agreement between Canada Post and Communications Canada also guarantees that Canadian paid circulation magazines will benefit from a gradual transition to full commercial rates. Additional rate increases will be limited to 3 per cent, 5 per cent and 5 per cent over the next three years.
Also, the replacement program for paid circulation magazines which was to be implemented in 1994 has been postponed until 1996. This government recognizes the important role small weekly newspapers play in advancing community participation, and this is just one more positive program we have put in place to continue to foster pride in small communities.


MEMBER FOR HALTON-PEEL
Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, it has now been established that there is really no difference between provincial Tories and federal Tories.
Shortly after the current election campaign in P.E.I. began the provincial Tories ran ads that were so revolting and insulting to the people of P.E.I. that the Tories had to withdraw the ads.
Now the member for Halton-Peel, who could be the next Conservative Prime Minister of Canada, wants as part of his economic policy to eliminate the province of Prince Edward Island from Confederation.

March 18, 1993

This is the same MP who with two of his pals slithered into Summerside in July 1989 when the Tories closed CFB Summerside. Now he wants to close the province.
Does this potential Tory prime minister reflect current Conservative economic thinking? What province will follow? Newfoundland? Saskatchewan? Manitoba?
Barbara Yaffe, Vancouver Sun suburban editor, quotes future Prime Minister Garth as saying:
One of the ways he would lead us out of the shadows of debt would
be to cut government bureaucracy in ways that would curl hair from
St. John's to Victoria. Does a tiny province like P.E.I. really need its
own government?
I call upon the Prime Minister to apologize to the people of Prince Edward Island on behalf of this government and to repudiate the remarks of the member for Halton-Peel.


THE PARLIAMENT, BUSINESS, AND LABOUR TRUST
Mr. David Bjornson (Selkirk-Red River):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend the efforts of the Parliament, business and labour trust. The efforts of this group to educate parliamentarians in labour and business management have no doubt been a success.
Its plans to reverse the process and enable labour and business management to become versed in the workings of Parliament and government will no doubt also be a success.
I would like to thank my hosts while participating in the exchange, Dr. Mike Sopko and Dr. Tom Barnett of Inco. My study of their company was a valuable experience.
In closing, I would like to thank the various companies involved in the trust and I would also like to thank parliamentarians past and present for their efforts.
To you, Mr. Speaker, I say a special thank you for your hospitality on Monday past.


CANADIAN AUTO WORKERS
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, it has been remarkable to read and hear from all
those people who hate trade unions, like The Financial Post, how wonderful it has been to see CAW members getting a chance to exercise democracy.
It has been even more amusing to see Liberals hailing this exercise in democracy and never asking themselves if shareholders have a vote on the millions their party receives from the corporate world.
For all these new-found friends of the labour movement I have some important news: Last night the largest CAW local in Windsor representing Chrysler workers held a membership meeting to reconsider its ties to our party. Its members voted 300 to 4 in favour of keeping its affiliation with the New Democrats.
I just hope that the media which made so much of the Oshawa membership meeting vote will give as much attention to this overwhelming support for New Democrats from this Windsor CAW membership meeting.


CONSERVATIVE LEADERSHIP
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, let us examine another exciting day in the life of the PM,-that stands for puppet master of course.
First the PM, the puppet master, from his throne in the mansion, not the one in Westmount but the one on Sussex Drive, pulled the strings to orchestrate his own dynasty.
He appointed the Avril Arrow as minister of defence. Then he asked the bagmen in the other place to bring bags full of loonies for the Avril's campaign. So hard did the PM-did I say that this stands for puppet master-? Pull on the strings that the other puppets were knocked off the stage completely.
No matter. From the mansion, the one on Sussex Drive not the one in Westmount, the PM finally convinced Fuzzy to enter the race to give the performance some legitimacy.
Now the Garth decided to run to prove the theory that anybody, and I mean anybody, can be Tory leader.
But all Canadians are really wondering and sitting on the edge of their chairs waiting to see if Otto the Hun will enter the race. Will he take the skate guards off? No one knows except perhaps the PM. By the way, did I say that stands for puppet master?

March 18, 1993
Oral Questions


THE GAZETTE
Mr. Jean-Marc Robitaille (Terrebonne):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of all Canadians, especially those whom I have the honour to represent in this House, I want to express how indignant and angry we feel about the cartoon published this morning in the Montreal Gazette.
This drawing incites violence.
It is a disgrace to Canadian journalism. Its author, Terry Mosher, is trampling underfoot what we Canadians hold sacred: respect for the individual, the family, democracy and plain common sense. Nothing can excuse this cruel and disgusting attack on the Prime Minister and his family.
I call on all my colleagues to protest energetically to the man responsible for this indignity and those who allowed it to be published. Freedom of the press exists here as elsewhere to defend values, to express what is noble and beautiful in the human being.
Those who use it to foster hate, to encourage violence, must be denounced; such people are a poison that threatens democracy. The real butt of the cartoon we saw this morning in the Gazette is the mean, small-minded, sick man who drew it, Terry Mosher. The Gazette and its editors have made a mockery of what a newspaper is supposed to be.
Mr. Speaker, sometimes we get our hands dirty reading a newspaper, but those who read the Gazette this morning felt that their very dignity as human beings was sullied.


Ms. Lynn Hunter (Saanich - Gulflslands):: Mr. Speaker, free trade was responsible for Bill C-91, one of the worst pieces of legislation to ever pass through this House.
Extending drug patent protection to the fabulously wealthy pharmaceutical companies at the expense of all Canadians, present and future, is a typical Tory fiddle. But is this government content? No. Now it has proposed a ban on 64 herbs and plants because of an obligation in the free trade agreement with the U.S.
Canadians have been using these healing medicinal alternatives for decades. Aboriginal peoples have been using them for centuries. Yet when the multinational pharmaceutical companies are involved Tories know what is best for us all: Level the playing field by clearing any competition even if it is a backyard botanist.
It is time for a change. Let us abrogate the disastrous U.S. trade deal, squash the proposed Mexican deal and chuck this money-grabbing Tory government out on its
ear.


MONTREAL GAZETTE
Hon. Bob Layton (Lachine -Lac-Saint-Louis):: Mr. Speaker, I refer today to the scandalous and odious incitement to violence and assassination being proudly printed in this morning's Montreal Gazette.
This is a disgrace. It is a black eye for Canadian journalism and a crime against the fundamental Canadian values of decency and mutual respect.
Given Mr. Mosher's well-known proclivities, I would have thought he would have been the last person in Canada to deal with the question of violence so lightly.
I call on the owners, the publisher and the editorial staff of the Montreal Gazette to apologize to all Montrealers and to all Canadians for this vile and hostile message carried in today's caricature by Terry Mosher.
Given the enormous tragedies that have befallen Montreal at l'Ecole Polytechnique and Concordia University, only a truly sick mind could find anything humorous in a suggestion that such insane violence be repeated against the Prime Minister of Canada.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Jean Chretien (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell the Prime Minister that I share the views expressed by his colleague concerning this morning's cartoon. It was not called for. But we have to ask a question of the Prime Minister anyway.
March 18, 1993

Yesterday a report published in the New England Journal of Medicine said that Canadian medicare is 40 per cent less costly than the American system. Whereas in Canada everyone is covered freely, in the United States 30 million people are not covered. It is reported that the Canadian system is as good and even more effective than the American system.
I ask the Prime Minister was the Minister of National Revenue expressing a government policy when he said yesterday that the medicare system of Canada, which is free for everybody, should be abolished?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I have not read the statement to which my hon. friend refers. I will be happy to take a look at it.
The general sentiment my hon. friend has expressed in regard to the Canadian health system, with its imperfections, is that it remains one of the finest in the world. I have had the occasion recently to indicate that to President Clinton and to others. I think that is a view that would be widely held by Canadians.
I suppose if anyone wanted to campaign for any job if there were a vacancy, this might not be the best platform one might want to adopt. However, I am not aware that anybody has considered adopting that.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Prime Minister. I am sure the leadership race will provide some insights into the Conservative soul and that there will be similar suggestions.
Now that we know the Prime Minister is not inclined to share the opinion of the Minister of National Revenue that free health services for Canadians should be abolished, I would like to know what he thinks of statements made by two candidates who said that the government would be well advised to cancel the helicopter program which his favourite candidate, the Minister of National Defence, is proposing to Canadians and which will cost $5.8 billion, money that could be used to maintain free and universal health services and thus preserve the individual dignity of all Canadians.
Oral Questions


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I read the comments made by two members of my caucus and I found their opinions interesting as I do similar opinions put forward by the opposition.
The government's position is well known and ably defended, not only by the Minister of National Defence but by other members of the government as well. There is no reason to get upset when a member who is seeking the leadership of his party wonders about certain items of government policy. I can assure the hon. member that it is not the kind of thing that keeps me awake nights. And it shouldn't bother him either. It is entirely legitimate for 'a member to have questions about the policies of the government or of the opposition. My point is that this is all very interesting, but I don't think the hon. member should make too much of it.


PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND
Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I think there have been two members so far who have suggested that the helicopter program be abolished. On this side we consider it is one idea we can share with the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore, not every one of his policies but this one is kind of acceptable.
I would like the Prime Minister to comment on this: It is one week before the election in P.E.I. One of the leadership candidates has suggested that we should abolish the province of Prince Edward Island. Is that a new idea that will become part of the Tory program very soon?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I thought the last thing I heard my hon. friend say was that he was going to eliminate the GST. That would close down the GST centre in Summerside, Prince Edward Island, thereby throwing 1,000 Islanders out of work.
I can assure my hon. friend that no one would even seriously consider abolishing such a magnificent and supportive province like Prince Edward Island. The question is: Would my hon. friend give us the same assurance that he will keep the GST in place so as to preserve those 1,000 jobs in Prince Edward Island?

March 18, 1993
Oral Questions


TRANSFER PAYMENTS
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister who may have forgotten that the present Leader of the Opposition was responsible for putting the Department of Veterans Affairs in Prince Edward Island.
Provincial governments are saying that they have to impose very tough budgets on their populations because of this government's policy of off-loading its own debt and deficit problems onto the provinces.
Will the Prime Minister start a new approach based on working with the provinces to deal with these kinds of concerns? This would be instead of simply dumping or off-loading the government's own problems on the shoulders of the provinces through capping and cutting vital transfer payments for key programs like post-secondary education and health care.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the problem of course is not one of off-loading. The problem is that certain provinces waited too long to cut back on their own rate of increase in expenditures.
When we came to office program expenditures in Ottawa had been increasing at a rate of 15 per cent a year for 14 years. We cut that down to below the rate of inflation to 4.1 per cent over nine years.
Provinces-for example, when the new NDP government came in in Ontario-increased expenditures in the neighbourhood of 13 per cent a year. They finally realized that you cannot spend your way out of this kind of problem so they are now beginning to do what they should have been doing some years ago. I congratulate them for that.
I want to point out to my hon. friend that the suggestion that there has been off-loading is misleading. Major transfers to Ontario will grow at an average annual rate of 6 per cent.
The major transfers to Newfoundland exceed $1.4 billion and have been growing at a rate above the rate of inflation, namely 5.1 per cent for nine years.
Transfers to Saskatchewan have been growing at an average annual rate of 7.4 per cent when the Government of Canada has kept its own expenditures down below 4 per cent. We are transferring to Saskatchewan
infinitely more on a percentage basis than we are expending here in Ottawa. I congratulate the premier of Saskatchewan. Lie has finally come to the view that the policies we have been seeking to implement here are the right ones both for Canada and Saskatchewan.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, what the Prime Minister is talking about is really an ad hoc approach to crises created by previous budgets of his government.
Will the Prime Minister convene a high level federal-provincial conference to develop a new approach to federal-provincial fiscal and financial relations? This approach would be one that gets away from making the provincial taxpayer bear the burden of what in fact amounts to mismanagement and resulting off-loading, no matter how the Prime Minister describes the situation.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to get into an argument with my hon. friend. The figures are there and they are either right or wrong. He can examine them and stand up in the House and say that the information I have just given to the House is wrong.
The fact of the matter is that our present difficulties were generated by program expenditures at the federal government level which increased at this-


Mr. Peterson:: It is our fault.


Martin Brian Mulroney: My hon. friend says: "It is our fault". For once he is right. It was abusive spending which now has to be brought under control at all levels, the federal level, the provincial level and the municipal level. That is all we are saying.
There is enough blame to go around for everybody. I do not think anybody gets any advantage in saying: "It is not my fault, it is yours", or vice versa.
Clearly, the country has to come to the view that we have been living beyond our means for too long and it must stop. I commend those provinces and those premiers who have come to the realization that program expenditures cannot increase at a rate of 14 per cent a year when productivity is increasing at 1.8 per cent and revenues are increasing at 4 per cent. It does not work. It leads to the kind of deficit and crippling of our growth that we have seen. Only these kinds of economic and fiscal policies can ensure we get out of that on behalf of our children.
March 18, 1993


Ms. Joy Langan (Mission-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, when we were in Washington, D.C., we learned that the proposed labour side deal has three options. The first option protects no one. The second option calls for basic labour standards and a toothless commission to monitor it. The third option incorporates all labour standards, the commission and the possibility of trade sanctions and border measures.
[DOT] (.1430 )
My question is for the Prime Minister. Will the government tell the Canadian people that it will support strong labour standards and a real enforcement mechanism to protect Canadian workers and, if not, why not?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, there is nothing more dangerous than a socialist who is taking a trip.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Heureux qui comme Ulysse a fait un beau voyage!

My hon. friend knows full well that Canada's labour standards are among the highest in the world. These have always been enforced and will continue to be enforced by the Government of Canada and have continued to be through the free trade agreement and will be through NAFTA. My hon. friend should not worry about matters that have been resolved and will continue to be defended very vigorously and I think well.


Joy Langan: Mr. Speaker, possibly the only thing more dangerous is a Prime Minister who has taken a trip to the United States and is telling us that these side deals have very little, if anything, to do with Canada.
We know there is no enforcement of labour standards in Mexico. We also know the track record of the government when it comes to protecting Canadian workers. It is bad, bad, bad. I would ask the Prime Minister again to protect Canadian workers. Is he going to do that or is he going to abandon them in his rush to sign and ratify the NAFTA agreement?
Oral Questions


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, what we are submitting to the House for consideration is a treaty among Canada, Mexico and the United States. It is a trade treaty designed to increase commerce between the three countries. The entire international experience being that as you lower barriers and tariffs you tend to create more wealth.
I truly do not understand the preoccupation of the socialists with Mexico in the following sense. Socialists demand that we give more and more foreign aid to developing countries. Mexico is saying that they are a developing country but they would rather not have handouts. What they would like is an occasion to trade into a developed market. NAFTA gives us that opportunity to trade, thereby raising the collective wealth and living standards of Mexicans so that they can better fulfil their responsibilities toward their own citizens.
What we are trying to do is allow Mexicans to share in the wealth of our continent as we create new jobs for Canadian citizens.
I would have thought that the socialists would get behind the idea that we can become more prosperous in Canada while helping our neighbours share in that prosperity.


Lynn Hunter: What is scary is a Conservative demonstrating altruism. What did the Mexican bishop say about the North American free trade agreement? I think what we have seen here is a demonstration of paternalism.
The Prime Minister says he has some doubts about the wisdom of the side deals. The Minister for International Trade says we are willing to consult. The Minister of the Environment says that yes, of course, it is incorporated in the deal.
We want to know who is speaking for Canada and why Canadians should have any confidence in the negotiating stance of the government?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to offend ecclesiastically anyone but my hon. friend can assume that Mexican bishops are not speaking for Canada. The people speaking for Canada are the authorized ambassadors who are there negotiating skilfully on behalf of the people and the Parliament of Canada.

March 18, 1993
Oral Questions
We have some remarkable public servants, very talented and able, who are there today representing the interests of the government and the Parliament of Canada. When they have concluded their work they will report back to the government and the government will report to the House of Commons. At this point my hon. friend can raise whatever fears she may or may not have. It may be that she will be satisfied with the work of these public servants on behalf of Canada and will rise in her place to thank me and others for NAFTA.


Hon. Roy MacLaren (Etobicoke North):: Mr. Speaker, the government must know that the removal of interprovincial trade barriers is a major requirement if Canada is going to benefit from freer trade whether hemispherically or globally.
It must know that the Macdonald royal commission, the Grandpre commission and the government's own prosperity initiative have all urged that an essential domestic measure if free trade is going to be effective necessitates the removal of the barriers to the free movement of people, goods and services in our country.
Today in Montreal there is a meeting on this subject. Can the Prime Minister or the minister speaking for the minister of trade tell us and the Canadian people what new approaches this government is taking to promote the removal of interprovincial trade barriers? Most important, what timetable has it in mind for the removal of such barriers?


Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister for Science and Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Mr. Speaker,
I want to congratulate the hon. member for an important question. It is true that the removal of trade barriers leads to jobs and to new wealth. I am very pleased to announce today that we have record exports world-wide. We now have a $9.5 billion export surplus with the rest of the world in trade.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Hockin: We have also heard today that the surplus with the United States is $17.7 billion, all of this because trade barriers have been reduced world-wide. The hon.
member is quite right to ask about removal of trade barriers.
In the meeting today in Montreal two very specific things are going to be accomplished. They are going to put in place a very tight timeline in deadlines. July 1995 will be the deadline for a progressive removal of barriers to trade within Canada. It is in the hundreds. Hundreds of different trade barriers will be dealt with with the timeline expiring in July 1995.


Roy MacLaren: Mr. Speaker, I welcome, as I am sure all of us in the House do, a timetable being put in place for the removal of interprovincial trade barriers.
As an assurance that such a timetable is going to be met, the need for an interprovincial and federal commission to monitor the effectiveness of the measures must be obvious. It was in the minds of the governments at the time of the Charlottetown accord and we would now look to this government to implement it.
Will that proposal be on the table in Montreal? Will it be a federal government position? If not, will the government move to test its commerce powers in the courts if there is any doubt about the federal government's commerce powers?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, I do not think proliferating commissions necessarily brings progress.
What we want to do, and in fact a commission may be set up, but proliferating commissions is not really what the country wants. What it wants is action and it wants action through ministers. That is what is going on today.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade.
In light of the response yesterday of the Minister for International Trade, will the government assure the House and Canadians that the proposed North American commission on the environment will have powers to enforce environmental laws and standards? In other words, can the government give an unqualified commitment that Canada will not accept anything less than that?
March 18. 1993


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, we must be clear what the hon. member is asking for. Ele is asking for complete, 100 per cent violation of our sovereignty. If we set up a commission where other countries unilaterally can decide what we do, then it is a violation of our sovereignty.
A commission can be set up that respects sovereignty. That seems to be the view of most of the parties to the NAFTA negotiations. Of course, this whole commission idea is kind of a sidecar to the main architecture which is the NAFTA agreement itself which is in place. We are just discussing a small side issue. For us to violate sovereignty for a commission is a question I think the hon. member would like to look at again.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately for the minister air pollution does not respect sovereignty. Water pollution does not respect sovereignty. The environment does not respect political boundaries. That is what the minister has to understand first.
My supplementary question therefore is this: In the NAFTA agreement, there is a need for standards on production and processes. Will the government include the use of trade measures in order to make industrial activities and production methods environmentally sound regardless of sovereignty?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, I am glad my hon. friend has shifted his ground. He has moved off this violation of sovereignty to a much more sensible set of arguments. We would be delighted to take a look at those.
Oral Questions
payments which cost the province last year alone $538.1 million.
Yesterday the Minister of Finance admitted the serious mistakes in his government's economic policies by making an emergency payment of $30 million to Saskatchewan as well as $300 million to Ontario and $4 million to Prince Edward Island.
When will the Prime Minister admit that forcing the provinces toward bankruptcy is no solution to Canada's economic problems?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, we of course regret the difficulties that the province of Saskatchewan finds itself in. We commend the Premier of Saskatchewan for some of the initiatives he appears to be prepared to take. There are others.
As he knows, the federal government has increased payments to grain and oilseeds producers in Saskatchewan by 655 per cent since the time that we entered government in 1984. We have increased transfers to the province of Saskatchewan substantially above the rate of inflation each year for almost nine years.
The Government of Canada pays some 83 per cent of all agricultural payments that go into the province of Saskatchewan in rough terms. The contribution from the Government of Canada to Saskatchewan is enormous financially on a per capita basis. There has been overspending in the province and the premier is beginning to deal with it.
One way where he could save a lot of money and in fact make money, some hundreds of millions of dollars, and help Saskatchewan modernize its economy, would be to integrate the Saskatchewan sales tax with the GST. He would receive some hundreds of millions of dollars and he would help Saskatchewan producers immediately create jobs in Saskatchewan.


Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon -Clark's Crossing):: Mr. Speaker, there are many things that the premier of THE ECONOMY	Saskatchewan can do to assist the economy of Saskatchewan. The one thing he will not do is harmonize the GST Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon -Clark's Crossing):	with the provincial sales tax.
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. He
will know that the Saskatchewan debt, the largest per The Prime Minister talks about agriculture. He should capita debt in Canada, was created by the financial know that 85 per cent is indeed a very rough figure mismanagement of his Tory friends in the Devine gov- because the federal government's support to agriculture ernment and by unilateral federal changes to transfer in Saskatchewan used to be 100 per cent. Now it is only

March 18, 1993
Oral Questions
59 per cent, a cost of $250 million over-all to Saskatchewan.
I suggest to the Prime Minister what this country needs is a federal government that will work with the provinces. I ask him why will he not call a first ministers conference to chart an economic course for Canada which works with the provinces instead of fighting against them?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, that is not a bad idea. What about a Canada where the provinces would work with the federal government?
We transfer taxpayers' money to them at a rate higher than we spend and that Parliament authorizes for federal programs. Every single transfer to people and provinces from CAP to tax transfers has increased at a rate significantly over and above the rate of inflation, while expenditures in Ottawa have been kept to 4.1 per cent over a period of nine years, having brought it down from 14 per cent on an average basis for 15 years.
Yet we still wrestle with the deficit. We have to bring it down to decrease interest rates even further and to keep inflation down. Because all of these help attract jobs to the province of Saskatchewan. Saskatchewan would not be helped today at all if for example we had, as we did coming out of the earlier recession, interest rates at 22.75 per cent and inflation running at 12.9 per cent that would be an absolute catastrophe. We have a lot of fundamentals in place that will benefit Saskatchewan.
One way where Saskatchewan could help itself and help Canada would be harmonizing its tax policies with the GST, thereby creating new wealth and new jobs in Saskatchewan.
+ * *


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Prime Minister.
In the past few days both the Prime Minister and the Minister of National Defence have responded to questions in this House on sexual harassment within the military.
This morning the commissioner of human rights released his annual report. I would like to quote from a statement he made at the press conference: "The defence department policies on sexual harassment are too general and there are clear signs no one in the department takes them seriously".
Would the Prime Minister please respond.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I do not accept the verdict by the commissioner that there are clear signs in the department that no one takes them seriously. That is an unacceptable statement because it is not consistent with the tremendous efforts of the minister, the CDS and all of the leaders in the department to make sure that there is a policy of zero tolerance for sexual harassment.
The Liberal member for Halifax is laughing.


Ms. Clancy:: I'm laughing at you.


Martin Brian Mulroney: This is not a laughing matter. It deals with sexual harassment and the policy of every government, including this one, and all of its public servants has to be one of zero tolerance for sexual harassment at any time under any circumstances.


Beryl Gaffney: Mr. Speaker, the board of the defence department had recommended that a contact outside the chain of command would make it easier for women to report on sexual harassment.
The harasser has the protection of working in a system where resistance to accepting women is commonplace. The harasser has the protection of hiding behind the Privacy Act. Yet a victim can lose her job, she suffers physical and mental stress and is unable to find out what punishment if any has been given to the harasser.
I ask again: Will the government take immediate steps to protect the victim instead of the harasser?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I thought that I had indicated very clearly to my hon. friend a few days ago the response and the policy of the government in regard to this very legitimate question that she raises.
March 18, 1993

The Minister of National Defence and the CDS have indicated very clearly that there are two important elements. There is a policy of zero tolerance for sexual harassment within the department and, second, the Minister of National Defence and Admiral Anderson are working very actively to create a climate wherein the victim is given the benefit of the presumption of innocence and where this matter can be resolved with all of the possible precautions being provided to the person who allegedly has been offended, both by the incident and/or by the process.
It is not perfect. We are not there yet, but every effort of the Minister of National Defence and every effort of the CDS and his colleagues is designed to achieve that objective. I hope my hon. friend will agree with me that it is a laudable objective that we are now pursuing.


LUBICON CREE
Ms. Ethel Blondin-Andrew (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
The Lubicon Cree of northern Alberta have struggled for more than 40 years to secure a permanent land base. Their outstanding land claims have become an international human rights issue and no negotiations have been held in the last four years.
When will this government find the political will to return to the negotiating table?


Hon. Pierre H. Vincent (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Minister of State (Indian Affairs and Northern Development)):: Mr. Speaker, I think we should put this into context. So far, the Minister of Indian Affairs has had five meetings with the chief. Proposals were put on the table, and the minister has always said he was prepared to continue negotiations.


Ethel Dorothy Blondin-Andrew: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same minister.
The Lubicon Settlement Commission of Review has recommended that beginning immediately all royalties be held in trust and that no additional permits or leases
Oral Questions
be granted on traditional Lubicon lands without Lubicon approval. Multinational corporations are extracting over $1 million each day from Lubicon land.
Will the minister make a commitment today to end third-party pillaging of Lubicon resources, which has gone on for 40 years without their consent?


Pierre H. Vincent: Mr. Speaker, Canada and the Province of Alberta have offered the Lubicon Lake Band $73 million. I think that is a valid and generous offer and to my knowledge both governments are still prepared to review the case.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Jean-Pierre Blackburn (Jonquiere):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Communications.
Last week, the president of the CBC announced that one of his first priorities was plans for an all-news service in French, like Newsworld. Although anglophones have had their service for four years all we got was some proposals that were either rejected by the CRTC or dropped by the CBC.
I want to ask the minister whether he intends to intervene and ensure that this time the CBC's proposal is maintained so that francophones in this country will finally have an all-news service in French.


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, generally speaking I agree with the sentiments expressed by the hon. member. However, the decision is up to the CBC and is subject to the granting of a broadcasting license under the Broadcasting Act.
It is up to the CRTC to decide whether this kind of service for Canada's francophone population can be viable. I understand that details of the plan will be announced in a matter of weeks.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister.

March 18, 1993
Oral Questions
Today Human Rights Commissioner Yalden in his annual report said that ethnic purism and racial superiority are spreading and complacency is a grave danger in Canada. Unfortunately the Prime Minister's reluctance to fulfil his past promises regarding racism is feeding this kind of complacency.
I ask the Prime Minister if he will denounce racism by fulfilling the commitment he made back in 1988 to establish a Canadian race relations foundation and will he proclaim Bill C-63 which we passed in this House in 1991 before he leaves? Will he at least establish start-up funds? I know it is difficult to get the full capital commitment, but why not establish a small amount of start-up funds for the foundation to get going, as requested by the Japanese Canadian Association?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my friend astonishes me with the preface to her question about the fact that we have somehow been delinquent in regard to racism.
We have fought against racism as a profound evil. All of our actions and all of our statements have been devoted to ridding this country of racism both here and in our foreign policy; for example, in South Africa by tying foreign aid more and more to human rights.
In Canada how can my hon. friend say this when after 25 years of refusing to do it this government finally appointed a royal commission to ferret out those guilty of Nazi war crimes in Canada and begin the prosecutions for the evils of Naziism which was alive here in Canada. How can the member say that when after 40 years of refusal this government brought forward a policy to provide legitimate redress to Japanese Canadians? How can my hon. friend suggest that when we created the first Ministry of Multiculturalism and Citizenship?
There are legitimate reasons to criticize anything I suppose, but that is certainly one that is unworthy of my hon. friend.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker,
I ask the Prime Minister why he has not fulfilled his commitment to Japanese Canadians and to others across this country to establish the race relations foundation. That was part of his agreement and it is still not established. The legislation is not even proclaimed.
My supplementary question is to the Prime Minister. Our country's history as he knows is tainted by legislative racism that was involved in the Chinese head tax and the
Exclusion Act which affects Chinese families to this day, and also the unjust internment of Ukrainian, German and Italian Canadians during wartime.
In view of the Prime Minister's earlier statements, I would ask if before leaving office he would act to remove the hurt and the shame on all of us as Canadians of these historic injustices with an official apology and appropriate address. Will he do that for Canadians?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I have indicated half a dozen major instances where we have already acted. These are situations where previous governments refused for decades to act. I refer to the Japanese Canadians by way of illustration.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: You have not finished it.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend says we have not finished it.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Where is the foundation?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Perhaps it was not perfectly done. We have provided an apology in this House. We provided $350 million to Japanese Canadians and we provided this to the satisfaction of all of the Japanese Canadian communities.


Mr. Speaker:: I might point out the right hon. Prime Minister has been asked a question and the right hon. Prime Minister is answering the question. The right hon. Prime Minister has the floor.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend refers to the Italian community. She did so en passant.
I was the first Prime Minister to act for the national leadership of the Italian community which had sought for four decades an apology for the abuses by the Government of Canada in the early 1940s where Italian Canadians were stripped of their citizenship and illegally imprisoned by the Government of Canada. Governments for 45 years refused to acknowledge this and apologize to the Italian community in Canada.
On behalf of all parliamentarians, on behalf of this government, I went to Toronto, met with the leadership of the Italian community and did precisely that. So, systematically, from the enormous damage inflicted on the Jewish community to the pain inflicted on Japanese Canadians, to the problems encountered by the Ukrainians to the travesties inflicted on the Italian Canadian community, item by item, community by community, to the Chinese Canadians, we have been tiying to redress some of the extraordinary pain and mistakes of the past.
March 18, 1993

My hon. friend is right, we cannot do it perfectly, but by God we have tried.


LIVESTOCK FEED FREIGHT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
William D. (Bill) Casey: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture.
Recent announced reductions to the Livestock Feed Freight Assistance Program seemed to be in contradiction to the act which says: "The object of the act is to ensure fair equalization feed grain prices in eastern Canada, British Columbia, Yukon Territory and the Northwest Territories".
The present proposal does not maintain that principle. I wonder if the department will bring in a new proposal that does comply with the act and is fairer to Atlantic Canadian farmers.


Mr. Murray Cardiff (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, Agriculture Canada as the member knows met with officials and their provincial counterparts about February 25 in Moncton to discuss this feed freight assistance issue. The main agenda, of course, was the 10 per cent reduction.
As a follow-up to this meeting a proposed compromise solution was developed by the Livestock Feed Bureau and sent to their provincial counterparts on March 12 for their perusal.
If a consensus can be reached among the affected provinces based on this proposal or a slightly modified proposal, the federal government is prepared to take a look at it.
Oral Questions PORNOGRAPHY


Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister. The North American pornography industry has exploded from a $5 million industry in the early seventies to a $10 billion industry today.
The Los Angeles Times estimates that there are 1.5 million children under the age of 16 involved in the commercial sex trade in North America.
Most of this is happening in the United States. I think the Prime Minister would agree we would be naive to say that this plague is not happening also in Canada. The Prime Minister knows this is a problem.
When is he and his government going to bring forward legislation banning the possession of child pornography in this country?


Pierre H. Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend raises a very important issue. He knows that the Minister of Justice is away on government business today.
I will certainly take notice of this very important point and confer with the Minister of Justice who will get back to the hon. member as quickly as possible.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, the former Minister of Justice, the present minister of defence, promised to bring forward legislation. The present Minister of Justice is just parroting this position.
The Supreme Court of Canada has made a link between pornography and abuse against women and children. Thirty per cent of all the magazines sold on news stands today would have been illegal 20 years ago.
When is this government going to put a stop to the suffering of those involved in this industry and do something?
Hon. Pierre H. Cadieux (Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport) and Minister of State (Youth) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons): Mr. Speaker, I think I agreed with my hon. friend that it is an important problem. He does not have to yell to try to make it more important. I understood it correctly.

March 18, 1993
Business of the House
I am sure my colleague the Minister of Justice is also very aware of this. I will raise it with him and upon his return I am convinced that he will speak to the hon. member. Just bringing a bill before the House will not resolve the issue because the bill has to be passed. If we have co-operation on other bills maybe legislation would go quickly.


REVENUE CANADA
Mr. Alex Kindy (Calgary Northeast):: Mr. Speaker, The Montreal Gazette reported that Revenue Canada will not try to collect $539,000 in GST payments it claims was mistakenly refunded to the Yes Committee after the October constitutional referendum.
It quotes the Minister of National Revenue, a candidate for the PC leadership, as saying that the debt is unfortunately not collectable.
Could the Minister of National Revenue inform the House whether this type of policy would apply as well to ordinary citizens, to small businesses and to the Vote No referendum committee in the same way?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member will know, the Minister of National Revenue is out of the House on business.
I would be pleased to take this question as notice for him. The position taken consistently by the Minister of National Revenue is to stand up for ordinary taxpayers and to do everything he can to defend their rights. This is a Minister of National Revenue who has fiercely defended the rights of Canadians. He has spoken out strongly to ensure the laws of Canada are enforced.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the government House leader could inform the House of the business that he proposes to bring before the House tomorrow, Friday and for the early part of next week.
I know he will not agree with the comments of his colleague, the assistant House leader, when he says there has not been co-operation in the House. I think he knows there has been extensive co-operation. He would agree with me that bills have been sailing through this House at a record rate.
Perhaps he would give us the business for next week.


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Madam Speaker, this afternoon we will continue with the sixth of the seven allotted days for the supply period.
Tomorrow I understand there is agreement to complete second reading in the morning of Bill C-97, the Marine Insurance Act, and Bill C-83, the Transport of Goods by Waters Act. Tomorrow afternoon we consider ' report stage of Bill C-113, the Expenditure Restraint Act.
Monday will be the last allotted day for this supply period.
Tuesday we will continue with Bill C-113 at report stage, if it has not been completed, or with third reading of Bill C-113.
As well, we are hoping to come to an agreement to do second reading of Bill C-116, the Conflict of Interest Act, in the evening one day next week. However there seems to be some reluctance on the part of the New Democratic Party to quickly pass this important piece of legislation which improves and strengthens the rules governing conflict of interest for parliamentarians.
I hope we can also have similar agreement concerning the elections act as well.
While I would certainly not want to suggest that there has been no co-operation, I wanted to echo that my parliamentary secretary was absolutely correct in saying that with more co-operation we would have time to participate in debates that the public were interested in and in pursuing important bills like ones dealing with child pornography.
Quite frankly, as the House leader, because of the inability to get through those bills which have significant financial impact on the taxpayers of Canada I have had to tell my cabinet colleagues that there is no use bringing forward more legislation, even good legislation, because I simply cannot get it through the House.
March 18, 1993


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Madam Speaker, we all know the unreasonable demands that are placed on the House leader by his cabinet colleagues. They seem to expect him to perform miracles because they bring their legislation forward late instead of early in the mandate. But that is a problem that the opposition is unable to assist him with.
I wonder if he would consider moving the final opposition day from Monday, March 22 until later in the week. He knows that the supply period ends March 26 and calling the last supply day on March 22 allows less than two weeks for the committees of the House to consider Supplementary Estimates C, which were tabled only on Tuesday, March 9.
I know he must agree with me when I say that the study of the estimates is one of the primary responsibilities of this institution and he would want to allow maximum time. Would he not agree that less than two weeks is an unreasonable amount of time to study those important supplementary estimates and that perhaps he should delay the supply day until later in the week?


Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, I would certainly be prepared to do that if we could show this new spirit of co-operation and get some agreement under Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2) for Bill C-113.
If the hon. member is suggesting that he is willing to co-operate in support of what he just said was a co-operative mood, and we can get agreement under Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2) to proceed with Bill C-113, then of course we can move the supply day to later on in the week. That would certainly be satisfactory to me. We can always make those kinds of arrangements.
Now he has held up four fingers, suggesting four days. The British Parliament was able to discuss Maastricht in six hours yet he thinks we need four days for Bill C-113.
This is what I mean. They talk co-operation, Madam Speaker, but in fact when it comes down to the crunch they want debate, discussion ad nauseam to an empty Parliament because no one is interested in what they have to say.
Business of the House


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, I suggest to my hon. friend, the government House leader, that he would find much more co-operation if the government introduced legislation that the public was actually interested in, as opposed to the legislation that he is introducing.
He said he was going to hold this as a tantalizing encouragement, that he would one day bring in legislation that the public was actually interested in. The sooner the better.
He referred to the New Democrats having some concern regarding Bill C-116, the conflict of interest legislation. I want to say very clearly that we have supported this legislation for as long as I have been in this House. We have been asking the government to come forward with legislation as long as I have been in this House. The fact that we have waited for eight and a half years for legislation seems to me to be odd, at this eight and a half year period, to be wanting to rush it through in one evening's debate.
We are anxious to support this legislation. We have some concerns with it but we want to approach this in a rational, logical and business-like way to ensure that it receives the appropriate study and examination. To rush it through late one night seems to be an unusual way to deal with such important legislation.


Harvie Andre: The hon. member knows that in fact the legislation exactly reflects the unanimous report of a committee of this House, which produced these recommendations, upon which there was New Democratic Party members. He knows that every member has the bill in his possession right now and is capable of reading it and reaching any conclusions. In fact, if they want to go back and amend that previous report there is even the capacity to do that.
What I cannot do and act responsibly to the taxpayers of Canada is put on hold or delay a series of bills, the collective result of which is about a billion dollars-that is one and nine zeros-impact on the taxpayers of Canada in order to bring forward what the House leader of the New Democratic Party describes as legislation of interest to the public. These other pieces of legislation may not be sexy but they collectively save the taxpayers $1 billion.
If you can show me a cost benefit which shows it is somehow more valuable to the Canadian taxpayers to

March 18, 1993
Business of the House
put aside these savings of $1 billion in order to "use House time on such important things as conflict of interest or other things of interest to the public," then I would be willing to discuss them. But I humbly suggest that until you can prove that the taxpayers are better off pursuing the strategy he is talking about then I am afraid I have to proceed in the manner I have outlined.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, I do not understand clearly my hon. friend's point. It was he who suggested that eventually we will get to legislation that the public is interested in. I am just quoting back his own remark.
The point is that there is a way to do business in the House that is well and historically developed. It is an appropriate process that we have all agreed to. That is why we have Standing Orders. The House is unanimously in agreement as to the ways and means of conducting business here. It is not late at night, sneaking some very important legislation through.
I want to suggest to my hon. friend the following. He has obviously not read the report and the legislation. If he had read the committee report and had studied the legislation he would know that there are great differences in the two documents. That is why we want to proceed with thoughtful, logical, sensible, positive study and examination in the right place at the right time. It does not mean some late night sitting for the government to slip something through on behalf of the taxpayers of Canada.


Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, there is nothing to sneak through. The lights will be on. Hansard will be here. Television will be here. We will sneak nothing through. We cannot do it. It will all be done under the glare of the television lights so do not worry about sneaking things through.
I think what the hon. member has to recognize, and I hope the House will recognize, is that the first priority this government has is to protect the taxpayers of this country. We think this legislation, arriving as it has out of consultations involving all the parties in the House and unanimously agreed to in its substance, should be passed.
If the hon. member is suggesting that we should put aside the bills dealing with significant savings to taxpayers and devote time to conflict of interest, then I am sorry I cannot perceive that.
However, let there be no mistake, if in fact prior to the next election there is not conflict of interest law in place, the blame will rest squarely on the opposition for failing to co-operate.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, I cannot let that go without some response. We have waited eight and a half years for this legislation. Now the government is prepared to act in the dying moments of its mandate.
I want to put this on the record very clearly. The government wants to rush legislation through now, some of it very important legislation that we will support and facilitate. The reason the government wants to rush this legislation through is because it wants to sneak, not conflict of interest through but NAFTA through, the free trade legislation that will profoundly influence the future of this country.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Of course I will let the minister answer, but I think we are now getting into discussions about each side's intentions. I also have the feeling that the usual Thursday question is turning into a debate and that somewhere other than the House of Commons may be the place to carry on negotiations that normally go on all the time in that place.
I will let the minister respond very briefly, but I think that we should then continue with what is on the Orders of the Day. The hon. minister has the floor.


Harvie Andre: I agree, Madam Speaker. I want to say that we have been asking for two days in a row now to refer the NAFTA legislation to committee so it can be properly studied and not to sneak it through and that has been denied by the NDP.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: We are really getting into debate.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Madam Speaker, this is a question for the House leader. The parliamentary secretary perhaps would take note of it.
I would like to know when the government will proclaim Bill C-63 which was the act to establish a Canadian race relations foundation, in view of the fact that this bill received Royal Assent way back in February 1991, and in view of the Prime Minister's obvious support today and concern for the Japanese Canadian redress?
March 18, 1993


Charles A. Langlois: Madam Speaker, I took note of the question raised by the member for Vancouver East and we will be provided with an answer as soon as possible.
While I have the floor, Madam Speaker, I have a point of order, if you would hear it.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. parliamentary secretary has the floor.


Charles A. Langlois: Madam Speaker, I believe that you would obtain the unanimous consent of the House to allow the Minister for External Relations to make a statement, followed by statements from a member of each party.


Mr. Gagliano:: Madam Speaker, we give our consent for this statement.


Mr. Plamondon:: Madam Speaker, it goes without saying that we would agree to giving this unanimous consent so that the minister can speak on this Franco-phonie Day. Of course, I hope that when the parliamentary secretary said that each party could speak, we will have two or three minutes to do so as well. In any case, we ask the House for that at the same time as its unanimous consent.


Alex Kindy: Madam Speaker, I would like to give my consent, but as the independent members do not have the opportunity to express their opinion on it, I would like the House to allow us to have our say as well.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Minister for External Relations and responsible for the international francophone community has the floor.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Monique Vézina: Madam Speaker, I
Routine Proceedings
welcome this opportunity to draw the attention of the House to the events that will take place on World Francophonie Day on March 20 and to the importance of this anniversary for Canada and the international community.
Canada is privileged to be a member of our two major international families, the Francophonie and the Commonwealth.
In both families, one traditionally headed by France and the other by Great Britain, Canada's status is such that it is able to create support for the fundamental values it is intent on sharing with all its fellow members.
Canadians should realize the importance of Canada's membership and its unique status within the Francophonie.
Canada has every reason to be proud of belonging to this great francophone family whose membership today includes 47 countries and governments, spread over five continents and representing more than 400 million people.
This forum, initially dedicated to cultural and linguistic issues, has since 1986, thanks to the summits of heads of state and heads of government, expanded to include political, economic and development co-operation. Much of the credit goes to our Prime Minister who was involved since the very beginning.
This year there will be many events to mark this anniversary. Activities will mostly emphasize youth, starting with a conference of youth ministers next June in Senegal, to provide for a lasting follow-up to the New York summit which the Prime Minister of Canada had the honour to co-chair with the President of Mali.
In July, the second Francophonie games will take place in Marseilles and Aix-en-Provence, where more than 400 young Canadians will represent Canada's sports and cultural elite. Finally, the fifth summit of heads of state and heads of government from countries where the French language is commonly used will be held in October in Mauritius.
Madam Speaker, like the events organized by Quebec and New Brunswick, those that will take place today in Ottawa are intended to make more and more Canadians aware of the Francophonie and its influence throughout the world.

March 18, 1993
Routine Proceedings
Today, I had the pleasure of receiving the francophone diplomatic corps, representatives of non-governmental and international organizations and many parliamentarians who will celebrate World Francopho-nie Day.
These gatherings provide an opportunity to salute the achievements of the international Francophonie. Events include the presentation of the Prix de la Francophonie nationale and the official inauguration of a Salon de la Francophonie on Parliament Hill. I may add that this was possible thanks to the co-operation of the Canadian section of the International Assembly of French-speaking Parliamentarians and the Association canadienne d'education de langue frangaise.
With my counterparts from Quebec and New Brunswick, Mr. Guy Rivard and Mr. Edmond Blanchard, I will also have the pleasure of attending the Symposium du Quebec sur le Monde associatif francophone d'Ameri-que, which will be attended by all representatives of America's Francophone community.
Madam Speaker, I wish the international Frenchspeaking community a memorable World Francophonie Day.


Hon. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Madam Speaker, I proudly wear this crest which says in French, "in French, of course". With this in mind, I join the hon. minister today in celebrating International Francophonie Day, which is March 20, as it has been proclaimed. We want to mark that date today.
The French-speaking world is alive and well and Canada is one of its essential pillars. It is with great pride that I as a French Canadian speak on it today.
Canada is a unique country where two realities, two worlds, two cultures meet. This makes Canada what it is today; it is what makes Canada the envy of the world.
We have proof of that when we walk around Ottawa and anywhere in the country. I am surprised that parliamentarians-not just ordinary people but also parliamentarians-occasionally forget to take a walk on Parliament Hill. I always ask hon. members to just walk around Parliament Hill to see symbols of what Canada is. We have the statue of Baldwin and Lafontaine supporting each other. They built this spirit of acceptance and tolerance-not tolerance in the sense of arrogance but in the sense of mutual acceptance. Seeing Cartier and Macdonald, Diefenbaker, Pearson and St. Laurent, on the Hill or anywhere else, makes one realize that there is something unique in this country.
I take this opportunity because this morning, together with the hon. minister responsible for the Francophonie who has just addressed us, and with the Prime Minister, and through the kindness of Senator Therese Lavoie-Roux, we inaugurated a special Salon de la Francophonie to match the Commonwealth Room right here in our Canadian Parliament.
Madam Speaker, you yourself preside over the International Association of French-speaking Parliamentarians and do a very good job of it. We also have the Canada-France Parliamentary Association. These important associations really symbolize what this country can represent.
This morning two prizes were awarded: the Prix de la Francophonie canadienne and the Prix de la Francophonie Internationale. The recipient of the Prix de la Francophonie canadienne for students is with us today. He won $2,000. Despite his youth-and I want to mention that, because I think his is the spirit of hope in our country- he gave his $2,000 to the association he leads, the Jeunes du pays in Bois-de-Boulogne College. By the way, I must say that I was absolutely delighted to note just this morning that these young people are from a college in my riding, although that is just by chance.
I want to name them so that their names will be recorded and they can go around with pride and show that they can build something in this country. The young man is Carl-Frangois Christophe and with him is the young woman who will take over the club from him in a few months, its future president, Sylvie Perron. I think that when we want to say something new about the Francophonie, we should involve young people and seek them out.
I know that I have already spoken for about a minute more than the minister, which is not customary, but I would just like to add one thing. I do not understand- and I am saying this in French but I almost feel like saying it in English, even though this is Francophonie Day-but we have understood it for a long time.



.

March 18. 1993

.(1525)

I cannot understand how people do not see a richness in the fact that we could belong to both the Commonwealth of Nations, in which English is predominant, and La Francophonie, in which French is predominant.

The two working languages of the United Nations, the two working languages of the International Parliamentary Union, the two working languages of many international organizations, we have that in our country. So I say to French Canadians, to Canadians, to French Canadians in Quebec-and I am one, a French Canadian from Quebec-to simply look at this richness and just to understand, first, that we must improve the quality of our French and understand that French can connect us to international affairs. In a way, that is what we want to celebrate today.
This morning the Prime Minister said-and I will certainly quote him because you, Madam Speaker, and he and I attended the first Francophone Summit in Paris-I want to quote what he said, and I hope that I get it right because the press is here. He said that Canada is a child born of France and Great Britain. That is beautifully put.
I conclude by saying to you that France is very important. France gave me my cultural oxygen, so to speak, the taste for the French language, the desire to read, understand and write this extraordinary language, this language of culture. But we also have Great Britain which gave us this parliamentary institution and the British parliamentary system. 1 like the British parliamentary system.

1 like the British parliamentary system given to me because I belong to the Commonwealth and I like-

I love my language, French. It is important for us. We must protect it and spread it in Canada. We must protect it and especially work to ensure that heads of state understand through the French Commonwealth, so to speak, that they are committed to respecting democracy
Routine Proceedings
and fighting torture in their countries. That is why it is important for Canadians to be present in this very important organization that we will celebrate very soon, the day after tomorrow.


Mr. Cid Samson (Timmins -Chapleau):: Madam Speaker, I am filled with pride as I rise today in support of World Francophonie Day to be celebrated on March 20. Seeing that I am the only native speaker of the language in the NDP, I am even prouder, because in my work wherever I am in the country or in my riding I never hesitate to say how proud I am to be a francophone. Our country is only richer for the fact that we have two languages, that we are bilingual, that we are part of both the Commonwealth and the French-speaking community of the Francophonie.
Madam Speaker, I shall be brief in view of the fact that other hon. members wish to speak. On behalf of the New Democratic Party, I want to wish a great day to the Francophonie, the international French-speaking community. Let us keep going with luck and courage!


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Unanimous consent having been given earlier to recognize two other members, I gladly do so. The hon. member for Richelieu.


Louis Plamondon: Madam Speaker, I too welcome this opportunity to take part in this brief debate on the Francophonie and the international day to be held on March 20.
With some 100 million native speakers, the French language is one of the most commonly spoken in the world. Like the English language, it is an official language used as language of instruction and even of business in some thirty countries around the wold, hence spoken by 200 million men and women.
It is used internationally to gain access to culture and the latest intellectual developments. It is a working language on an equal footing with English in several international organizations such as those operating under the United Nations.
La Francophonie is also a state of mind, a feeling of belonging. It is a meeting place for men, women and cultures with a commonality of language, according to Senghor.

March 18, 1993
Supply
Madam Speaker, Quebec belongs to this great international Francophonie. It belongs as a member and soon it will belong as a country. That is what the future holds.
What better way to preserve this precious heritage of Francophonie than to build a country around it! If we look at the survival of Francophones outside Quebec, it is clear that a federation is not the answer for the survival of the Francophonie in North America. The Canadian Federation has been more inclined to destroy than to promote French culture in North America. Quebec must create the framework it needs to protect its Francophonie. With 3 per cent Francophones in North America, a country is the best way to ensure the survival of our Francophonie.
Today, we now have a "Salon" on Parliament Hill. We say: three cheers! But is this not too little, too late? As francophone Quebecers, don't we really want a whole house where we will be "maitres chez nous"? Keeping that in mind, I want to say how proud we are as Quebecers to belong to this Francophonie and that we are looking forward to one day sitting with our fellow members as the 48th francophone country on this planet.


Alex Kindy: Madam Speaker, I am proud to have this opportunity to extend my congratulations to the international Francophonie, on behalf of Western Canada and Alberta. As you know, Madam Speaker, in Edmonton we have the college Saint-Jean which is an outpost of the Francophonie, and I am proud to come from a province that fully accepts French.
I also would like to stress the fact that Quebec, as the cradle of North American Francophonie, is the most important place in North America. My best wishes to my fellow members from Quebec in Parliament.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Speller (p. 17177).
Madam Deputy Speaker:: I apologize, I had been told that the floor was free. I am told there are five minutes left in questions and comments.


Robert (Bob) Speller: Madam Speaker, I want to first of all thank my hon. colleague for his speech this morning on this very important subject. He mentioned the whole question of illiteracy and his concerns are very valid concerns which this government should take seriously.
I know the hon. member spoke about this but I want to bring it to your attention again, Madam Speaker. The Economic Council of Canada has forecast that there will be a further one million illiterate people joining the work force by the year 2000 at an estimated cost to Canada, to every Canadian, of about $10 billion annually. That means every single Canadian has to pick up this cost. I am wondering if the hon. member would elaborate some of his views on this issue because to me it seems like a very serious problem.


Mac Harb: Madam Speaker, my colleague's point is an excellent one. That is one of the reasons I and my colleagues over the past two years have been urging the government to take some tangible action when it comes to the question of literacy in Canada. That is also why I have on a number of occasions been calling for the establishment of a national literacy standard by which literacy becomes a right rather than a privilege, and that goes hand in hand with education.
Unless we get to a point where we recognize literacy as a right there is no way we are going to be able to fight for it, there is no way we are going to be able to move forward. That is why I am in the process of making a proposal to this House calling for the establishment of a mechanism whereby we would have national education standards.
As a result of this question I want to direct a question to the minister responsible for literacy in Canada, and I am delighted to see him here in the House. Will the commitment of the government to literacy be an ongoing commitment? In other words, will that commitment be independent of election year, independent of the politics of the government of the day? Is there any intention to bring forward to the House of Commons some sort of legislation whereby the secretariat of literacy will become a permanent fixture, a part and parcel of our government? Will it come up with some sort of a formula whereby our administrators do not have to appear before the government every year to ask for funding?
March 18, 1993

I want to share the rest of my time with the minister, if you do not mind, Madam Speaker. Maybe he can share with us some of his wisdom.


Gregory Francis Thompson: Madam Speaker, I guess you have just given me a promotion.
My question is for the member for Ottawa Centre and concerns transfers to the provinces. Federally we transfer $6 billion a year to the provinces for post-secondary education. That is a significant transfer of dollars. It represents a 43 per cent increase since 1984-85 and is not an insignificant figure at all.
I would like him to touch on the conditions that should possibly be attached to those transfers. One of the arguments we hear in this House is that although we transfer the $6 billion the spending is entirely discretionary on the part of the provinces.
Constitutionally we understand that the provinces are responsible for education, but should we consider attaching conditions to the spending of those dollars? I believe, as most of us in this House do, that those dollars do not always go to education.


Mac Harb: Madam Speaker, this is a very valid concern because unfortunately we get stuck with provinces such as the province of Ontario which take the transfer payments from the federal government and rather than spending them on education they spend them on other issues that have absolutely no relevance to education whatsoever. This is a very valid point.
That is why in my speech a little earlier I took the stance that what the government of Ontario is doing is wrong. The money that has been given by the federal government to the provinces to be spent on education should be spent on education.
That is no different than the money the federal government is giving to the provinces to spend on second language training. This is a shame. It is a national disgrace that the federal government has given money to the provinces, such as the province of Ontario, to spend on second language training and the school boards are screaming loudly on a daily basis because they cannot
Supply
afford and do not have the resources to provide the second language training that is required for children who come to our society as a result of our immigration policy.
That is why it is imperative, particularly now for the federal government to call on the carpet the provincial governments of Ontario and other provinces to ensure that money being given to the provinces to be spent on education is in fact spent on education, even if that means amending the health care act and the transfer payment act that govern the transfer payments from the federal government to the provincial government.


Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, I read in the Projected Order of Business, under the heading Government Orders, the opposition motion which "condemns the government for policies regarding jobs and job creation". This reminded me of the results of the job creation policy of the government of the time, in 1982, at the end of the recession.
In 1984 when we came to power the unemployment rate stood at 11.8 per cent. At the end of the 1982 recession these people with their economic policies, forced Canadians who owned property and who had a mortgage to renew this mortgage at a rate of 22 per cent while inflation was surging ahead at 12.9 per cent, if I am not mistaken. Today these people would have us and all Canadians believe that the way to protect ourselves and to create jobs is to have an economic climate such as the one they created in this country around 1982.
Every measure we have proposed since 1984-and I am again referring to the last budget-was intended to give Canadians the low interest rates which they have today and the lowest mortgage rates in 35 years. Workers in northern Saskatchewan, British Columbia, New Brunswick or the Gaspe peninsula can now renew their mortgage at the lowest rate in 35 years. Surely this is conducive to job creation.

March 18, 1993
Supply

What we are here to discuss today is what the federal government is doing to help people acquire the skills that they need to bring their talents and abilities to the work force. That is the issue.
We live in a changing world in which new technologies are being developed and new economies are emerging. This means that the nature of work is in transition and increasingly we must compete on a global basis.
If we are to compete individual Canadians and Canadian businesses must be in a position to take advantage of the opportunities that lie ahead. Our policies will ensure that. Our policies will ensure that our work force will have the necessary skills to operate our factories and businesses.
Make-work programs, which are called for every day by the New Democratic Party and at times by our friends from the Liberal opposition, do not address these issues. They were the favourite approach of the 1970s. I understand that a party led by people from prior generations would stick to those solutions of the past. The solutions of the 1970s, make-work projects, lulled Canadians into believing that we can buy the illusion of prosperity. That is the Liberal way. They have tried it. They still rise in this House and call on us to borrow more and mortgage the future of all Canadians even more, and even those who are not born yet.
They say mortgage their future more, borrow more, pass more, create again the impression that we can buy prosperity and that we can buy the standard of living Canadians enjoy.
The Liberal way and the socialist way do not work. Proof of that-


David Kilgour: Has your method worked?


Bernard Valcourt: Let me talk; your turn will come. Madam Speaker-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I would ask the hon. minister to address his comments to the Chair. If both sides avoid making comments directly to one another we will avoid unseemly language which should not be heard in the House of Commons.


Bernard Valcourt: Certainly, Madam Speaker. In fact, I am anxious to check the "blues" to see if I said anything unseemly. If I did, I withdraw it.
I want to make the point that make-work programs do not address these issues. They were the favoured measures of the 1970s and they did help remedy downturns in cyclical industries. I am ready to acknowledge this. However the problems we face today are more complex and require different and innovative solutions.
Now we do not wish to offer Canadians band-aid solutions that do not solve the problem. Instead we have instituted working at creative solutions and I tell my colleagues in the House that indeed they are making a difference.

We are providing more training to Canadian workers. We are helping Canadian industry meet its human resources needs. We are doing more with less, abandoning passive income support programs for more productive measures. As the saying goes: "When I look in the mirror I get upset, but compared to others I am doing just fine".
If you compare Canada to other industrialized countries, OECD members for instance, you can see that 75 per cent of income support funds are active rather that passive. In Canada, with the Unemployment Insurance amendment bill we passed a few years ago, we have now managed to activate 15 per cent of those funds to help people meet the challenge of acquiring new and greater skills. We are redirecting that inactive money-because we are paying people to do nothing-by providing them with help and enabling them to get the training required to re-enter the labour force, which discriminates much more today than it used to in terms of necessary skills. We must find new approaches.

Rather than offer Canadians more handouts, we want to give them the ability to find and keep stable employment. Our financial commitment in that regard has grown significantly to keep pace with this important priority.
March 18, 1993

In the 1993-94 fiscal year some $3.8 billion has been allocated for employment programs and services. That is considerably higher than the $2.1 billion spent in 1989-90. Now when talking about $3.8 billion it has to be looked at from the perspective of the government policy of reducing expenditure.
If we look at the cuts that my colleague the Minister of Finance announced in December, people will realize that not one penny was cut from the training funds, the money that can really help Canadians reintegrate into the labour market. That is a clear message that this government affords the highest priority to human resource development.
My colleagues were talking earlier about the education moneys that are being transferred over to provinces. The funding of $3.55 billion in 1992-93 enabled close to
700,000	Canadians to participate in Employment and Immigration Canada's labour market programming. In 1993 $2.21 billion will be directed toward training and adjustment measures for UI claimants. As I said earlier, the training this funding will provide is essential to help the unemployed find new jobs.
We introduced Bill C-113 which is before this House as we speak. It is hoped that later this week it will be considered at report stage. Bill C-113 will introduce measures which will no longer allow those who voluntarily quit their jobs without just cause and those individuals fired for misconduct to claim UI benefits.
I understand that these changes are opposed by the Liberals and the New Democrats. They say that Canadian taxpayers should pay unemployment insurance benefits to people who voluntarily without just cause choose to become unemployed. That is the position of the Liberal Party.
Hard-working Canadians are being asked by the Liberals and the socialists to please continue paying benefits to people who choose to become unemployed. Not those who have to quit a job for just cause, and many do. Those people will be fully protected. But no, for those who have no reason whatsoever, no provocation, no just cause, they say: "Please Canadian taxpayers, pay these people benefits".
These are policy positions of the opposition that result from-

-how could I say it so as not to offend you, Madam Speaker-their connection with or their commitment to
Supply
such special interest groups concerned with the higher interests of the nation. I think this is a sad and alarming position to take, but ultimately the Canadian people will decide between the solutions they have put forward, those reactionary solutions, and the ones put forward by a progressive government and a progressive party such as ours.
These measures allow us to do more in terms of training as they make money available. Instead of paying benefits to people who, by the way, are free to quit their jobs without just cause-I am not stopping them. The point I am making is that we should not be asking money from our neighbours to pay for these benefits because we need that money to provide yet more training to those who truly need it, that is the workers who did not choose to become unemployed but were laid off all over the country because of the economic restructuring and technological changes we are facing. Some would like us to ignore these changes.

They wish away problems. But you cannot wish away problems or reality; these things are happening. We have to have the tools in place which help our people to be able to meet those challenges. Those policies are expressly tailored to do just that.

Government is aware of the specific problems facing especially long-standing employees, those men and women who suddenly find themselves with no job after having been employed by a company or having worked for their employers for a long time.
In the near future, we will be implementing a special program for people who get laid off after having had stable employment. In many cases these people lost their jobs because of the world-wide industrial restructuring that is taking place. More often than not plants close suddenly. There is no way of warning the workers well in advance. So they do not have time to prepare, to retrain or to look for another job.
In this new program we at Employment and Immigration Canada will be spending $300 million to provide assistance to these men and women to help them re-enter the labour force as quickly as possible. This assistance will include teaching job-search techniques, administering skill tests and providing information on the labour market, and it will enable some of these people to get the training required to get a job.

March 18, 1993
Supply
Under the new program Employment and Immigration Canada will establish partnerships with certain communities and businesses to set up local adjustment assistance committee. Through these committees we will be able to promptly provide laid-off workers with the services they need. As you know, Madam Speaker, some groups are specifically targeted for assistance under Employment and Immigration programs, but we have never paid particular attention to permanently laid-off workers who have had ongoing employment for long periods of time. That is what this program is intended to do.

The previous member talked about the school dropout situation. I want to say that our stay in school program has been an outstanding success. If colleagues remember, the current Minister of the Environment was the minister responsible for youth when he introduced this stay in school program for all of Canada. It has been an outstanding success.
An increasing number of young people in this country are choosing to stay in school and upgrade their education. Between 1989 and 1992 the proportion of youths 20 to 24 years old who were full-time students rose from 48.4 per cent to 53.5 per cent. This is a tangible sign that young people are recognizing the importance of a good education.
My colleague has already informed the House about this program and our other programs for youth employment, but we are doing more. Canada's young people have access to all employment and immigration programs. Our figures show that in the 1991-92 fiscal year a little over 196,000 young Canadians took advantage of our other programs. Regular program spending for the youth segment of our clientele amounted to almost $740 million.
Now this is serious money. This is taxpayers' money. It is devoted to that segment of the population which probably has the heaviest burden on its shoulders, that of assuring the future social, cultural and economic success of this country.
Education is not just for the young. The government places a great deal of importance and urgency on building a private sector learning culture in Canada.
We all know that in the past in order to be successful in the regions of Canada all that was needed were strong arms, a strong back and strong legs and a hard-working spirit. In that way we were able to create this country and create wealth. We have been able to develop a standard of living almost unequalled in the world. Canadians have a high standard of living and we did that mostly with our muscles and partly with our brains.
Nowadays that is over. Future wealth will only be created by that grey matter called a brain. That is the reality. That is why human resource development, training and education must be at the forefront of the government's concern in this country. This government has shown its true colours in terms of education and training by the amount of taxpayers' dollars it is directing to this crucial issue.
I said that education is not just for the young and it was important that we create this learning culture in Canada as a result of the reality we face. We have a dedication to the renewal of this great nation's human resource infrastructure, that is, our people and their skills. The quality of the work force in Canada will be and is a direct determinant of our future prosperity.
The Canadian people know that manpower retraining is essential if our country is to compete on the international market but they are concerned that we may be out-done by our major competitors. In Canada the private sector has to invest more and realize that only through manpower training can their competitiveness, their productivity and their success on the global market be ensured.
Madam Speaker, you are signalling that my time is almost up.

I would love to have been able to speak about the central initiative which I predict will revolutionize the way in which the private sector considers training and education in this country. This is a $352 million initiative that is already in place and will be expended in a major way in the next few months for the benefit of Canada.
March 18, 1993

For all these reasons this House should never condemn the policies of this government because they are exactly what Canadians need.


Alfonso Gagliano: Madam Speaker, I will tell you that I have a lot to say about the minister's last sentence.
I want to ask him two questions. In his speech the minister referred to the POWA program and said that he cares a lot about those who after a number of years lose their jobs because the company for which they were working shuts down. Therefore, his government according to him wants to implement programs to help these people and ensure that such a thing does not occur. I will get back to this issue.
As for POWA, is the minister aware that right now workers are laid off and will not be able to get the benefits or the help provided for older workers because of a rule in this program? For two or three years we have been presenting petitions to have this rule changed. For example, on the island of Montreal if a company closes down and has fewer than one hundred employees these people do no qualify. It is not their fault. They are not responsible for the plight of the company. They are old enough to qualify for this program. The number of years during which they worked in the industry makes them eligible but because the company must have a minimum of 100 employees they are penalized. In cities such as Montreal, Toronto and all the metropolitan centers which have been experiencing very hard times in the last few years because of the recession workers who are 55 years old are unemployed, cannot get jobs and find themselves in a difficult situation precisely because of this POWA program set up by this government.
Madam Speaker, I have a second question for the minister. He says that the policies put forward by his government and by him as Minister of Employment are bringing good results. I would like to tell him about some of those results, especially in Quebec. In our province, 29 per cent of the population is under 30 years old. They account for 50 per cent of part-time workers and 72 per cent of workers earning the minimum wage. Thirty-three per cent of Quebecers on welfare and 42 per cent of Quebecers on unemployment insurance are less than 30 years old. The drop-out rate in Quebec is 36 per cent, the highest in the country. Is that the result of the minister's policies?
Supply


Bernard Valcourt: Madam Speaker, I did not realize that I would have the opportunity to give my learned colleague a course on constitutional law this afternoon. If the member wants to criticize the Quebec government in this House for the drop-out rate, so be it.
We all know that education is under provincial jurisdiction. Unless the member wants to be so partisan as to blame this government for the school drop-out rate in Quebec or elsewhere in the country, we should recognize the concerted efforts made by the government of Quebec and the Government of Canada to fight this drop-out problem.
I fully agree with my colleague that a drop-out rate of 36 per cent is unacceptable. However, it must be recognized, and I am sure he will agree, that more and more Quebecers and Canadians from all the other provinces are aware of how important it is for young people to stay in school. In our government's prosperity initiative I had the privilege to meet groups of parents and educators throughout the country who are trying to address the issue of drop-outs. There is a consensus in this country on the need to restructure our education systems and adapt them to the needs of our young people; this is in addition to other social measures which must be taken to help our young stay in school.
The hon. member referred to the Program for Older Worker Adjustment which is the responsibility of my colleague the Minister of Labour. Personally I can say to the Liberal member from Montreal that the best way to impoverish a nation is to idle its human resources. It is true that people who, unfortunately, are laid off, sometimes after many years at their job, have real difficulties retraining or finding a new job. It is with this in mind that we have introduced this Program for Older Worker Adjustment. We want to help those workers.
It is true that there are eligibility rules and that not everybody can retire. Personally, I think that we should try to benefit from this older workforce. In this country we treat our older people as if they had nothing more to offer society. We want to put them away somewhere and tell them to stay there. I say that our collective challenge as a society is to find out how we can benefit from the experience of those people. These older workers are an immense pool of talent, experience and wisdom, and we should see how we can make them re-enter the workforce so that the whole country can benefit from their experience.

March 18, 1993
Supply
I do not think that the solution is to find how we can make everybody retire at the age of 55. These people are loaded with talent; they can do a lot for their country. The programs which we need should rather seek to bring them back into the workforce and thus help the younger people who need their experience.


Cyril (Cid) Samson: Madam Speaker, I would like to agree with the minister in one of the comments that he made a little earlier that one cannot wish away problems. Ele is absolutely right but one does not deal with problems that exist today by creating more problems.
He mentioned Bill C-113 and that voluntary quitters should not be entitled to benefits. The magnitude of that statement goes far beyond just the cutting off of their benefits. It also deprives them of the opportunity to get training.
The penalty the minister is imposing on these workers in this bill is overkill. The punishment must fit the crime. One cannot send someone to jail for stealing a chocolate bar, for goodness' sake, and the status quo certainly serves the needs of the Unemployment Insurance Commission in terms of people not having the ability to quit their jobs.
The minister talks very eloquently about education and about our older workers. He says that we should establish ways of utilizing that education. He is absolutely right, we should. But putting them in the ranks of the unemployed through the loss of their jobs is not the way to do it.
We have an educated work force. The problem is that there are no jobs to go to. I think that this minister rather than attack the unemployed should be looking at ways of attacking unemployment and creating jobs whereby we could use the talent of those older workers who are now out of work as a result of his government's economic policies.
We have university students who are graduating every year with no jobs to go to. Yet we are saying that we have
to train people for jobs. The whole point that the minister is missing is that there are no jobs for these people to go to.
I would like to ask the minister this: Why does he not look at ways of encouraging industry to hire people?
The mining sector is hurting. There are ways of creating employment in the mining sector. We have miners who are out of work. There are thousands and thousands of years of work experience going to waste. Why not do something for the mining industry in order to put these workers back to work so that they can train people to keep the mining industry thriving and prosperous?
Why not look at those kinds of solutions to the problems instead of creating more problems by introducing bills like Bill C-113?


Bernard Valcourt: Madam Speaker, very briefly, I have two quick points. First, when the hon. member refers to the need for industry to create jobs, he asks what one does to create jobs. We entered into a free trade agreement. We entered into a North American free trade agreement because this is about trade.
We cannot sell our goods to this great population of Canada of 27 million people. We have to trade with the world. By trading and by opening the trading doors of Canada to the world we are creating jobs.
On the other point he made, we talk about the level of unemployment. In this country, in 1991, an interpretation of our help wanted index reveals that 300,000 jobs went unfulfilled in Canada because people did not have the skills.
My point is this and I will close on this: The modification to the Unemployment Insurance Act that takes people out who quit their jobs voluntarily without just cause leaves more money to train those unemployed Canadians who will get the skills to create and fill those
300,000	jobs that went unfulfilled.
I am sure that if the New Democrat member thinks this thing over he will want to applaud the measures of Bill C-113.
March 18, 1993


Chris Axworthy: Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House to discuss government policies regarding jobs, jobs creation, post-secondary education and job training and retraining, because of the severe implications that government policies are having on Canada's youth.
Those of us who have recently been to our ridings will know from recent experience the pain and suffering being caused to so many youths across this country. As the motion indicates whole generations of young Canadians are being robbed of their legitimate aspirations to have a job, to build a life and to work in Canada.
The only amendment that I would think would be appropriate to a motion like this is that this House should condemn the government for continuing Liberal policies regarding jobs, jobs creation, post-secondary education and training and retraining because that is really what has taken place.
Over the last 18 years we have seen cutbacks from the federal government to the provincial governments under both Liberal and Conservative federal governments that have had these extremely negative implications on the provinces. It would be appropriate just to indicate what those cutbacks have been because they have had a major impact on the provinces. I will indicate the impact that they have had on my province of Saskatchewan.
In 1975 the then finance minister, the member for Vancouver Quadra, placed a ceiling on federal contributions to help with post-secondary education. In 1977 the then Liberal government backed away from equal costsharing for health and post-secondary education with the provinces with the introduction of block funding. The federal share of spending has continued to decline.
In 1982 the Liberal government then removed the revenue guarantee program for health and post-secondary education transfers to the provinces. As a result of that, $6 billion has been cut from post-secondary education. In 1983 the six and five guidelines placed restraints on post-secondary funding. That has also taken millions of dollars out of moneys available for the province to fund such a critical aspect of any program which will provide opportunities for youth, that of post-secondary education.
Supply
In the last eight years of Liberal federal governments there were four initiatives which cut funding to the provinces for post-secondary education.
The Conservative government continued these cuts. In 1986 Bill C-96 changed the formula which escalated federal spending on health and post-secondary education. Instead of spending increasing at the rate of GNP, i.e. at the rate at which our wealth could permit it, the legislation reduced the rate of increase to gross national product growth minus 2 per cent.
This to the end of the 1980s had been costing the provinces $2 billion annually. In 1989 the finance minister proposed a further change to that formula and funding was reduced to GNP minus 3 per cent. In 1990 the budget imposed a two-year freeze on per capita transfers to the provinces for both health care and post-secondary education. In 1991 this 1990 freeze on health care and post-secondary education funding was extended for another three years and we are here debating that issue today.
We have clear joint responsibility on the part of Liberal and Conservative governments to attack the opportunities for Canadian youth to obtain post-secondary education. We could also talk about the cuts to other programs, to the cap on CAP and so on. These programs also have taken money away that the provinces needed to carry on the very important programs which will enable our youth to have a future and play a part in Canada's future.
In case anybody has any doubt about the magnitude of these cuts to established programs financing for health care and post-secondary education, in 1992-1993 because of this dozen or so measures by Liberal and Conservative governments, $247.9 million was taken out of the province of Saskatchewan.
Agricultural program cuts, primarily in the last three or four years, took $215 million out of Saskatchewan, and other programs such as unemployment insurance offloading, manpower agreements, young offenders, legal aid, RCMP, criminal injuries compensation and so on-the list is quite long-added another $75.2 million which was taken out of the province of Saskatchewan in 1992-1993 alone. The total is some $538 million, which is around the deficit of the province of Saskatchewan for that year.

March 18, 1993
Supply
Had the federal governments, Liberal and Conservative, not made offloading a priority, not transferred the debt load from the federal government to the provinces, the province of Saskatchewan last year would have had a balanced budget.
This year in spite of those offloading dollars the province of Saskatchewan will have reduced its deficit by almost half. The cost of these offloading measures, of the province having to take over more and more of education, is that other programs have to be cut.
This can only be described as short-sighted. The government's rhetoric is of course quite right. We do have to become a better trained, better educated work force. We do have to create jobs so that that training can be put into effect. We do have to compete in a global market and it is not getting any easier to do so. That is all the more reason why we should commit ourselves again to funding policies which assist job creation and job opportunities for our youth as well as for other Canadians.
The reason we should recommit ourselves to adequate funding for post-secondary education is that it is not appropriate and not good for Canada. It is not good for Canadians that our post-secondary education system is becoming ever more elitist, ever more difficult for those of lower incomes to have the opportunity for post-secondary education. The whole support mechanism is making it more and more difficult for ordinary Canadians to go to universities, colleges and technical institutions.
Summer job programs have been cut back so it is more difficult for a student to obtain a summer job. Student loan opportunities are cut back so there is not enough money available to borrow in order to go to university. It is almost a vicious circle: Student fees go up because of federal government offloading; one after another it becomes more and more difficult for Canadians to obtain post-secondary education.
We need initiatives to encourage job training and retraining, to ensure that businesses in Canada carry out their fair share of training, which they have notoriously not done in the past by comparison to other countries, and in particular by comparison to those countries with successful economies. All these things need to be rethought and developed so that Canada's youth have the opportunity both to obtain the skills they need in order to participate in the work force and have job opportunities available to them so that they can use those skills to best advantage.
Over the last 15 years or so we have seen a gradual erosion, as I have pointed out, by both federal Liberal and Conservative governments in moneys and support available for those skill training programs and for education programs. We have also seen a move away from a commitment to job creation. We have seen an obsession with deficit control, both under the Liberal government-that is what the six and five guideline was about-and an obsession with inflation rather than an obsession with job creation.
Indeed, what that obsession with inflation has meant is that people have been deliberately put out of work in order to reduce inflation. That is not the way to get Canada's economy moving again. We all know that little will be achieved in terms of development unless we take seriously the need to educate our youth, to provide opportunities for their education and to provide job opportunities for them afterward.
I would like to take one step back because we all know that one of the problems we face, and the minister made mention of it just recently, is that we have an extremely high dropout rate within our school system. In fact we do not have a particularly enviable participation rate of college age students in our universities in comparison to, for example, the United States, which is embarking on a major campaign to increase the participation rate, while we are increasing student fees and making it more difficult for students to go to university.
One of the reasons why Canadian school children drop out of school at the rates they do is because of poverty. We all know we have one million Canadian children living in poverty. We have 1.6 million Canadians unemployed and 2.6 million Canadians living on social assistance. Not only is this a huge social problem but a waste of economic resources. Until we address the major problem that our economy, our society, is not geared to providing opportunities for all Canadians but is geared to ensuring that 4.2 million Canadians have no opportunities at all, we will never change that system. We need to take a different route.
The minister talks about the benefits flowing from the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement and NAFTA. What we should be doing rather than giving up control of our economy to our large multinational corporations who do not give one whit about Canada or one whit about creating jobs, is taking control of our economy ourselves for the benefit of Canadians. It is not only for the benefit of Canada but for the benefit of those Canadian youth who need jobs and opportunities for the future.
March 18, 1993

We know from all the records that large multinational corporations operating in Canada have reduced their work forces over the last 10 to 12 years and continue to reduce their work forces. We know that large corporations in Canada generally have reduced their work forces. Those large multinational corporations, of which the government is so fond and has been prepared to ease their sphere of activity through the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement and now through NAFTA, are the ones that are driving down employment and cutting back on jobs.
That is why we need to take control of our economy. There are ways of doing it. There are ways of taking charge of our economy. We do not have to give up control on the way as we have done. We all know that free trade began, not with the Conservative government, but with the Macdonald commission of the Liberal government. The whole plan for free trade was set out by Mr. Macdonald and his colleagues. It was then eagerly adopted by the Conservative government. It is not accidental that these things have worked in that way.
Only the New Democratic Party has been consistent in demanding that Canada's economy be controlled by Canada for Canadians. There are things we can do. I will not go into them in detail now but one of them clearly involves us taking charge of our education system, turning it into a system and making it work.
We must ensure that we invest more money in research and development rather than less. We should ensure that government works with business and labour in an effective way to plan the direction that Canada can take rather than just let these things be decided willy-nilly by the business community. It had led us into a situation of 11 per cent and 12 per cent unemployment, a million children living in poverty, 2.6 million people on social assistance and 1.6 million unemployed. That is where these policies have taken us.
What we need to do is take back control of Canada's economy by doing more in the training field, doing more for post-secondary education and doing more in re-
Supply
search and development. This money will not be wasted.
It is money invested in the future. No sensible government, no sensible corporation would not invest in its primary resource, its people. Yet we have seen continual cutbacks by this government and by the Liberal governments before it to those very things which constitute the investment in our future and in our youth.


Mr. Neil Young (Beaches-Woodbine):: Madam Speaker, I know the hon. member for Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing has always displayed a concern for those individuals who have to depend on the social system in order to have any kind of standard of living.
I wonder if the hon. member is aware that an organization named the Coalition of Provincial Organizations of the Handicapped made a pre-budget presentation to the Minister of Finance on March 11, I believe it was. Its members expressed some concern not only about being trapped within the social welfare system and unable to get out of it because of the lack of employment opportunities, but they tried to bring to the attention of the Minister of Finance two things that were of great concern to them.
First of all the shifting of revenues under the Consolidated Revenue Fund of employment and immigration which they have relied on to a great extent for employment opportunities has been cut back in recent years. Also, the policy of employment and immigration now of increasingly applying training opportunities to those individuals only who are recipients of unemployment insurance benefits has effectively presented a barrier to someone who is not on unemployment insurance benefits from entering into those programs.
They were also very concerned about the transfer payments to the provinces which had to a large extent created a position where they cannot even get assistance under the Canada Assistance Plan because of the cutbacks from the federal level of government to provincial levels of government.

March 18, 1993
Supply
I want to ask the hon. member whether or not he has any information about the amounts of money that are involved in those transfer cutbacks. COPOH, the organization I just referred to, did not have those figures at hand the time they made the presentation. I think they would find that very useful information to have.


Chris Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his question.
While I do not have specific numbers of dollars, the minister is in the House and he might very well have some specifics which he could help us with. However, I want to support what the member is saying and recognize, as I think all members of the House should and most do, that the plight of the disabled in Canada in terms of access to job training and access to jobs is indeed of the most severe nature.
One of the problems that the member just highlighted is an absolutely critical one; that so many of the training programs are available only to those who receive unemployment insurance. Of course the vast majority of those persons who have been disabled and who have not been able to work in the recent past are not eligible for that training. Therefore it becomes ever more difficult for them to take their place in the work force.
The minister might want to comment on that. It seems odd that we would not want to break down barriers to job training rather than put barriers up and why there would not be more effective co-ordination with the provinces to ensure that this training is available.
It might also be that we should hear from the government on why it is taking so long to incorporate into the Canadian Human Rights Act the duty to accommodate that which would make jobs so much more accessible to the disabled and enable them to have the opportunity to work as of course they all want to do.


Bernard Valcourt: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the hon. member. How can the hon. member stand up in this House and purport to speak with some knowledge about the crucial question facing Canadians in training and not answer to his colleague that over and above the $2.2 billion that is being spent by the workers and employers of Canada to train the unemployed there is also $1.6 billion that is specifically targeted to disabled Canadians, to women, to natives and to minority groups across Canada-$1.6 billion that is being spent.
My other question to the hon. member is the following: Why is the New Democratic Party opposed to activating the passive income security money of UI for active measures to train Canadians? A sure way to help an unemployed person in this country is to help that person acquire more new skills to integrate a labour market that changes by the day.


Chris Axworthy: Madam Speaker, on the first question the minister raised, the issue is not so much how much money is being spent at the present time but how much money is needed in order to address the problem.
Clearly, with the huge unemployment rate among disabled Canadians, the money the minister is speaking of is clearly inadequate to address those concerns. If we are really serious as a country about making sure that disabled Canadians participate in the work force then we owe it to them to put some resources into that. Of course those resources are not just dollars spent, they are dollars that are invested in people which will return to the government in terms of taxation revenue and so on.
Therefore, the question is not how much we are spending. The question is how much money should we be spending and how can we find those resources to invest in Canadians.
The second question was with regard to the use of unemployment insurance funds for training. The minister and I do not disagree on the need for training. The minister and I do not disagree on the need to provide opportunities for those who are unemployed to be trained and to enter the work force. We seem to disagree on the need to have an active, creative and aggressive policy to create jobs in this country, because certainly his government has not done that.
Let us ask whose responsibility it is that those unemployed are unemployed. Is it their responsibility? Is it their responsibility they do not have any jobs, that they do not work? They all want to work. Most of them did work. They cannot find jobs now because of the economic climate, because of government economic policies and, of course, because we live in a difficult world economic environment.
March 18, 1993

If it is not those employees' responsibilities that they are unemployed, why should it be their responsibility to pay to be trained? Why should the training not be paid for those people who are responsible for their unemployment, for it is the government whose economic policies have turned those people out of work?


Charles A. Langlois: Madam Speaker, on a point of order. After Question Period, when I asked the House for unanimous consent to allow the Minister for External Relations to make a statement, I should have mentioned that normally such a statement should have been made at the opening of the sitting, during Routine Proceedings. Because the minister was not present at the time we were unable to proceed.
I would like to ask now for unanimous consent in order to extend the present debate by 15 minutes to compensate for the time taken by that statement and to give members the time they would have had otherwise.


Alfonso Gagliano: Madam Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary to the government leader in the House for his co-operation and, of course, we agree with his suggestion.


Neil Young: That would be satisfactory to the New Democratic Party also.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Charles A. Langlois: Madam Speaker, on another point of order.

I think that you would find consent for the following motion:
That, notwithstanding any Standing Order, when Government Orders are called in the morning on Friday, March 19, 1993 the order for the second reading of Bill C-97, an act respecting marine insurance, and the other for second reading of Bill C-83, an act respecting the transport of goods by water, shall be called jointly for a debate on the subject matter covered in both bills; and
Supply
That the order for second reading of Bill C-97 and C-83 be amended by having the bills referred to the Standing Committee on Transport rather than a legislative committee in the Economics envelope; and
That, after one representative from each recognized party has spoken in debate, but no later than 10:55 a.m. on that day, all questions necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the said bills shall be put forthwith without further debate or amendment, provided that any recorded division requested shall stand deferred pursuant to Standing Order 45(6).


Mr. Angus:: Madam Speaker, we agree with that. I just want to point out to the House that once again we are assisting the government in pursuing the agenda.


Alfonso Gagliano: Madam Speaker, in that same spirit of co-operation and in order to help the government meet its legislative schedule, we give our consent.


Charles A. Langlois: Madam Speaker, I shall be brief. I note that the meeting between House leaders after Question Period was fruitful and I thank wholeheartedly the opposition parties for their co-operation.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The Chair is very pleased to be proven almost right for suggesting that negotiations be carried on outside the House, since a decision was reached which seems to suit everybody.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Speller (p. 17177).
David Bjornson: Madam Speaker, I am looking forward to entering the debate this afternoon. I am glad to be following the member for Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing because during his comments in the House this afternoon he raised some issues which I believe he will find I will respond to quite well in my prepared remarks. I am going to veer from my prepared remarks and talk about some of the successes I have had the opportunity to participate in over the last few years as a member of Parliament in working with the various programs within my riding of Selkirk-Red River.

March 18, 1993
Supply
I have had the opportunity to work with the very successful stay-in-school program. I would like to compliment a young gentlemen by the name of Trevor Kennerd, a sports figure within the city of Winnipeg area who worked well with the stay-in-school program. He has been a very prominent and significant spokesperson on behalf of it. I would like to talk about the START program later on but right now I would like to commend the people from the North Selkirk school division, the one that I have worked with on a regular basis, because of their participation in the START program. I have been to a number of graduation exercises in the last while. They have always been rather stirring because of the fact that the young people who have participated in these START programs have such an attitude change and seem to be focused on what we would consider the right direction.
The Minister of Employment and Immigration a while back released a paper called Learning Well and Living Well. The Triple-S Community Futures Organization in the Selkirk-St. Clements-St. Andrews area has been participating on a regular basis through a group they call Focus 2000 working toward showing not only the government but the local division and other school divisions the necessity of changing the educational system. There is a nice young lady by the name of Mary Yardveson who is new to our community who has picked up the ball in this specific issue and has run with it quite well.
At the end of the day when this group comes together, it will have a chance to prove that the work of the Community Futures in the Triple-S area not only provides some very significant direction to the local school area but makes significant recommendations and provides direction to education throughout Canada.
I am very pleased and proud to respond to the motion by assuring the House that this government does indeed have the legitimate aspirations of young Canadians fully in mind. One need only look to the National Stay In School initiative for clear evidence of this government's
commitment to supporting today's generation of young people in fulfilling their aspirations.
This five-year initiative was announced in the 1989-90 fiscal year by the hon. member for St. Paul's with a $296.4 million budget and was designed around three main components: a program component, a mobilizing component and a public awareness component.
My hon. colleague, the Minister of the Environment, was instrumental in capitalizing the initiative and in recognizing the critical role all Canadians would have to play in ensuring full economic and social participation for our young people.
I am pleased to note that the author of this supply motion appreciates the importance that training and learning have in job creation and ensuring that the jobs stay in this country.
As we all realize, the job market out there is a highly competitive one. That is why this government has repeatedly conveyed the message to members of the opposition that the solutions lie in fostering a life-long learning culture. The pathway to solution does not lie in continuing to live in the world of 10 and 15 years ago where you could just mortgage the future of emerging generations by increasing the national debt and ignoring the commitment that we as a country must make to learning.
It was our government which realized the importance and the crucial need for having a highly trained and educated work force in place if we as a country are to compete effectively in global markets and have our youth take their place in that work force.
Put that in context. Our government placed a stay-inschool initiative as the cornerstone of our approach to social and economic policy. It was and remains abundantly clear that you must build a solid foundation of work skills as part of the infrastructure for a sound human resource policy. But with three out of ten young people not even completing high school, you can rest assured that youth has a very high priority on this government's agenda if we are to ensure that they will be able to assume their role in society and fulfil their dreams,
March 18, 1993

ambitions and aspirations. Such dreams will be nightmares if the current dropout rate is not reversed.
Throughout the stay-in-school initiative's public awareness component we have been very successful in communicating the state of this issue and its consequences to Canadians at large and to young people in particular. It simply does not serve the future of our young people to enter today's labour market without the benefit of a secondary education and by extension without the employable skills employers are calling for.
There can be no disagreement then that three out of ten young people dropping out of high school is an unacceptable ratio, not simply because of the mid to long-term consequences but because of the personal foreclosure that dropping out spells for each and every young person.
The stay-in-school initiative issued a clarion call when it was launched four years ago. I am proud to say that it is one that has been heard clearly and responded to fully by communities, parents, educators, the general public and young people themselves. This has been done through an array of mobilizing activities carried out under this initiative.
Youth, youth-serving agencies, business, industry, education and labour are working together in a concerted effort and with great innovation to resolve the problems faced by youth at risk of dropping out of school.
No one, least of all this government, is underestimating the magnitude of the problem nor the degree of effort that it will take by all of us working together to ensure successful transition for our youth to the work force of tomorrow.
On the issue of high school drop-outs, I would venture that even the hon. members of the opposition would condone and acknowledge the extent to which this government has enacted an effective catalytic role in bringing the community partners together to redress and resolve this issue.
Members can share the pride that we all have in not only reaching out to youth with our message but also in obtaining the support of business, industry and the general public.
It is worth noting that communities throughout Canada have embarked on programs to encourage school retention. The call to action has been heeded by youth-
Supply
serving agencies like the YMCA, the Boys and Girls Club, Big Brothers and Big Sisters, and business person's groups like the Rotarians that know how to put service to others before themselves, and there are groups like the Lions and the Lionettes, and my favourite, the Kinsmen and Kinettes.
They all recognize the need to positively support the work that is being undertaken in their communities, rather than just standing up and criticizing what is being done. They know how to assume their civic responsibilities. They have put positive action high on their priority list.
Canada's youth deserve the best and that is why our government has supported the action plan of communities through the stay in school initiative's program component. The START program, as it is called, lies at the heart of this initiative.
Through START programs more than 100,000 young people will have received direct services that encourage them to complete their schooling and build their sell-esteem and confidence, which must develop so they can serve the community as best they can.
The kind of services forthcoming for young people under START programs are in the form of innovative interventions. Such interventions have not been developed in a state of limbo. Rather they have been dynamically developed by our community partners in a way that transcends any partisan road-blocks.
We count among those partners provincial and municipal governments throughout the land and corporate partners from all sectors. Practically each day news reports are carried in community newspapers reflecting the concerted efforts being undertaken to support our young people in completing their secondary education.
For example, in Education Manitoba, from February 1993, I read that a new resource kit for teachers and guidance counsellors has been developed under the stay-in-school initiative. It provides lesson plans designed to explore meaningful reasons for students to stay in school.
The first three lessons explore students' career goals and ways to achieve them. A fourth lesson prepares students for a visit from community speakers sharing their experience in the world of work. A fifth lesson focuses on helping students to actively explore their career choices. This is but one example of the resource material developed as a result of the stay-in-school initiative.

March 18, 1993
Supply
If I might once again digress from my prepared presentation, I remember quite vividly a picture in the local community newspaper very recently of the mayor of my home community of Selkirk, Mr. Bud Oliver. He had slipped away from his job as a businessman and was out in one of the elementary schools taking time out of his busy day to talk to young people about what it was like to be mayor and the importance of education.
The Focus 2000 group has built quite an initiative around getting local business people and people of different employment to go to community schools, whether they be elementary schools, junior high or senior high schools, to teach them about their experiences in the work place. I commend those people for those special activities.
This initiative clearly places the needs of this generation and their aspirations as a major priority of this government. The initiative's message that dropping out is no way out has projected far and wide.
Barely a day passes without a newspaper or a magazine, besides highlighting the importance of completing high school, conveying news and commentary about the increasing demands being made by the technology that is changing the work place for all workers and the implications it has for our ability to compete.
The challenge that it presents to our youth is unlike that facing any other previous generation. When we live in the here and now it is difficult to project what skills and abilities the entry level worker will require 10 or 15 years down the road. That is why Canadian youth are showing good judgment and not looking for the quick fix, but rather are placing a high priority on completing their high school education and continuing their studies at the post-secondary level, whether it be through the apprenticeship program, co-operative education pursuits or by attending college or university.
On the subject of quick fixes, I must point out that this government inherited a tremendous debt that nearly crippled Canadians, not only now but in the long term. Yes, we all have to make our sacrifices. We cannot continue to look at short-term band-aid solutions. That narrow vision does not really change the way we do things.
There is nothing I would like more than to be able to guarantee a good job today to every young Canadian. To do so we have to be prepared to stand in the fuller perspective of human resource development as a way of ensuring that Canadians work not only on a short-term basis or on make-work projects, but for the long term. We all have to deal with the needs of tomorrow.
It is for that reason that the stay-in-school initiative encourages youth, parents, communities, business, industry and labour to support locally driven activities. These are being created to mobilize our communities to support and encourage youth in making a successful school-to-work transition. All of us want our young people to be able to assume adult roles beginning with their legitimate aspirations.
It is of interest that with responsibility for the stay-inschool initiative residing with my hon. colleague, the Minister of State for Youth, that his ministerial portfolio with fitness and amateur sport offers a model of coaching which, in the context of the stay-in-school initiative, can and does make a singular difference in encouraging young people to complete their high school education.
It is no accident that the stay-in-school speakers' bureaus which exist in each region draw on the role models offered by young Olympic athletes and aspiring Olympians to convey the importance of training and the relevance of schooling to the world of work. The players of the St. John's Maple Leaf hockey team or Regina from the Western Hockey League are among our stay-in-school ambassadors. Coaching and mentoring form part of the 1,300 interventions presently supported by the stay-in-school initiative.
Just as we cannot expect an athlete to excel without the benefit of training, we cannot expect our young people to enter the realm of work without the skills or attitudes required by employers.
Allow me to reiterate. It is not a quick fix that will make it possible for young people to live their dreams. It takes diligence, dedicated action and action plans. I can assure the House that the action plans undertaken by our partners are starting to point to success under the stay-in-school initiative.
March 18, 1993

For example, in British Columbia alone when the stay-in-school initiative was launched 10 school districts experiencing the highest drop-out rates were targeted. Data gathered to date indicates that there have been significant improvements in student retention rates, with some school districts reporting there may be as much as a 50 per cent reduction in drop-out rates among the at-risk students.
In closing, let me again assure the House most vigorously that the stay-in-school initiative provides tangible, working evidence of the commitment that this government has made to help this generation of young Canadians fulfil their aspirations.


Gilbert Parent: Madam Speaker, I welcome the views of the previous speaker. I believe it would be wrong for any member of this House to disagree with the aims of the stay-in-school initiative.
I am by profession an educator. For four years between 1984 and 1988 when I was not in the House of Commons 1 returned to my profession. I found great changes in the attitudes of students, teachers and parents.
I had been in the House for some 10 years and it seemed to me that the emphasis when I returned was more on how to get along in society, which is a good idea of course, than it was on the accumulation of knowledge.
My hon. friend mentioned that we who are teachers and who have been teachers should have as our goal preparing our young people for the future. With all respect to the hon. member, that indeed should be the goal of education. We should be preparing them for change and for adaptability.
I can cite many studies indicating that the youth of today will have at least five different careers before their working life is over, by that I mean ordinary retirement.
If that is the case, and if our schools are to prepare them for their future, must we prepare them for any one thing or must we prepare them for a variety of things? I pose that as a rhetorical question in this sense: It is my view and it is my contention that the best we can do is prepare them for change because in this technological age, and that was the precise term that my colleague used, of technological change there will be positions in
Supply
existence not 40 years from now but 10 years from now that we cannot even dream about.
How do we measure the success of a student? Is it by the marks we give them at the end of the day? Is it by the fact that when they go out to get jobs this one will earn $40,000 a year and this one will only earn $20,000? I pose the question to the hon. member who has just spoken.
In years gone by we did have standardized tests in Ontario. Let me explain. At the end of grade 13 there were exams that were written right across the province. In order to graduate from grade 13 everyone had to write these exams. From the results we said that this school is better than this school because it turned out more people who had higher grades. I ask the hon. member: Is it his view that we should have standardized tests in all of our schools across Canada?
I refer specifically to the end of grade 8 which is the end of elementary school and then again at the end of grade 12, if that is how many years we have in a particular province. I would like to hear his views on that.


David Bjornson: Madam Speaker, I think the questions that have been posed are quite legitimate ones. I do agree that there is a significant technological change going on in the world at this time. In fact I would say there is a technological revolution taking place today that probably is the equivalent or greater than the Industrial Revolution at the end of the 19th century and we have to be prepared to adapt.
I was questioned about how I felt education should take place. There was a lot of commentary about whether getting back to the basics was the right way to go but I think it is a simple term that probably is understandable if one has the basic skills and can then change and adapt.
I agree that there has been a significant change within the school system in the last few years. I think it is not only up to the government and the school system but the parents in general to take responsibility for that. I sometimes think that the parents ask the school division and the school teachers to do more things than they should. I think that a lot of things that take place within the school system should actually take place at home.

March 18, 1993
Supply
We have to give students these skills and we have to give them the ability to go out and perform. If we do not give them these basic skills how are they going to compete or how are they going to further their education?
There is a significant problem within one of my own school divisions. We have a very competent and internationally recognized elementary school called Birds Hill School that has a very progressive program in science and math education.
The problem is that they are looked upon as the black sheep of the family. They are left on their own, which is very discouraging to me and very discouraging to an awful lot of people. When one criticizes the education system then I will say very publicly by way of this commentary in the House that I have never seen anybody circle the wagons more quickly than the education system when somebody comes forward to criticize.
There was talk about standard testing or national testing. I am a proponent of that. I am a proponent of that because it is useful. Sooner or later somebody is going to have five different jobs in their lifetime. Sooner or later those five different jobs might be in five different regions of Canada. If I have to take my daughter who is now in high school from Manitoba and move to Alberta because of a career change, then I want to know that she has the same basics going into that education system in Alberta as she had in Manitoba. One should know that there is a similarity and that the goals to be achieved are very similar.
I sometimes question the attitude of educators who say that because different regions have different requirements that the educational system has to adjust to that. Maybe there is a certain amount of truth to that, but the basic skills of reading, writing and arithmetic are ones that can be carried around.
I have personally written the Prime Minister that I think the education system should be putting a lot more emphasis on delivering those basic skills to all Canadian students. I have no idea how the government puts this upon either the provincial government or the municipal governments, but those are the basic building blocks that you need to move forward in education.
I'll go back to the national standards. I believe that how one uses these national standards is open. My
recommendation to the government has always been that if we create these national standards, whether it is industry or various education systems or universities, they may draw upon them. They may not be forced to draw upon them but there is the knowledge that if Dalhousie University wants to accept students from Selkirk, Manitoba, they know that they have achieved a certain level of education by way of a national test. I appreciate the questions.


Alfonso Gagliano: Madam Speaker, let me first congratulate my colleague, the member for Haldimand-Norfolk, for this Official Opposition motion and I quote:
That this House condemn the government for policies regarding jobs and job creation, post-secondary education and job training and retraining that are having the effect of robbing a whole generation of young Canadians of their legitimate aspirations.
Last February, the unemployment rate reached 10.8 per cent in Canada. In Quebec, it was 13 per cent; in Montreal, 13.7 per cent. Youth unemployment was at
16.7	per cent. That is higher than the Canadian average and higher than the average for the province of Quebec and for Montreal. Earlier, I mentioned some figures for the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
You come from Quebec just as I do, Madam Speaker, and you will understand that I am trying to give an indication of the situation in our province. People 30 years old or less represent 29 per cent of the total population, 50 per cent of part-time workers and 72 per cent of workers earning minimum wage. They also represent 33 per cent of all welfare recipients in Quebec and 42 per cent of unemployment insurance recipients. In the province of Quebec, the school dropout rate is 36 per cent, the highest in Canada.
The Minister of Employment and Immigration was saying that education is in provincial jurisdiction and I agree with him on that point. However, Madam Speaker, we must ask ourselves why there is such a high dropout rate in our education system. Is it because it is not working properly or because our social and economic system is not? Does the minister responsible for employment ask himself that question? If the dropout rate is so high, it is probably because people have lost all hope.
March 18, 1993

When young students see that their brothers and sisters, their friends and neighbours who have studied and gone to university or college are unable to find jobs after graduation, they get discouraged and wonder if it is still worthwhile to stay in school. It is easy to see that the problem lies not only in the education system and that we cannot put the blame on the provinces; it is due to the unbearable socioeconomic situation we have created in Canada. We are losing a complete generation.
I hope the Tory government, which is now embarking on a leadership campaign, will hold a debate on that subject and propose policies which will restore confidence and hope to young Canadians, that will give them an incentive to stay in school and bear with our education system. That way our young people will receive proper training and will be ready to face the challenges of the 21st century.
On this side of the House the Official Opposition and its leader Jean Chretien commissioned a joint committee of Liberal members of the House and Liberal senators which travelled throughout the country. As the member for Saint-Leonard I had the pleasure of welcoming the committee to my riding and the young people of Saint-Leonard took part in the hearings. They had the opportunity to air their grievances, describe their experiences and explain why the present education system is not working.
After touring the country and listening to many groups and individuals, mostly youngsters, that committee made several recommendations and I would like to mention a few.
For instance, there is the creation of a national apprenticeship program by federal and provincial governments, in collaboration with labour and the private sector. This is very important, Madam Speaker.
Earlier the opposition and the government discussed the possibility that workers might have to change occupations at least five times in their career, as studies show. It is therefore important that we have national standards. We know that today the federal minister for trade and
Supply
commerce and his provincial counterparts are meeting in a effort to bring trade barriers down. The time has come.
Much has been said in this House about free trade between Canada and the United States and free trade between Canada, the United States and Mexico but we still do not have free trade within our own country, Canada. It is therefore high time and I think that we will soon see some results. It is important that we do not encroach on provincial jurisdiction. We do not want to take anything away from the provinces but it is important to have national standards for our young people to develop in their own country and to have hope.
Another recommendation concerns the creation of partnerships between the federal, provincial and territorial authorities, the private sector and labour in order to promote co-op programs which allow young people to acquire job experience while studying. We are faced with a new crisis these days. Young people graduate and start looking for a job but invariably they are asked if they have any experience. How can they if they are not given the opportunity to work and gain valuable experience? It would be good to introduce such co-op programs at the provincial and federal levels, between management and the unions and between the work place and the school so that graduating students have not only an academic background but also job experience that would allow them to fully participate in society.
Personally, before I started in politics I had the opportunity to visit Europe and to look at their school system.
In Switzerland, a small company would not have hired a student if he had not studied in a particular technical college with which it had entered into an agreement allowing the student to return to the firm to practise what he learned in school. That is what a co-op system is all about. Not only did that student get a diploma at the end of his schooling but he was also given a certificate of apprenticeship by this particular institution showing that he was ready for the job market, instead of living the tragedy we are witnessing today. Young people sacrifice so much to get their college or university degrees but once they have graduated they are told that they need

March 18, 1993
Supply
experience in order to get a job and it is a serious problem for them.
Another recommendation, Madam Speaker, is the use of tax incentives to promote on-the-job training. It is very important that we do our utmost to encourage businesses to provide training and give a chance to our young people so that they can get a job and benefit from such training in order to remain competitive. This is the 1990s and soon it will be the 21st century; we have to be competitive. We can see big international markets developing, blocks being formed in Europe, Asia and here on the North American continent. If we want to be successful and competitive we must have a highly specialized and well trained labour force. Given the fact that 70 per cent to 75 per cent of Canadian companies are smallsized businesses, which create at least 80 per cent of our jobs, and that those businesses for the most part hire five employees or less, we cannot expect them to have in-house training programs. We have to develop such programs.
So, we hope the federal, provincial and territorial governments, the private sector and volunteer organizations will join us in promoting literacy. It is important. Another tragedy in today's society is all those people who still have trouble reading and writing.
We have to convince our young people that they belong in our society, that they will have a well-deserved place in our society once their training or studies are over. But once they realize that we have to make sure there is a place for them, or they will quit school out of frustration.
I want to touch upon an issue not directly related to youth but which the Minister of Employment and Immigration raised. It is about POWA, a program for older workers. Think about how 55-year-old people, even those who are working, must feel today. With our economy in a state of crisis and our young people having trouble finding jobs, can you imagine how a 55-year-old worker who has just lost his or her job might feel? When a business closes its long-time employees are in a precarious situation. Their job prospects are practically non-existent.
The Minister of Employment has said that the government can no longer afford to pay people to stay home; we need working people in Canada.
I agree with the minister. However, where are the jobs for these people? Where are the training programs to help them retrain and find jobs? If we cannot give them jobs or afford to retrain them, we should at least have the decency to give them enough to live on and raise their families. Many people at 55 still have children in school or at university. They still have a mortgage to pay. In my riding a lot of constituents-I have tabled petitions with 5,000 names on them and I could have a bundle more-a lot of people are asking the government to amend these regulations. There has to be a provision allowing a business with less than 100 employees to take part in POWA.
After several years I still have not figured out the spirit of these regulations. The only reason I can think of is that they want to reduce the benefits the federal and provincial governments give to older workers. But then, if 70 per cent to 75 per cent of Canadian companies are small businesses with less than 100 employees, how can you have regulations that apply only to businesses with 100 employees or more? What happens? In most cases, in urban areas such as Montreal, Toronto, Winnipeg, Vancouver and Calgary, any city with over 500,000 people, this special provision applies and when a business with 100 employes or more closes workers can receive POWA benefits.
It is all right for the government to say it does not want to pay people to stay at home, that it wants productive citizens. I agree, but do we have jobs for these people? Do we have training programs for them? The answer is no to both questions. Once their UI benefits run out, not to mention that the number of weeks of benefits has been reduced, the unemployed are destitute. In most cases-and that is the tragedy-those people do not even quality for social assistance benefits because all their life they saved money, they worked long hours to manage to buy a house and put their children through school. Now they are penalized because after they lose their job, once their benefit entitlement period is over, they have to sell their house and lose everything they acquired from 20 to 30 years of work and sacrifice because they are not entitled to any benefit, not even UI
March 18, 1993

benifits. That is the tragedy we are in with this government's policies.
I hope the Minister of Employment and Immigration and his officials are listening and will amend POWA so that older workers can continue to raise their children and keep them in school, by giving some allowance to those victims of this government's economic policies.

Massive unemployment, low-paying jobs, drugs, youth gangs, violence and a high drop-out rate are the problems faced by youth today. Youth are facing an unfortunate and vicious circle. They cannot find a job without experience and they cannot get experience if they do not have a job. That is the tragedy.
For the record I want to quote an article from The Globe and Mail of January 14, 1993: "The under-25 casualty: Young Canadians are graduating from university and entering the job market only to encounter dead ends and detours. Rough road ahead for unemployed youth".
That is the situation we have today. When we talk about education it is easy to say that because it is a provincial jurisdiction we have nothing to say. In the meantime, we see what is happening.
If the drop-out rate is very high it is because our educational system is not working. It is because young people see their brothers, sisters, cousins and neighbours finishing school, they work very hard to get through college or university, however once they are out there looking for a job they cannot find anything. They are so discouraged by that so they say: "Why should we do the same thing? Why should we continue to stay in school when after so many years of sacrifice they do not want us out there, there is nothing for us?"
That is the tragedy. We have to address that because we are losing a generation. We will lose a total generation. It is very nice to debate about free trade with the United States, and free trade with the United States, Canada and Mexico, but what are we offering those young people? What is the future for them?
The government says: "Oh yes, with free trade we are going to have jobs". So far we have only lost jobs and more and more people are discouraged.
Supply
I remember during the constitution debate a young girl came to my office. She said: "Mr. Gagliano, you are a wonderful member. You talk about Canada, my Canada and I love Canada. But how do you want me to continue to believe in this Canada when I cannot find a job?"
If we want our young people to be proud of this country like we are, we ought to give them hope. They have to have hope for the future. The only way to have hope for the future is to make sure that when they finish school there is a job for them.
Make sure that in getting an education they also receive the necessary training and experience. Then once they finish not only will they get a diploma for their academic studies, but they will also be ready to face the working market, to face the competition. Make sure they are the best trained. Once our young generation is well trained, then and only then can we face the world. Then and only then can we have free trade with any other country. If we have the best generation, the best educated young people in the world, we can face anybody and be competitive.
However, if we continue with the same policies that have been followed for the past nine years there is no hope for our young people. No matter if a free trade agreement is signed, our young people will not find jobs. We will have to reverse this course, otherwise it will be tragic.


Mary Catherine Clancy: May I say, Mr. Speaker, how nice it is to have you presiding in the Chair this afternoon.
It is a pleasure for me to speak on this motion of my esteemed colleague from Haldimand-Norfolk. This resolution is one that is very close to my heart because in my riding of Halifax there are five universities and a number of other post-secondary institutions. Of course because Halifax is a large city, at least a large city by Atlantic standards, there is a large population of young people.
Today those young people do not have the kind of hopes and the kind of dreams that I suggest young people had 25 years ago, the kind of hopes and dreams that I was able to have when I was their age. That is because life is so difficult, because the economy is so depressed and because sadly their government-and in Nova Scotia that is both provincial and federal-appears not to have a plan in mind for them.

March 18, 1993
Supply
This resolution states:
That this House condemn the government for policies regarding jobs and job creation, post-secondary education and job training and retraining that are having the effect of robbing a whole generation of young Canadians of their legitimate aspirations.
Those are very harsh words. Normally we try to avoid apportioning blame in the general debates in this Elouse. However, every one of us in this House has a very special responsibility to young people, to the youth of this country. Almost anything that comes to mind to talk about that special responsibility could be regarded as a cliche. Except when things are essentially true they transcend the realm of cliche and bear repeating because of their essential veracity.
One of those truisms is that the youth of our country are our future. They are our hope and they are also our salvation. The mistakes of each generation are not necessarily visited upon the next. The things one generation has done wrong can frequently be corrected by the next generation.
However, if we do not provide the atmosphere for that next generation to thrive, for that next generation to plan and for that next generation to dream, then we are not going to improve. We are not going to have a better society. We are not going to see the kind of progress that we have all dreamed of for this country, for our children and for future generations.
Canada's youth are caught in a set of all-pervasive problems. I refer now to the report of the Liberal Party's joint Senate and Commons committee on youth. Our youth are disadvantaged today in two ways: They are buffeted by high unemployment flowing from the current economic recession and they are severely hampered by the continued failure of the federal government to create a better social and economic climate for them.
The committee found that youth unemployment is linked to several factors. The first is technical innovation. The second is that low-paying jobs, which are normally entry level positions, are being phased out in many sectors, meaning that market demands can be met by fewer workers but at the same time nothing is put in place to take the place of those entry level jobs. Third are the pressures of international competition.
What these three factors say is that we are heading into an increasingly globalized economy utterly unprepared. We are unprepared as a country and we are particularly unprepared as a work force. We are most dangerously unprepared vis-a-vis our youth work force.
What do we do? Effectively, and it is an expression my mother used to use and it is called "cutting off your nose to spite your face".


David Kilgour: Mine too.


Mary Catherine Clancy: East or west, mothers have the same wisdom.
Young people today want nothing more when they finish their education than to get out into the work force and contribute. All of us here, think of it, just think back and remember what it was like when you knew you had your first job, whether it was a summer job when you were in school or whether it was your first job when you finished your education. Remember what that excitement was like. Remember the anticipation. Remember how you felt, that finally you were entering into that very special world of the adult even if you were, as I was, 16 years old and going to work as an errand girl at the local hospital where I think I was paid $32.50 a week.
There was the dignity of employment and the joy of knowing that you were earning money and making a contribution. You were paying taxes; 16 years old and I was going to get to file an income tax return. I very quickly got over the joy of that particular part of the equation.
I can see by the smiles on all sides of the House that we all remember that. I know equally that we all, every one of us on all sides of the House, want to see that joy reflected on the faces of young people from coast to coast to coast. That is the tragedy.
Here we are in this magnificent, incredible country, with all the things it has to offer, and we are looking at a youth unemployment rate unprecedented in the annals of this country. It is just not good enough. It is not good enough from each and every one of us. It means that each and every one of us has failed. We have failed because we are not handing on to our young people the kind of society, the kind of marketplace, and the kind of opportunity that they deserve. We are not handing on to
March 18, 1993

them the Canadian legacy that was handed on to us. It is not fair and it is not right.
Shortcomings in government action to deal with these problems have translated into more than 1.1 million Canadians under the age of 18 living in poverty. Imagine that that can be said of Canada in 1993. What a tragedy. What a horror. What a disgrace.
Poverty is not simply an economic problem nor does it simply affect the poor. Employment provides people with a sense of belonging in a community. The fact that people are employed and can make the contribution I referred to earlier has a ripple effect, a spin-off effect in communities across this country that is almost beyond computing. When you are employed, when you are enjoying the fruits of your labours, then you want to make a further contribution to your community. That has been the tradition in Canada.
The employed person, the person who feels that at the very least he or she is making that kind of contribution and supporting himself or herself also wants to make a contribution to the community in other ways, thus making the over-all community a better place for us all.
Statistics Canada reports that between 1986 and the year 2000 the proportion of the work force requiring high skill levels, which means more than 12 years of education and training, will increase from 45 per cent to 64 per cent. But the proportion of young Canadians acquiring such high skills is declining. Our high school dropout rate is a national disgrace. One in three young people drop out of school before gaining the training and skills increasingly required in a knowledge-based society. Here we are, coming into what is known as the age of communication and the age of information, and one in three of our young people drop out of school before they gain the skills necessary.
Children from single parent families and families of low occupational status are streaming into the basic rather than the advanced high school programs. That is the antithesis of the Canadian tradition.
I look at my own family. I look back at my grandfather who, I believe, went to grade 6. I cannot remember exactly but it certainly was not more than junior high school. He eventually became the president of the Mining Institute of America and one of the foremost mining engineers in Canada. His children all went to
Supply
university, and God knows his grandchild ended up in the House of Commons.
That is a tradition in Nova Scotia. The children of fishermen, the children of coal miners and steel workers, the children of CN workers and dock workers, went to university because in the Celtic tradition, the Scottish tradition, whatever, education was the most desired goal. The idea that because your father worked in a manual labour job would somehow preclude you from going on to university was nonsensical. It was just not something that was believed in. That is the Canadian tradition.
As I say, I know it from the Atlantic provinces' aspect, but it is the same in Alberta and Ontario and Quebec. It is the same for all of us, we know that. You look at the statistics here in Canada today and the children of dock workers and coal miners and manual labourers are not going into advanced level because they are not being streamed that way.
I do not think that those children are any less gifted. In the long run they are probably more gifted because of the exposure they have had to other educational areas in our society. But they are not going into the streams that will lead them to higher education and higher skills training. This must be changed. We have to focus our goals and targets as a country on education.
Another thing, and supposing the brickbats come from everywhere, we have to get over our constitutional preoccupation with education being a provincial matter. We have to look at education in the broader sense and see that only by co-operation among federal, provincial and municipal governments are we going to solve this kind of problem.
In a speech entitled "Governing in the 1990s" my leader, the member for Beausejour, stated that he would start a national apprenticeship training program to keep young people in school, and help their transition into the work force. That, Mr. Speaker, is one of the areas in which we need to see action as soon as possible.
The transition from school to the work force is probably the hardest transition that young people are going to have to make. There is a young man working in my office here in Ottawa. He is a volunteer, he is a university student, he comes from Halifax, and he goes under the wonderful Irish name of John-Paul Coady. He spent his March break last week back home in my riding looking for a summer job, working every day to ensure that he would have employment this summer to help him go back to school in the fall.

Supply
It is not true that the bulk of our young people are out skiing or basking in the sunshine. They are actively looking for jobs but they are looking for jobs that are not there. That is the tragedy.
In my province of Nova Scotia, youth unemployment between the ages of 15 and 24 is at 21.7 per cent. Among the males age 15 to 24 it is at 24.2 per cent. Among the females in the same age group it is at 19.2 per cent. Those figures are tragic. They are tragic and they are unacceptable. We cannot continue to say that we are successful as a society and as a nation while figures like that are allowed to exist.
Other things that we can do? The Canada Student Loans Program must be reviewed to explore other options for financing access to education.
Currently before the House of Commons we have Bill C-76, an act that would remove the six-month interest free grace period after graduation for students to pay back student loans. For students who cannot even find a job, the thought that they are going to be in difficulty over the pay back of their loans, without that grace period which most of us who had the benefit of student loans had, is hitting people when they are already down.
Our young people deserve better than that from their federal government. It is deplorable behaviour in these economic times. It adds insult to injury, especially when the government has also seen fit to continue with this 3 per cent administrative tax on student loans. We are not exactly being very kind to our young people.
Research and development leading to new products in advanced materials, telecommunications and environmental technologies will radically transform the foundations upon which our national economy and those of other nations exist.
Our ability to maintain a high standard of living depends in great part on our ability to compete and export. Young people must become better trained. They have to learn more about computers. They have to learn more about science and technology if they are going to secure good jobs in the future. There must be a partnership between the federal government and the provincial
governments with all Canadians to develop a concerted plan for young people in Canada.
As the joint committee of the House and Senate and the Liberal Party confirmed, young people want to be informed, involved and empowered in all dialogues affecting the future of the country. As I said before, it is a truism: they are our future. They must be given a greater voice. It is only fair.


Gilbert Parent: Madam Speaker, I have been looking forward to speaking on this motion introduced by the hon. member for Haldimand-Norfolk.
What we have been talking about today in the field of education is not only what goes on in a classroom. We are really talking about partnerships in a knowledged society if you will. It encompasses more than just a classroom. It spreads out its arms to encompass our industry, our technology, our science. In a word, it touches on every aspect of our society.
Education in my view is the key to social justice and economic progress. Only a society which values knowledge, innovation and skills can expect to compete in international trade with those nations that have placed highest priority on educating their young people.
Research and development leading to new products and advanced materials, telecommunications and environmental technologies will radically transform the foundations upon which national economies exist today. It is now commonplace that almost all factors of production can be mobilized anywhere in the world; Third World countries, north, south, east or west. Today and in the future the most important of these factors will be the quality of human resources. Education and skills are imperative for success in both a competitive domestic economy and in a global environment.
The challenge to Canadians will be to translate understanding of this fundamental principle into concerted and sustained action. There is much to be done.
Close to one-third of Canadian students do not finish secondary school. That is appalling. A shocking number of young Canadians are illiterate and this is unacceptable. Too few young people are competent in science and technology. Only one-third of students finish post-secondary education. Many of the remaining two-thirds of young people do not receive the skills training necessary
March 18, 1993

to compete in a rapidly changing economy, indeed, in a rapidly changing world.
Even though many youth do not plan on post-secondary schooling, the Canadian system of vocational and apprenticeship training is haphazard at best and in my view has achieved very poor results. University funding has been slipping at a time when many other nations have redoubled their efforts to provide high quality education for their young people. Why have we not been doing the same thing?
Action is urgently needed. That students traverse the educational system and emerge illiterate shocks Canadians. It shocks me and it should shock those here in this House today. In fact, for over a decade the Science Council and the Economic Council have warned that students were failing to reach minimum levels of literacy in reading, writing and the sciences.
How can this be? How can this be acceptable in this age of 1993? What is the price of illiteracy? The price of illiteracy is potential unemployment. In future labour markets it may be impossible for illiterate or marginally literate youth to make the transition to high skills levels demanded by technological advances in the most competitive firms.
There have been many warnings over the potential fate of any industrialized nation which does not adequately address the problem of illiteracy. As they say, the chickens are going to come home to roost unless we do something about it now.
It is troubling to me that the federal government has responded to public concern over illiteracy by decreasing support for those programs designed to address this problem. The argument that Canada may already be spending too much on education does not bear close scrutiny.
Based on a percentage of gross domestic product, the GDP alone, Canada spends the most on education of all the OECD countries. However, Canada's expenditures on education as a proportion of the GDP per capita are only somewhat higher than average among OECD members. Clearly, Canada needs to achieve better results with the money it does spend, as the hon. member from the other side has just said.
Supply
Without the literacy skills necessary to adequately prepare them for changing technologies, students will be locked out of those jobs which promise the greatest security for them and for their future families.
This is directly related to transformations in the new economy. As demands for productivity increase, not only executives and managers but workers on assembly lines will need to understand and work with shop floor technologies. The accelerating pace of innovation will require that workers read manuals, communicate through word processors and computers and demonstrate initiative within their changing milieu. The cheapest work force cannot be a substitute for the best educated or best trained work force. The best trained work force begins with the highest level of literacy.
The Liberal youth committee has recommended that the federal government, in concert with provincial governments, the private sector and voluntary associations commit now to eradicating illiteracy and innumeracy among Canadian youth.
In my opinion, science and technology are the key to the future. Our capacity to maintain a good standard of living is partly dependent on our ability to compete and export. Jobs requiring high skills and education will only be secure if Canadian companies can match or exceed the productivity of their competitors on a sustainable basis.
Canadians must understand that innovation, science and technology really are the keys to our future economic growth. First, young people must become familiar with science, technology and computers. Canada is near the bottom of the list of nations in terms of our students' performance in scientific subjects, and this is regrettable.
For Canada to prosper our young people must be able to adapt to change and must be able to upgrade their skills throughout their lives. A larger number of individuals must have a well-balanced education and must be able and willing to take risks and to practise entrepreneurship. Increasingly, our technologists, scientists, engineers and health professionals will require not only specialized skills but also expertise in human relations. This merging of management and economics with science and

March 18, 1993
Supply
technology will require our teaching institutions to come up with more balanced programs.
Canada will then be able to draw on its most precious resource, its people, to succeed in a knowledge-based economy. It will be able to rely on a number of innovative projects being implemented to improve teaching institutions and increase our efforts to promote interest in science and technology among our young people.
If we want our teachers and students to achieve better results internationally we must set ourselves the following national objectives: increase public awareness of the value of education, especially in mathematics and science, for the future of our children and the preservation of our standard of living; ease the transition from school to employment and encourage schools and their graduates to constantly upgrade their skills; encourage Canadian business to invest more in employee training.
Canada has not progressed as fast as its competitors. We are not as computer literate as many other countries. Consequently, we must teach our young people how important computers are for science and technology.
It is clear in the context of a global economy where the future is bleak for countries which export mostly bulk raw materials that science and technology are the keys to economic renewal.

I want to address technology and gender equality. Wherever we go today we are told time and time again that there must be equality among our citizens in Canada. It is of little importance whether they be male or female. They are the citizens, they are the future of our country. Canada must capitalize on the skill and potential of all its citizens. All of them.
However, women are still not broadly represented in most scientific, engineering and technical fields. Why? Are they dumber than the rest of us? Are we so smart that the women cannot compete?
Madam Speaker, you sit here now as the Deputy Speaker of this House of Commons. You sit here because you have the qualities needed to do the job. Female members of Parliament are here because they
have earned their place in this House of Commons and their place in society as equals throughout our land.
Now I believe the federal government should take a leadership role in enhancing opportunities for women from early childhood through formal training in science and engineering technology and apprenticeship training.
I have four daughters. When they were bom my wife and I decided that if they were capable they were going to go to university. Even if they had not gone to university we told them they were equal to anyone else in this nation that they had to grow according to their own abilities and that they and they alone were going to be the authors of their success.
It was important for them to know that it was not necessary to be a male to be a boss. It is not necessary to be male in order to get a good paying job. It is not necessary to be a male so that you can take your rightful place in society as an equal among equals.
In a report entitled "More Than Just Numbers" the Canadian Committee on Women in Engineering called for assistance for women pursuing careers in the sciences and developed initiatives to help increase the momentum. I am going to name a few.
First was to advocate an enhanced role for women in science, engineering and technology so that young women will be encouraged to pursue careers in these disciplines.
Second was to integrate the study of equality issues and gender stereotyping and gender differences into teacher training programs. Why is it that before all members of the police were male? We never had any firewomen. We had few female lawyers and few female doctors. Why? They had the same mental capabilities as their male counterparts, but we always said they had to stay in the home. Well that is not acceptable to me and it should not be acceptable to the people of Canada.
Third was to introduce young women to the female role models in science, engineering and technical occupations. We have a couple of astronauts in this country. I am very happy to say that the last one that went into space was a women.
March 18, 1993

Fourth was to develop programs to attract and retain women in engineering science and technology. Hire more women to teach science. Provide an environment that ensures the physical, the emotional and the psychological security of all students.
Finally, another initiative was to implement and enforce corporate policies that demonstrate a commitment to the hiring, promotion and career development of women professionals.
I see that my time is running a little bit short and there is so much that I wanted to say. I want to speak finally on a national education strategy.
While education is undoubtedly a provincial jurisdiction, there is no quarrel with that. It is a fact. It is in the British North America Act.
It also is a national problem in search of good ideas as to how it can be solved. Ideas do not have to have jurisdictional frontiers. It is when the ideas become solutions to be applied that the question of jurisdiction arises.
I believe that provincial governments and public services are perfectly capable of evolving and applying solutions to a national problem within their jurisdictions. So does this committee believe that interjurisdictional co-operation will happen and that it will help.
Canadians must immediately establish flexible, practical ways to improve educational outcomes at all levels from early childhood learning through elementary, secondary and post-secondary education.
I believe that standards and strategies to strengthen education can be worked out by consensus among provinces and the federal government. Bob Kennedy once said: "Some people look at things as they are and they say, why? I look at things as they could be and I say, why not?"
Why can we as Canadians not work together to make this a better place for our children? Why is it we have to have all this jurisdictional bickering? As if it matters where the ideas come from, as long as they are our ideas
Supply
and as long as we can implement them for the betterment of our nation.
Canadians must establish this co-operation. There must be standards and strategies to strengthen education and they must be worked out, but they are going to require something. They are going to require facilitating linkages between all levels of the educational system. Business and labour and governments and social services and non-governmental organizations must be promoting improved media coverage of education issues and we must celebrate excellence.
We cannot isolate our best students and put them on one side as if they are the untouchables. We must put them there and say: "This is what you can be. Be the best that you can. There is room in Canada for excellence and there is room for you to help us do that".
We should be celebrating excellence in education and teaching by supporting existing award programs and by championing new awards where necessary. There must be an evaluation of research studies prepared by other organizations, building on valid work by undertaking the means through which we can accomplish these objectives.
I and my party recommend that the federal government form working partnerships with provincial and local governments, educational institutions, business and labour, to establish a national education strategy and goals for that calculated to strengthen educational outcomes for Canadian youth.
What is at stake here is no more and no less than the well-being of our nation. We cannot wait any longer. It is time for us to act and the time is now.


David Kilgour: Madam Speaker, I would like to agree with everything that my colleague from Welland has just said and would like to support strongly the motion by the youth critic of my party, the member for Haldimand-Norfolk.
If I may, I would like to speak a little bit in the time that is available about the agenda for youth, the report of the Liberal, Senate and House of Commons committee on youth of which I was very proud to be a participating member, as was the member for Welland I am quite certain. If anybody watching this would like a copy, they should contact any member of my caucus and we will do our best to provide them with one. It is an excellent document, one which I am proud to note does not require any net new spending on behalf of the Government of Canada.

March 18, 1993
Supply
If these recommendations which I might start with were to be implemented it would not add to the dreadful financial position which our young people now see ahead of them.
It cannot be said too often and I think Premier Wells put it well the other day when he said that in the mid-1970s each Canadian family's share of the national debt, the national mortgage was his phrase, was about $50,000. Today in 1993 the portion of the national debt is about $665,000 per Canadian family. How could any of us look a young person in the eye as members of Parliament, or MLAs, after what we have done to their financial futures over the last many years in this country in terms of impairing their futures in the sense of things that my friend was just speaking about?
I am extremely proud of the fact that my leader has said no to the purchase of 50 submarine-chasing helicopters, the price for which has already jumped from $4.4 billion to $5.8 billion. That money which of course we would have to borrow could be used for other things. One estimate I saw indicated there would be 75 times as many jobs created by spending that money on things other than on helicopters.
Let me summarize briefly what our youth report says. First, the federal government in concert with the provincial governments and the private sector voluntary associations commit to eradicating illiteracy and innumeracy among Canadian youth.
I think you have heard virtually all day today, Madam Speaker, percentages and comments about the state of innumeracy and illiteracy among Canadian youth at present.
Second, the federal government in concert with the provinces review innovative options for financing access to higher education for students in Canada, alternatives to be examined under a national grants program and altering the Canada Student Loans Program.
How tragic when there is a bright young woman or a young man who cannot afford to go to university today or go on to post-secondary education, who cannot afford to become a pastry chef or anything else they aspire to. I am told by a person who goes to the same church I do in Ottawa that there are 300 people registered in a cooking course he is helping to teach at Algonquin College. We have to get away from the notion that everybody has to
become a teacher or a doctor or a lawyer. The vast majority of Canadians will not become one of those. For once we have to start doing something about all those other occupations which in fact one could argue form the cornerstone of the Canadian economy. A hard-rock miner for example has to get training. A carpenter has to get training.
I spoke to a man just last week who had come from Germany about 30 years ago as a carpenter. He built buildings and now I guess he owns a lot of buildings. That is the Canadian success story. We have to get away from the notion that it is only the teacher, the doctor, the lawyer who should get attention. All young people should get attention. I am glad to see that my friend from Welland agrees with that.
Third, the federal government should establish working partnerships with the provinces, business and labour to promote co-operative education programs. The federal government should embark on a public awareness campaign to educate the general public about the potential advantages of co-operative education.
I think this figure is correct. Germany now has about
400,000	apprenticeships each year. This entire great country of ours I am told has about 24,000. Who is going to do better over the long term, young people in Germany or young people in Canada? We have to start to do something very serious about apprenticeship programs. I am glad that my party is supportive of that and co-operative education as part of it.
Four, the federal government, together with provincial governments, business and labour create a national apprenticeship training program.
I think my comments would of course relate to this recommendation too.
Five, the federal government establish a Canadian environmental youth force in which young people could participate in environmental rehabilitation and educational projects across Canada.
I know a number of people who have gone out to plant trees in the summer where there are clear-cut forests. I am sure they do not do it in your province, Madam Speaker, but it is done in B.C. and Alberta. What better thing for a young person to do than to go out and plant trees.
March 18, 1993

At the same time I am told by a friend that the forestry department of the University of British Columbia is having enormous difficulty attracting students. Everybody wants to go into environmental programs. Somehow the word has got out that you should not study forestry, you have to go into something else. Better forestry practices are of course essential to the well-being of thousands and thousands of people who work in the forestry industry. I believe it is our biggest industry, as I am sure you know, Madam Speaker.
Six, the federal government should adopt a tax-based system to encourage work place training.
I think my colleague from Haldimand-Norfolk pointed out that the average firm in Canada trains seven hours a year per employee whereas other countries do-


Gilbert Parent: Hundreds of hours.


David Kilgour: My colleague from Welland says it is hundreds of hours.


Gilbert Parent: At least two weeks of extra training.


David Kilgour: Right.
Seven, the federal government develop a much more sophisticated system of tracking the technological needs of employers and matching them with the available work force in the community. Attention will be focused specifically on young people in this process.
We have heard in this House today from the minister, who should know, the figure of 300,000 jobs available in Canada for which we have no qualified applicants. Someone else mentioned 600,000. The point is that there are all kinds of jobs available even in this depression ravaged economy, or recession ravaged economy, but we cannot fill them because we do not have trained people to do them.
I might mention a speech I read recently. It pointed out that the largest employer now in the United States is McDonald's. I think it has about 500,000 employees, but I suppose they are mostly part-time. The problem though is that the future of the McJobs, as they are called, basically minimum wage jobs that so many young people and so many high school students feel they have to take and do take, is anything but certain. I am told that a few years from now when we go into a McDonald's, if
Supply
you eat at McDonald's, there will not be a bright-faced young person there to get you a Big Mac with ketchup. You will push Big Mac, ketchup and whatever else you want and that object will come out automatically through an automatic system. How many young people's jobs will disappear if that happens?
One of the fastest growing companies in North America I am told is a company in Florida that is automating banks. Where are thousands and thousands of Canadian men and women who work in banks going to be if this continues apace and these jobs are basically eliminated as well?
I am told you can literally type a letter in Toronto or Ottawa and have the letter actually physically typed out in places like China. The implications of that kind of a global economy for people who are not trained are simply too awful to contemplate.
I am told that if you have teaching qualifications in Japan you can teach anywhere in those islands. You do not have to get provincial accreditation. You can go anywhere in the islands of Japan and teach and you will pull in the same salary for experience and so on.
I think I am running out of time so I will move on.
Eight, the status of the Science Council of Canada should be restored. One of the chief mandates of the Science Council should be to educate Canada's young people to the expanding role of science and technology in society and the work place.
In particular of course, as we heard, young women should be encouraged to take more science of the sciences. I read not long ago that 10 years after they start in basic science in post-secondary education that 90 per cent of the people working in science in Canada, at least as of a few years ago, are men. That is an awful statistic.


Gilbert Parent: Condemnation.


David Kilgour: Condemnation. Thank you.
Nine, to assist young people in rural communities the federal government examined programs such as the U.S. agricultural extension system to enable residents of rural communities to mobilize physical and human resources and create networks of self-help and economic development.

March 18, 1993
Private Members ' Business
I think that is self-explanatory and self-justifying.
Ten, that the federal government form working partnerships with provincial and local governments, educational institutions, business and labour to establish national education strategy goals calculated to strengthen education outcomes for Canadian youth.
My friend spoke about that too. I think a week and a half ago there was an article pointing out-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Unfortunately, I must interrupt the hon. member. It being 6.15 o'clock p.m. it is my duty to inform the House that pursuant to Standing Order 81(17), proceedings on the motion have expired.

Pursuant to Standing Order 30(7), the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, February 12, consideration of the motion of Mr. Allmand that Bill C-285, an act to amend the Citizenship Act (oath of allegiance) be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee in the Human Resources envelope.
Mr. John Harvard (Winnipeg -St. James):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in debate on this private member's bill, Bill C-285. I think it is a good bill. It makes a lot of sense. It is timely. It is relevant and it fits the times. It would change the Citizenship Act of this country. It reads:
I swear (or affirm) that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Canada and the Constitution of Canada, and that I will faithfully observe the laws of Canada and fulfil my duties as a Canadian citizen.
New citizens can relate to that. They have come to a new country and a new home. They are pledging allegiance to their new land. It is a public and solemn commitment to Canada. It is something that new Canadians want to do. It is part of a contact, so to speak. In acquiring a new home, the new citizen is swearing allegiance to it. It is part of a bonding process.
One might ask what is wrong with the old oath. It reads: "I swear or affirm that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada, Her heirs and successors, and that I will faithfully observe the laws of Canada and fulfil my duties as a Canadian citizen".
What is wrong? With all due respect to the British parliamentary system, which is one of the best in the world, the Queen, Her family and the monarchy are not that relevant to most new Canadians. In fact, they are not that relevant to most Canadians who have lived here all their lives.
That may sound odd coming from someone like me who would preserve the monarchy, certainly its infrastructure, if not every tiny aspect of it. The fact is that the monarchy is a distant institution. Sure, it is an important part of our Constitution. It serves a distinct governmental role that I support but there is almost no emotional attachment.
Yes, our Queen is our head of state but she does not live here. She is British. She is from far away. She comes to Canada for visits only. It is hardly the stuff on which to build emotional attachments.
I really wish that this were not true because, to repeat, I support the monarchy. If we did not have one, we would have to invent one. If only the Queen were here, if only she were a Canadian living in Canada the year round, that would make a big difference. That is not going to happen yet I have no stomach for severing our connection to the monarchy.
Therefore, I think we ought to amend some of our laws and one of them should be the Citizenship Act as proposed by this private member's bill.
Think about it. Having a new Canadian swear an oath of allegiance to Canada is exactly what the new citizen wants. It is direct, meaningful and it expresses the solemn commitment the citizen wants to make to Canada. It will not be damaging to the monarchy. It can easily survive this change because its basic structure would remain well intact.
None of this is far fetched. The Department of the Secretary of State back in 1987 kicked around some ideas for a new wording of the oath. One suggestion was: "I swear or affirm that I will be a loyal citizen of Canada, obey its laws, abide by its Constitution and faithfully fulfil my other citizenship duties".
March 18, 1993

To be frank, the current requirement is confusing to many new citizens, especially those who do not have a British Commonwealth background. They come to Canada and want to pledge allegiance to the country of their choice but they are left confused by having to swear an oath to the Queen. They cannot really understand why they are required to swear an oath to the Queen who is a person who resides in another country. It must be a bit disorienting.
The member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace told a story about a man who balked at taking the current oath. He felt that he had not chosen Britain but Canada. One man even took the government to court and argued, among other things, that the current act is unconstitutional. He lost. That aside, we can still do better.
It could be argued that the new citizens should learn our system of government and that would clear away the confusion and that is a valid point. Nevertheless, the new citizen wants to make his or her pledge directly to Canada. What better way is there than the one proposed by this private member's bill? I will repeat it:
I swear (or affirm) that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Canada and the Constitution of Canada, and that I will faithfully observe the laws of Canada and fulfil my duties as a Canadian citizen.
This proposed change to the act is just one more step in the growing up of Canada. Since our colonial status we have come a long way. We have a bit of a way to go and this change to the Citizenship Act should help. Along the way we acquired a new flag, an anthem, we stopped appointing non-Canadians as governors general about 40 years ago and we abolished legal appeals to the British Privy Council about the same time. It seems strange but until then our Supreme Court of Canada was really not the supreme court. Canadian citizenship did not come along until the 1940s and we were not able to amend our Constitution without British approval until the early 1980s. We all remember the big fight over our patriation of the Constitution.
We have come a long way as a country. Changing the Citizenship Act helps fill in the new face of Canada.
The bill bears a similarity to one I introduced in Parliament a couple of years ago. That bill, aimed at
Private Members' Business
changing the Parliament of Canada Act, would require parliamentarians to take an oath of allegiance to Canada and its Constitution. I do not think it is good enough for us to swear an oath to the Queen as the Constitution currently requires. It suits the constitutional niceties but there is a new pride in Canada and the people want their representatives to swear allegiance to Canada. The name Canada is important. They also want the oath to Canada because they know that from time to time people are elected to this House whose commitment to Canada is questionable. Voters want it on the record that every MP has taken an oath to Canada. Allegiance to the Queen is okay but adding an oath to our country firms up the commitment.
We have to take into account that there is a new spirit out there. It is a deep love for Canada and people want it reflected it in our laws, in our symbols and in our institutions. That is why I support this private member's bill and I hope that everyone in this House can do the same.
I believe that the bill should go to committee where possible improvements can be considered. Maybe room can be made in the bill for Canada, the Constitution and the Queen. In other words, it will have all three major elements. That may be seen as a compromise, but whatever the case this bill takes us in the right direction and it deserves our support.


Mr. Dave Worthy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works):: Madam Speaker, very briefly, the bill that we are debating is Bill C-285, a private member's bill to change the Citizenship Act which affects the oath of allegiance.
With all the respect that I have for the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace, I cannot support this bill.
I listened with interest though to the previous speaker. I think it will show the differences that we have in this country. It is one of the beautiful things about Canada that we do have the right to disagree on so many basic issues. Maybe it is my grey hair showing, but I have a terrible fondness for the history that the monarchy of this country represents. It goes beyond just symbolism. This is a country where our country and all of our traditions are based on the history of a monarchy.

March 18, 1993
Private Members' Business
By affirming the oath of citizenship, new Canadians participate in a formal ceremony that is rooted in tradition. They have explicit vows and implicit commitments. There are official witnesses in attendance. In most cases families and friends attend. They share in the pride of the occasion. There are pictures taken and afterwards there is usually a social ceremony. It is a solemn occasion that befits a ceremony uniting a new citizen with the country of Canada.
The oath underlines that Canadian citizenship is not to be entered into lightly. In a different context, the oath that the new citizens take is exactly the same oath that is taken by any public servant. Anybody who serves in our Armed Forces takes exactly the same oath. Anybody who is in the RCMP has to take exactly the same oath. It is the oath that I took when I took on the responsibility of being a member of Parliament in this country. It is the same oath that the senators who reside in the other place take before taking their seat. In fact, it is the identical oath, Madam Speaker, that you took as you became a member of Parliament for Canada.
There was a Commitment to Canada project. This project occurred last year on Canada's 125th anniversary. It was a project with Canadians who had never taken the oath, because most Canadians never take the oath, of allegiance. They were bom here and they are not required to. Last year more than 1 million voluntarily, on their own, re-established their love and respect for the country by going through the oath-taking ceremony. It was taken symbolically, yes, but for most of them it was a very real and meaningful occasion.
New Canadians, after going through the swearing-in ceremony, describe it as being suitably impressive. During the official procedure they swear or affirm the oath of citizenship before a judge and in the presence of a uniformed member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Of course they sing O Canada at the same time. They receive both a certificate and a commemorative document attesting to their new status as a Canadian citizen. An American, who became a Canadian citizen recently, called the ceremony:
a lovely affair with just the right amount of pomp. There were 105 of us there, from 28 countries. And when, at the end, the judge read out the list of countries, I knew why I was there and why I was a
Canadian. The catalogue of countries was a poem of people coming home to a new place. The old countries were still there, on the globe and in our lives, for most of us had not escaped from something; we had simply come to another place that let us be ourselves without having to melt like cheese in a rusty pot.
Canadians understand that swearing allegiance to the Queen of Canada is not the same as swearing or affirming allegiance to a foreign power.
There was a paper "Proud to be Canadian" which was circulated in the previous term, 1987-88 and a great many people responded to it. Interestingly enough, the subject of the Queen and the oath generated the largest public reaction, mostly through letters. On the consultations carried out afterwards based on this discussion paper, "Proud to be Canadian", the majority of the people spoken to indicated support for retaining the Queen in the oath of citizenship. In contrast, only a few people wanted the Queen excluded from the oath.
At that time, a major point was made that the Queen is what distinguishes us in many cases from becoming an American. Deletion would be denying the reality of our country's membership in the Commonwealth. The Queen is viewed as a symbol of unity and is part of our historical tie.
I received a copy of a letter which was addressed to the hon. member who is proposing this amendment. It is from the Canadian Citizenship Federation. In that letter an appeal is made to the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace that he desist from continuing his motion. I will quote: "We wish to take this opportunity to record in the strongest possible terms our unanimous objection to the proposal contained in Bill C-285, to amend the oath of allegiance as described in the current Citizenship Act".
The argument the people put forward in opposition to this amendment centre around the fact that the Queen is still a fundamental part of our system of government. Canada is a constitutional monarchy. The presence of the Queen in the person of the Governor General provides a balance in the organization of our government that is vital to its democratic operation. To remove reference to the Queen in the oath of allegiance would be to deny this fundamental truth.
March 18, 1993

If you are going to change the oath of loyalty to the Queen then in effect you really are going to be required to change the whole system. The people in the Canadian Citizenship Federation are very much opposed to that. They close their correspondence to the hon. member by again saying: "We implore you to withdraw your support of Bill C-285, an act to amend the Citizenship Act".
I would like to close by reading the oath all new Canadians make.
I swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her
Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada, Her heirs and
successors, and that I will faithfully observe the laws of Canada and
fulfil my duties as a Canadian citizen.
Millions of Canadians have taken that oath, Madam Speaker. I have taken that oath, you have taken that oath. I will not support the amendment proposed by the hon. member.


Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: Madam Speaker, I believe that we need to move with caution in making a change to the oath of citizenship and not move with the haste that the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace suggests.
We are talking about making a change that in isolation may appear on the surface to be minor. Yet in reality, the change would have a far-reaching impact, an impact not only on the oath of citizenship but on oaths administered to members of the House, the other place, members of the Armed Forces and of course the Public Service.
An oath of allegiance to the monarch has been a staple of the Canadian naturalization or citizenship process since the year 1868. In the first years after Confederation anyone who wished to become naturalized as a British subject in Canada was required to take both an oath of residence and an oath of allegiance before the naturalization could become effective.
A person naturalized under this act was a British subject while in Canada but was not recognized as such outside Canada. When a husband acquired the status of a British subject, his wife became a British subject as well.
The Imperial Naturalization Act became effective January 1, 1915. Naturalization of aliens under this act was recognized throughout the world, bringing uniformi-
Private Members' Business
ty to the various naturalization acts in effect in the United Kingdom and in the Commonwealth. Again, an oath of allegiance to the monarch was sworn before naturalization could become effective.
As we are all aware, any person naturalized in Canada before January 1, 1947 became a British subject only and not a Canadian citizen.
The adoption of a distinctive Canadian Citizenship Act, the first of its kind in the British Commonwealth, came about as the result of increasing agitation during the 1930s and particularly during and immediately after World War II. After the adoption of the Statute of Westminster in 1931 there was a feeling that the people of Canada should have the official status of Canadian citizens and that there should be legislation covering it.
In 1946 the then Secretary of State, the Hon. Paul Martin, introduced a bill in the House which became the Canadian Citizenship Act effective January 1, 1947. After that date Canadian citizenship could be acquired by birth, prior naturalization or marriage and by British subjects who lived in Canada.
It is worth noting that this evolution did not affect the oath of allegiance. The oath was still required before Canadian citizenship could become effective.
After February 15, 1977 every qualified person applying for citizenship whether British, Irish or a member of a Commonwealth country, or indeed an alien, has had to take the oath of citizenship before acquiring Canadian citizenship and that is as it should be. The law applies equally with none of the previous preferential treatment for those legally domiciled in Canada from Britain, Ireland and Commonwealth countries.
Thus we have had oaths swearing allegiance to the Crown in Canada for more than 125 years. It is absolutely clear that the allegiance being sworn is to the Queen of Canada. Canada is a constitutional monarchy, as my colleague said who just spoke before me.
It will remain so until a constitutional amendment agreed to by the federal government and all the provincial governments provide otherwise. Our Constitution spells out very clearly that the Queen embodies a democratic system of Canadian government encompassing the House of Commons, the Senate and the Governor General.

March 18, 1993
Private Members' Business
Thus when people swear the oath of citizenship it is to a concept of Canada that we all share. The oath of citizenship is a part of that system. The wording reflects our constitutional monarchy and acknowledges our national heritage. To be a Canadian citizen is to accept and to recognize that legacy. This amendment would jettison that legacy.
As one hon. member commented when this bill was before the Elouse previously, this country has a long tradition of continuous association with the institution of the monarchy, beginning as far back as 1535 when Jacques Cartier claimed this area on behalf of the French crown.
As Canadians we have adapted the symbols from other parliamentary systems to make a strong Canadian parliamentary system and a strong democracy. The oath of citizenship is part of that system.
I also believe that changes to the oath at this time would prove most divisive. All amendments to the Citizenship Act, including possible changes to the oath of allegiance, should be considered in a comprehensive manner when the government introduces a series of amendments to make the act more contemporary.
The change proposed by this bill could hardly come at a more inappropriate time. Thousands of Canadians, especially young Canadians, are about to take the oath as their reaffirmation of Canadian citizenship during National Citizenship Week, which is April 11 to 17.1 will be attending one of those ceremonies in my riding and I am sure other hon. members will be doing the same.
During National Citizenship Week many members will participate in these citizenship ceremonies right across our country. These events will occur from coast to coast and in the far north as well. They will be in such varied locales as primary and secondary schools, citizenship courts, community halls and other gathering places.
In the schools, children will reaffirm their citizenship. In some instances, some of the teachers will take the oath of citizenship as well.
As many of us can attest, these ceremonies are joyous and touching occasions. For new Canadians, it is affirmation that they are accepted as equals and with the full responsibilities that come with citizenship in this great country of ours.
For those reaffirming their citizenship, it is confirmation that they are citizens, citizens of a nation that cherishes its heritage and yet builds for its future through the process of accepting people from around the world as Canadians and members of our wonderful society.
The board of the Canadian Citizenship Federation, which promotes the respect for and the recognition of Canadian symbols and traditions, believes the current oath of citizenship should remain unchanged.
In addition, the board members are of the unanimous position that not only the formality, but the dignity of the existing citizenship court ceremonies must be maintained and supported. It is their view that: "Without question, the solemnity and demeanour of the court proceedings creates a lasting feeling of respect and pride among new Canadian citizens."
In conclusion, let me restate my position. I oppose the amendment to change the current oath of citizenship because, first, the change is being made in isolation and not as part of a review of the entire Citizenship Act.
Second, I do not believe that something that is part of the heritage of every person who has become a Canadian citizen should be dismissed without serious public debate.
Third, as long as Canada remains a constitutional monarchy, I have severe and serious reservations about changing the oath of citizenship.


Mr. Rene Soetens (Ontario):: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to participate in this important debate concerning the heritage of Canada and in particular the change that is proposed.
I had the privilege of being an immigrant to Canada many years ago. I came to a country that I was not familiar with. I heard suggested earlier in the debate by another member that new citizens swear allegiance to the Queen, yet think that as new Canadians the Queen is really irrelevant to their coming to Canada.
That may be true. I am sure they did not come to Canada because Canada was headed by a Queen. They came to Canada because of the many things that Canada had to offer. But to suggest that they did not come here because the Queen was here, therefore we should remove the Queen from the oath, I must admit I have some great difficulty with that.
March 18. 1993

It goes a little further because many of the traditions that we as Canadians have known are subject to change. We understand that and some of those changes are very appropriate. I might suggest that all of us as Canadians at one point or another have had to swear an oath, and in the past it was necessary to swear an oath on a Bible. A Bible is not the appropriate book for all Canadians because there are Canadians who have other holy books that they would prefer to use. We understand that and we changed to accommodate particular needs.
Whether we swear allegiance to the Queen or not is really not an affront to any person's individual beliefs or persuasions in a religious sense. Those who wanted to come to Canada and investigated coming here did so knowing full well that we had a parliamentary system with a tremendous heritage relating back to the British parliamentary system, which is headed by the Queen.
We all know we are members of the British Commonwealth throughout the world, and again that Commonwealth is headed by the Queen.
For those new Canadians who come to Canada and take exception to it, if that is the only exception they ever take to Canada then they have truly come to a very great place. I do not think that is a reason for those of us who believe in this oath to change.
Very clearly the amendment that is before the House today pays attention only to one small portion of the Citizenship Act, which is a very broad piece of legislation that serves all Canadians. Merely changing the oath, which has far-reaching implications for Canadians, is really to tinker with a piece of legislation that should be dealt with in its entirety. Everything should be looked at if we are going to adjust things, and unfortunately this piece of legislation before us does not do so. It takes a very piecemeal approach.
I do not believe the issue of the Citizenship Act is dormant. The government is examining the current act and the most visible aspect of the scrutiny has been the consultations the Minister of Multiculturalism and Citizenship held with citizens and groups across Canada. This will lead to a reassessment of the act. That is
Private Members' Business
probably good, and hopefully will lead to a new citizenship act. It would be far better to deal with the issue of the actual oath when we address the broader and bigger concerns associated with Canadian citizenship and the Citizenship Act.
Canadian citizenship implies certain responsibilities. We often hear about the rights of citizens but for citizens there are responsibilities to; it is much more than the oath new Canadians or Canadians in general who are reaffirming their citizenship proclaim when swearing allegiance. The citizenship ceremony is symbolic. It is the final step new Canadians take in accepting their new home and accepting and acknowledging the rights and responsibilities of their citizenship.
All members in this House have participated in citizenship courts as members of Parliament. We have been invited to bring greetings and welcome new Canadians in our ridings. Those new Canadians who have sworn that oath of allegiance do so with all the pride and vigour that they can muster, at least that is true in the ones I participated in and I suspect the same is true in the ones you have been in, Madam Speaker.
They are not concerned in that context of the oath. Their pride is in becoming Canadian citizens.
I must place my reservations on record about the amendment to the oath of allegiance within the Citizenship Act as proposed by the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace. This amendment addresses the symbolic aspect of the Citizenship Act rather than the broader issues of the act itself and as such should be seen as truly a half measure.
I might give some examples of why I think it is simply addressing a symbolic issue and is a half measure.
Canada has parliamentary traditions, no doubt about that. We believe that at the head of the Government of Canada there is the Queen and representing the Queen in Canada is the Governor General. If, as one of the members had suggested, the Queen is not important in the swearing of allegiance, then because many Canadians do not relate to the Governor General are we suggesting that we should remove the Governor General from our governmental process? I do not think so. I certainly hope not.

March 18, 1993
Private Members' Business
Every time the Government of Canada or the provincial governments are in the courts they are acting on behalf of the Crown. Are we proposing that we eliminate the Crown from any discussions, and that we get away from those traditions? I certainly hope not.
I mentioned before that like all new Canadians I had the privilege of taking that oath of allegiance and swearing my allegiance to the Queen. I also swore it when I was elected to the municipal council many years ago in Ajax and similarly here as a member of Parliament. This oath permeates many things that we do in Canada. There was a great uproar recently in Ontario when the police removed the oath of allegiance. It was very clear that according to the tradition of the police department it wanted to retain its oath, its promise, and its swearing of allegiance to the Queen.
I should point out that when I was a little smaller than I am today, in my early years as a boy scout, I made a promise to do my duty first to God and then to the Queen. Are we proposing that boy scouts should no longer promise to do their duty to the Queen because we do not like the mention of the Queen in an oath? I certainly hope not.
What I am trying to say in those comments is that the aspect of the Queen permeates Canadian society. To simply remove her at the first step, which is our oath of allegiance, may ripple all the way down through the system. I, for one, am certainly not interested in doing that.
I say "I for one" because I am pleased that earlier the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin talked about a group of citizens, the Canadian Citizenship Federation, and he quoted from a letter that had been addressed to a member of Parliament. From that letter it was very clear that there are a lot of Canadians who are opposed to this bill before the House. I am pleased to see that some of the members of that association are watching this debate. I welcome them and hope they are finding it interesting and very educational to hear the different views on the subject matter.
The basic rights and fundamental freedoms of our citizens are clearly laid out in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I reiterate for hon. members that
this government of which we are all members continues to pursue the fundamental values of Canadian citizenship that have a direct impact on our daily lives. Those values are equality and participation.
Within the Department of Multiculturalism and Citizenship there are several areas. There is the race relations and cross-cultural understanding branch to try to address concerns that are out there. Heritage cultures and language programs are being addressed. There are community support and participation programs, a multiculturalism secretariat, a human rights directorate, a voluntary action program, literacy and citizenship.
I did not leave citizenship to the last because it was least important but because all those previous items lead up to the most important aspect, and that is citizenship.
Madam Speaker, you are indicating that my time is running to an end. I do have several more comments but maybe I will have to return at some other point on this matter to discuss them. Very clearly, I believe we have enough activity in Canada to encourage citizenship. I believe the bill before us would not be conducive to strengthening citizenship in this country.


Gregory Francis Thompson: Madam Speaker, to begin I want to clearly lay on the record the fact that I will not support Bill C-285.
To explain why is simple: The intent of this bill is to remove all references to the Queen or the monarchy. I simply cannot accept that.
I want to be very specific about what the bill calls upon us to do in regard to the changing of the oath of allegiance. I will read into the record what this bill proposes to do. It says:
Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and the House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:
1. The Schedule to the Citizenship Act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
Oath or Affirmation of Citizenship
I swear (or affirm) that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Canada and the Constitution of Canada, and that I will faithfully observe the laws of Canada and fulfil my duties as a Canadian citizen.
That is what Bill C-285 proposes to do in taking away reference to the Queen and the monarchy. To put it into perspective I want to read into the record what the present citizenship oath states:
March 18, 1993

I swear (affirm) that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada, Her heirs and successors and that I will faithfully observe the laws of Canada and fulfil my duties as a Canadian citizen.
I do not know what is to be gained by taking away reference to the Queen and the monarchy. We are a constitutional monarchy. We do affirm our allegiance to the Queen, as has been mentioned by just about every member in this House when taking our oath of office as members of Parliament. What is to be gained by this? I suggest absolutely nothing. But a whole lot can be lost, a lot of our history and a lot of our pride as Canadians.
One of the most touching things that happened to me as a member of Parliament was last fall when all members of this House and in fact all Canadian citizens were involved in the referendum debate. That was a gut-wrenching exercise to say the least, regardless of what side of that issue one was on. It was a very emotional debate. It was one in which every Canadian citizen had a chance to take part and many of them did. In fact, we had a huge voter turn out and Canadians had a chance to speak.
One of the things that touched me during that debate was something that happened in my own family. Until October 1992 my wife was an American citizen. She could not vote in the 1988 election. She could not help get me elected as a member of Parliament. In fact, I was a little bit concerned as to whether or not she would actually vote for me in 1988, so I was not too concerned at the time whether or not she had her Canadian citizenship.
All joking aside, it was a very proud moment for me when my wife wanted to become a Canadian citizen so that she could take part in that very worth-while debate in the fall of 1992. When she decided that she wanted to become a Canadian citizen she had absolutely no problem in taking the oath of citizenship because it is something that has been expected of all Canadians. Twenty-seven million Canadians appear to have no problem with that oath as it now exists.
One of the things that strikes me as a former teacher, as an educator in one of my previous lives, and I have had a few previous lives, is that as Canadians we do not have a real sense of the history of our country as citizens of other countries do. We have no sense of pride and nationhood as some countries have. In fact, that is one of our identity problems as a country.
Private Members' Business
There are only 27 million Canadians on the North American continent of over 300 million people. We are small in comparison to our American neighbours next door and the Mexicans. One of the things I have witnessed for many years is that the Americans have this intense sense of who they are and what they are. That has been missing in Canada.
Going back to my teaching days I always went to great lengths to try to instil in the minds of young Canadians what Canada was all about so that we would know ourselves. That is because we are infiltrated in Canada every single day, 365 days a year by, media messages, much of them spilling over from other countries, namely the United States of America.
I have often stated that in some ways Canadians are more familiar with the American anthem than they are with their own. We have a better understanding of their system of government than we do of our own system of government. We all have to take responsibility for not having promoted our side of the story over the years. We could have done more in that regard. I attempted to do that in my teaching days.
There is nothing wrong with a little nationalism. There is nothing wrong with a love of country and an understanding of how we evolved as a country. There is nothing wrong in understanding how the monarchy as it pertains to Britain and transplanted to Canada has evolved over the years, right from the days of the Magna Carta on up through. It is a very rich history. It is one that we can be very proud of as Canadians. I do not think it is one from which we want to dissociate ourselves.
Therefore I think Bill C-285 should not be considered by this House. However, let us put some of the numbers in perspective. I mentioned my own family situation and what my wife did last year in becoming a new Canadian. She is not alone in that. In fact last year more than one

March 18, 1993
Private Members' Business
million Canadians affirmed their citizenship as part of the 125th anniversary of Canadian Confederation.
Canada is the most sought after country in the world. What I mean by that is simply that it is the most desirable country to enter. Of course we have an ongoing debate as to how many people we should allow into Canada and how many the economy can sustain and how the country will grow, but that is a debate for another time.
The fact is that Canada is one of the most desirable countries in the world. Of those hundreds of thousands of people on this very day who wish to come to Canada, not a single person in my mind would have a problem in taking this oath of allegiance as it now stands.
Canada has been identified by the rest of the world as the number one best country in the world. There is none better. How did the rest of the world arrive at that conclusion? The world itself, the 162 countries that do belong to the United Nations, actually measured the well-being of their citizens. In doing that they measured and examined everything. They examined health care, they examined educational levels, access to universities and access to health care and support programs for seniors and disabled citizens. They even examined our charter of rights and the rights and freedoms we enjoy as Canadians. At the end of the day they concluded that Canada is indeed the best country in the entire world.
Well if we are good enough for the rest of the world, why can we not be good enough for ourselves? Why can we not just simply stand up and say: "Listen, what we have here is pretty good. Let us sustain it. Let us keep it". Why do we have to enter this debate to change something most of us readily accept?
The argument to change it is very shallow and does not deserve the merit and support of this House. Let us for once maintain the status quo. Let us maintain that which we consider to be truly Canadian. Therefore, I will not support Bill C-285. Madam Speaker, thank you very much for your understanding.


Ms. Barbara Greene (Don Valley North):: Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak on this particular private member's bill, but not because I am in favour of it.
I find that this bill lacks any kind of understanding of the true value of the Queen in our society. The Queen is our head of state and is personified in Canada through
the Governor General's office and the Lieutenant Governors in each individual province. Through these people and through this institution a tremendous amount of value is given to this particular country. It is something that people when they become new citizens learn to recognize by taking that oath of citizenship.
I come from a riding in metropolitan Toronto that is about 60 per cent immigrant and in which the number of people of British descent is very much a minority. Only about 18,000 people in Don Valley North list British as their heritage.
The people in my riding strongly value the Queen. I have attended many different events in the Vietnamese community, in the Hungarian community and in other communities at which a lieutenant governor has been present. I have seen people such as Pauline McGibbon, Lincoln Alexander and Henry Jackman using their particular office to help new citizens. They help citizens of Canada from all backgrounds to recognize the importance of that particular office and of its value in our country. It has nothing to do with a particular person, the Queen, although I think that Queen Elizabeth has been a tremendous queen. It is head of state and it is a non-political head of state.
One can go to something like the Hungarian ball and hear Lieutenant Governor Hal Jackman talking about Canada and about the values that we share as Canadian citizens. Lincoln Alexander at a high school in a suburban area of Toronto used that office to explain in a non-political way the value of our country. I think what a tremendous asset it is that we have this institution. It makes a tremendous amount of sense to have new citizens recognize that.
Many of these new citizens are fleeing countries because of the the lack of solid institutions such as the monarchy which we have and value in Canada. Looking at Canada, one of our main assets is these strong institutions. We have a civil service in which the value of a high-quality civil service and lack of corruption are held in extremely high regard.
Similarly in our Parliament, members of Parliament who act in a fraudulent way or break laws are held in tremendous disregard. In this country we have values that are very strongly held. In other countries it is frequently found that there is a level of understanding of the importance of institutions such as the police, such as an impartial justice system a non-political system in which people can come before their various institutions
March 18, 1993

no matter what their particular political persuasion is and find they are treated as individuals.
That is something that is a tremendous asset in Canada and is undervalued by many Canadian citizens. They do not recognize this to the same degree others do. It is an institution that has changed as Canada has changed.
We see the various representatives of the Queen and the Queen herself as being very much in touch with many of the issues we experience in Canada. They are very much aware of things such as racism and the problems of new citizens coming into our society. These are not people who are out of touch.
It is not a stuffy monarchy, an institution that has not kept pace with the changes in Canada. This has been reviewed before the courts. I have with me today one of the decisions with respect to the oath of citizenship.
There was a case involving Charles C. Roach who claimed that he was entitled to be granted citizenship without having to take the oath of citizenship in its present form.
He too was confusing the institution of the Queen and of the monarchy with a person. I will just read part of what Mr. Justice Joyal ruled: "It is in my view quite proper for Parliament to require persons wishing to become Canadian citizens that they swear and affirm their loyalty to the head of state. That the head of state should be found in the person of Her Majesty the Queen might be a matter of debate but it is nevertheless as much a part of our constitutional framework as are provisions of our chapter.
Furthermore, the personified symbol of Her Majesty as head of state is not in terms of our long constitutional heritage a latter day invention of some imaginative or manipulative spinner of tales, but the the result of constantly evolving constitutional principles which are cloaked in constitutional conventions in the United Kingdom and partly codified in Canada in the Constitution Act, 1982.
The head of state as Her Majesty is so defined is the very embodiment of the freedoms and liberties which the appellant has inherited and which he now enjoys.
Private Members' Business
In a legal sense, the head of state legitimizes the laws of Canada which in concrete terms provide for the peace, the order and the good government of its citizens.
The argument raised by the appellant that Canada's head of state is the Queen, that she is Anglican is evidence to me of a dialectic which is bereft of any legal or constitutional content".
This particular individual who challenged this oath of citizenship was making the same mistake as the member who sponsored this bill has made. He is confusing the particular person with the institution. The judge has affirmed the whole constitutional value of this in his statements. The office is in fact symbolic of our institutions and I think that is very, very important.
He also says: "Similarly, if the appellant feels that it is against his conscience to make oaths to all but the Supreme Being or to the principles of truth, freedom, equality, justice and the rule of law, the statute does not impose an oath of allegiance. Indeed out of respect for individual conscience an affirmation of allegiance will do as well".
There is flexibility within the oath of citizenship. I for one and the vast majority of my constituents and as I say a very multicultural constituency, strongly believe that an oath of citizenship with the enunciation of the Queen as the head of state is very important and something that we all value as Canadians.


David Bjornson: Madam Speaker, I, like a number of my colleagues who have spoken before, do not feel that it is appropriate that I should be supporting this legislation.
Before I go into my prepared remarks which talk about the history of the oath, I would like to preface my comments with some off the cuff words on how, in listening to previous speakers, this debate has caught me a little bit off guard. I did not really think that I would have the emotional impact of what I have heard earlier. I say that with a lot of sincerity.
At a time in our country and even internationally when change keeps coming at us from various directions, and it is coming on us on a regular basis, we keep looking for what our roots are and where we could stabilize ourselves. We can do that within our own family unit. We can do that within our church and our beliefs. We can do that within our institutions.

March 18, 1993
Private Members' Business
By every stretch of the imagination this is a very significant institution we have in the House of Commons, the Government of Canada in general and our country. How we feel about ourselves and the oath brings with it a significant amount of history which I will get to later in my comments. It is very very relevant.
I would like to make a small comment and I think it is relevant in the fact that-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I do apologize. I will have to interrupt the hon. member. The time provided for the
consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.
Pursuant to Standing Order 93 the order is dropped to the bottom of the list of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

It being 7.15 p. m., the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 7.15 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, March 19,1993