Mr. Speaker, at first glance, the motion tabled by the member for Winnipeg North may seem quite interesting, since it provides that the government should, in co-operation with the provinces, seek to put in place a process aimed at ensuring the portability of credentials obtained in and outside Canada in order to fully utilize the talents, skills and experience of all Canadians.
In other words, the member wants skills acquired in a province to be recognized in the other provinces as well as in other countries. To that end, the member proposes that the federal government, in co-operation with the provinces, seek to put in place a recognition process of credentials. However, one can see that this motion is very much in the spirit of the social program reform.
Indeed, one of the proposals made by the Minister of Human Resources Development in his discussion paper is the delivery of a learning passport. The passport would, in one place, document an individual's learning experience as well as any academic and vocational credentials, and would be recognized across the country by employers and learning institutions.
Such an initiative would require national education standards. However, it just so happens that, according to the Constitution, and this is something the Official Opposition keeps repeating, education falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces. For the majority of provinces, except Quebec, manpower mobility does not pose any linguistic problem, since the English language is used. There might be a problem with New Brunswick, which has a large proportion of French-speaking people, but in the majority of provinces this does not present any problem.
I have to relate an historical event, which occurred in 1990 and which disappointed many Quebecers. There was the Charlottetown Accord but, before that, the Meech Lake Accord was also rejected. One thing which disappointed a lot of Quebecers has to do with the recognition of Quebec as a distinct society, based on its language and its culture. As sociologist Guy Rocher often points out, culture is a group's own way of thinking, acting and feeling. In other words, the difference is not merely of a linguistic nature.
In Quebec, not only do we have a different way of thinking, acting and feeling, but we also have a civil code which, as members opposite know, is totally different from the one used elsewhere in the country. In Quebec, we have a civil code based on the Napoleonic Code. It goes back a number of years but was updated last year by the previous Liberal government, involving a lot of work and extensive changes.
Incidentally, when we consider our legal system, all citizens are concerned and not just lawyers. We always go by the principle that everyone is supposed to know the law. But here, we have a whole collection of different standards.
If we allow mobility in the case of education, for instance, what about language? To have a standard that is acceptable across the country, how many hours of second language or first language courses should be offered from coast to coast? I see this as a major problem.
If a proposal in this respect were up to the provincial Ministers of Education who could try to define minimum standards that would be acceptable to all concerned, we could go along with that, because the Bloc Quebecois does not think Quebecers should live in a vacuum. It has never been opposed to the principle of free trade, and I mean free trade in more than goods and services. Free trade also involves individuals who move around to sell and promote their products, for instance.
However, when we get to the question of manpower training and professional qualifications, Quebec does not operate the same way the other provinces do, with a few exceptions.
We do not want to be perceived as people who are against what English Canada wants to do, if it is against exchanges between the English-speaking provinces. And we are not, whether we are sovereign or operating under a federal system, against exchanges between individuals in Quebec and the other provinces, nor do we have any objection to Quebecers being able to work, for instance, in NAFTA member countries such as the United States, Mexico or elsewhere.
It is an interesting principle, but to implement the proposal made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North, we must consider setting standards in the field of education. I understand the hon. member's emphasis on co-operation and I admire his democratic philosophy, but as far as implementing this approach is concerned, we must remember that for years there has been a very strong consensus in Quebec among all parties on professional training. However, for more than a decade, there has been no agreement on how governments should operate in this area.
Considering that the Minister of Human Resources Development was unable to get the provincial ministers responsible for education and professional training on side, co-operation would seem to be a major problem. If we consider education and financial assistance, we saw, for instance, in Bill C-28 that the Minister of Human Resources Development had a number of new provisions to increase his discretionary powers, while formerly, it was up to the Lieutenant-Governor in Council to determine who is the appropriate authority for education, while according to the new provisions, the minister himself would be able to designate the appropriate authority. He becomes some sort of a super education minister for the whole country, once again infringing upon an area of provincial jurisdiction.
If the invitation from the member for Winnipeg North was well received by the provincial education ministers, together, at their own level, they could define a set of minimum standards, regardless of the political context, be it sovereignty or the status quo. If these ministers could agree on some minimum standards, they may not have to be wall-to-wall in agreement to have specific provisions for Quebec, and recognize Quebec as a
distinct society, while having different standards for the rest of Canada.
The more I attend the meetings of the committee on human resources development, the more I listen to people from across Canada, the more I realize that in this country, there are two different countries and people with a totally different mind-set. In English Canada, people identify more strongly with the central government, that is the federal government, whereas in Quebec, we identify with our provincial government. In English Canada, when there is disagreement between the agencies and the province, people favour the federal government; this is somehow what the proposal from the member for Winnipeg North does. I believe it deserves to be taken into consideration, but in its present form, it is unacceptable to Quebec. The responsibility should lie solely with the provincial education ministers.