Madam Speaker and colleagues, it would appear we are coming to the end of a fairly long day. It has been interesting as this debate has unfolded because most of the comments of our colleagues from the Bloc have to do with the fact that: "There are some things that could be improved in this package but it could be improved a lot more if we did it. So why not let us do it and we will do it better than you anyway".
The Liberal platform is "This is really just a discussion paper. We have not really thought anything out but by the way it is going to be finished in about a month and this consultation that is going on across the land really means something. Yes, we are going to have a 1-800 number but we do not have it yet. By the way we are going to change the way the whole country works and we will let you know how we are going to do it as soon as we figure it out. We are going to study it some more and hopefully we will not have to make any decisions that could embarrass anybody".
By and large we are saying: "It is a few cautious steps in the right direction but if you are going to do it for heaven's sakes do it and get on with it. If we are going to repair our country, we cannot play at it any more. We really have to start getting serious about it and do it".
There is one thing all of us here as parliamentarians probably share regardless of the party we represent. That is genuinely if we did not care about our children and about making a better country and a country of opportunity for our children, we would not be here. We would not be here as members of the Reform Party, members of the Bloc or the Liberal Party. We would not be here. We are here for the children, the younger generation. Perhaps if we looked at it from that perspective we could see whether or not this is at least a step in the right direction.
First, we have an aging population in Canada. That is not news to anybody. In 1994 right now 12 per cent of Canadians are over 65 years of age. In 16 years over 25 per cent of Canadians will be over 65 years of age. Our median age is 34 and we are aging fairly rapidly. There will be fewer consumers in the market, fewer taxpayers, higher taxes, more pensions to pay and probably a diminishing amount of money to do it.
At the same time, we have increasing demands on poverty and children. Now we have to spend a whole lot more money on young people in order to equip them so that they can become productive in later years. That is right into post-secondary education.
I did not even finish high school and yet I was able to go along quite well and do fairly well. So did many people of my generation but the nature of work has changed dramatically.
As we all know work is now very much a cerebral thing. Work is determined by brainpower and not by brawn. We are going to have to make sure that we put a foundation together that allows us to invest more in students and more in education because that is the only way we as an economy are going to get a return on the investment.
We have heard a good deal here today about the travails of people born into poverty or into into two or three generations of welfare families. However we have not heard a lot about the success that comes from families.
Why is it that sometimes in a family with very modest means the children can grow up and do very well and be quite successful? Sometimes in families of more modest means or of means much more substantial, children do not do as well as kids who grew up in poverty.