Debates of Nov. 3rd, 1994

Credentials

[Rey D. Pagtakhan, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, 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.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to open debate on my motion, No. M-303 as stated. This motion presents the House with the unique opportunity to assert its leadership and fulfil its duty to the people of Canada, to do them justice. This motion strikes to the heart of what Canada wants for its citizens and what citizens want from their Canada.

This motion ought to transcend partisan interests. Why? Because Canadians by birth and by choice want and need the dignity of work. They want and need to contribute to the economic and social fabric of their great nation. They want and need to find fulfilment and a sense of personal identity in their chosen occupations. They want and need to support themselves and their families.

I believe no one in this House or in this country would disagree that Canada wants her citizens to obtain these goals. Insuring the freedom, productivity, contentment and security of citizens is the chief interests of any democratic government. That is why I believe our federal and provincial governments must co-operate with one another and with other governments worldwide to see to it that Canada's citizens are able to maximize their productivity, their earning potential, their self-esteem and their creativity.

Simply put we in this House must work together to make the accreditation of foreign and out of province credentials a simple, orderly and timely as possible without compromising occupational standards for even a moment to ensure the full realization and utilization of the talents, skills and experience of all our citizens.

Professional and academic standards act as a kind of guarantee to the public. People can trust their affairs with a lawyer or trust their lives with a doctor, knowing that each of them has met local professional standards. As our children attend school from kindergarten through advanced degrees it seems only reasonable for us to believe that teachers are qualified in their fields. It is just as natural for us to want our children's academic achievements to be solid and substantial. We would like them to be as qualified as possible.

To retain the confidence of the public, regulatory bodies enforce a certain level of competence and knowledge. Professional standards are upheld. In general, most people in our communities accept that system.

The fairness of the system is tested when newcomers to Canada request that their credentials be recognized. In fairness to the public and to members of the professions and trades here in Canada, the domestic authorities must conduct rigorous and comprehensive examinations of foreign credentials.

People who are familiar with the credentials issue know how complex it is. My motion is in no way a criticism of the people now working in the field. My hope is that we can better support their efforts.

There are costs associated with portability of credentials. I believe co-operation and co-ordination are the means to contain those costs effectively and to fairly allocate any expense that remains.

My motion calls for co-operation between our federal and provincial governments and on the international level. In academic and professional areas where provinces and territories have jurisdiction, the resources of the federal government can minimize the difficulty and expense. The benefits of an effective recognition process fully justify the efforts governments make to create it.

Job creation is the number one priority of this government. It is the foundation upon which this government has built a vision for Canada's entry into the 21st century. That vision encompasses the interests not only of Canadians here today but of those who will join us here tomorrow and rightly so.

Canada can and should do much more to ensure that immigrants and all citizens are able to participate fully in the labour force. Canada is a land of immigrants. Over the years, over the centuries, first one group and then another have come here to make new lives.

Some people were fleeing political turmoil. Many could find no opportunities in their countries of birth. Certainly, some of the people who came to Canada believed they would find adventure and excitement in the open spaces as well as economic and political freedom.

Some people come to Canada empty handed as political or economic refugees. The only fortune they can carry is their knowledge. A good education might be the only inheritance they can give their children. In all fairness we should help people make the most of what they have, not the least.

A Statistics Canada report released last July titled "Canada's Changing Immigrant Population" points out that the labour force participation rate for Canadian immigrants was lower than that of Canadians born in Canada, despite the similar proportions of university degree holders in the two groups. Based on this information, the report concludes that recent arrivals "may take more time to adapt to Canada's labour market".

I submit that the more plausible alternative explanation is the absence of an effective process or mechanism for accreditation of foreign-obtained credentials. As compelling as the statistical data in the report are, it is the people behind the numbers who make the strongest case for an orderly system of accreditation.

I would imagine that all members of this House are familiar with cases in which highly skilled immigrants have come to Canada only to find their foreign credentials do not entitle them to work in their field of expertise.

A striking example was recently documented in an Ottawa Citizen article titled ``Educated immigrants face work barrier''. This story detailed the case of a woman physician from Honduras who arrived as a refugee in Canada and has been forced to clean houses to support her family.

In my home province of Manitoba there are now close to 100 medical doctors who want to practise the healing art. Yet barriers exist to prevent them from doing so. I know of one physician who recently immigrated with his family from Ukraine. He is unable to practise despite his impeccable foreign obtained credentials.

This doctor and his family are not the only ones who suffer in this instance. Indeed our Winnipeg community incurs a loss as well, a loss of expertise. There are many more examples in many other disciplines and fields.

Throughout Canada there are hundreds and thousands of highly skilled engineers, technologists, technicians, teachers, accountants, lawyers, mechanics, electricians, plumbers, dentists, nurses and many more. They have one thing in common. They chose Canada as their new home in which to raise their families. They want to contribute to the development and prosperity of their chosen land. I ask, how can we in conscience turn a deaf ear and a blind eye to them? How can we?

The issue of accreditation of foreign obtained credentials has been before this House since at least 1989 when this member took the issue before the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology and the committee on health and welfare, social affairs, seniors and the status of women.

I am pleased to note that both the Department of Human Resources Development and the Department of Citizenship and Immigration today have now seized on the importance of this issue. A four part report released last year states and I quote: "Few examples of mutual recognition of foreign credentials within an occupation and between countries exist. This is in part due to differences in standards and curricula that exist between provinces. Recognition of qualifications between provinces

must exist prior to mutual recognition of professional qualifications between two countries".

The report adds, and I again quote: "Given the provincial nature of education and occupation regulation, the potential exists for duplication of effort-any lack of co-ordination between provinces could lead to-a foreign-trained worker receiving recognition in one province but not another".

The acknowledgement in the report of the importance of this issue clearly illustrates the need for the federal government to assert its leadership role by co-ordinating the efforts of the provinces in the area of accreditation.

I am particularly pleased to see that a new government strategy released just two days ago by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has reinforced the intention of another department of this government to do just that.

In the new framework for immigration titled "Into the 21st Century" the citizenship and immigration minister clearly states his support of one particular objective of the Department of Human Resources Development as indicated in its social security review book released last October 5.

This objective is and I quote: "To facilitate adaptation so that recent immigrants who come to Canada with needed job skills and professional qualification can more easily gain access to employment services and succeed in the transition to the Canadian labour market".

Furthermore, the document states that the two departments will work together to develop a national clearing house on accreditation in which the federal government will and I quote: "work with the provinces, employers, unions and voluntary groups to develop a Canada-wide system of credits recognition to assist immigrants to find and keep meaningful employment commensurate with their skills and knowledge".

Portability of occupational credentials across provincial boundaries is an important and relevant part of my motion. I am therefore pleased the agreement on internal trade signed by first ministers on July 18 of this year contains a chapter on labour mobility which limits the use of residency requirements and establishes a process for mutual recognition of occupational qualifications and requirements.

This is crucial since without a co-ordinated national system of national accreditation, the idea of working with foreign governments to achieve the ultimate goal of mutual recognition seems more remote.

Why is this joint effort on the part of the provinces and the federal government necessary? I would submit that the sheer complexity of the issues facing those who seek accreditation of their foreign obtained credentials will need to be confronted head on by experts culled from all areas of the country and all sectors of the government and the labour force.

I am therefore pleased to note that at the immigration deputy ministers' meetings in July and September of this year, a federal-provincial work group led by the provinces on access to trades and professions was established to advance co-operation on this issue.

This approach eliminates the potential for duplication of effort and ensures that all interested parties are pulling in the same direction and thereby saves cost, time and perhaps personal anguish.

We should remember that bureaucracies have a different sense of time than the people waiting for them to respond. What is swiftness for a government office can be agonizing delay to newcomers who are eager to work at their professions and trades and become part of their communities. The stage has been set for federal-provincial co-operation in this matter.

That is why I again call upon all members of this House to support Motion No. 303, to support the efforts already under way to make accreditation of foreign credentials a more effective and efficient process. Accreditation of credentials should be a dynamic process, linking governments, professional bodies and schools.

New categories of employment and new professions are emerging faster than ever before. We know that. We need the creative energy, optimism and determination of all these players if the process of accreditation is to become an instrument for facilitating personal mobility, national productivity and, not least, human dignity.

Ultimately a successful accreditation system can ensure that Canadians, especially young Canadians, have qualifications which are respected and valued throughout the world, a truly urgent need and in our national interest. Indeed accreditation can open the world to Canada and to Canadians. In return, we open Canada to the world. Canada has much to offer and much to gain.

In conclusion, I believe those of us who have benefited from the portability of credentials have an obligation, a duty to make a case for so many others who are not here to speak for themselves.

I hope I have done them justice in my own little way. I hope this House will do them justice.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

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.

[Art Hanger, Reform, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this well intentioned motion.

I appreciate also the desire of my colleague to make the portability of credentials across the country easier for professionals and for those in the trades. There is no question that in our increasingly mobile society many people do experience difficulties and frustrations when trying to start a professional practice or to practise a trade in a different region.

I also appreciate better than most I suspect the frustration many new Canadians have with the credential process that exists across the country. Many individuals in my riding have expressed this concern to me and I understand where my hon. colleague is coming from.

However, I fear that my hon. colleague, the author of this motion does not understand the implication of the proposed measure. Further I believe we can conclude only one of two things about my hon. colleague and his government from this motion. Either he does not have a good understanding of how the business profession and trades work in this country or he does not care and is willing to see the imposition of a profound draconian government control over areas that should not be controlled.

Should this motion become a bill I have no doubt that tens of thousands of people who belong to professions that would be affected by this measure would make the folly of this motion very evident indeed. Allow me to lay out how it is that trades and professions such as the ones that would be affected by this motion are credentialled and what effect this motion if it actually became policy, which it will not, would have. Let us use the examples of doctors, lawyers and engineers.

Doctors, whether inside or outside Canada, must receive degrees in medicine from recognized universities and then they must write exams under the observation of provincial medical associations. Only then will they be allowed to practise in the province and in Canada. Granted, recently some barriers have been placed in the way of doctors who want to practise in a province other than the one they have written an exam in, but those restrictions have happened because of a surplus of doctors in some areas and have reflected the best judgments of the provinces and the provincial medical boards.

Engineers educated in Canada and receiving their degrees must write an exam in each province they wish to practise in. The exam deals with local safety codes and local standards. The province specific exam is necessary since each province has its own safety standards and its own building and engineering codes. These are standards and practices unique in that province.

Should someone come into the country with a degree in engineering from a university that is not recognized and if that graduate has at least two years of experience they are permitted to write an additional examination more strenuous than the first for obvious reasons. It tests not only the knowledge of local codes and standards but also their general ability and knowledge of the field they are intending to practise in. After passing this exam they are able to practise in that province.

It has come to my attention that there are many engineering graduates educated abroad who are not able to pass the second more strenuous exam. While that difficulty is undoubtedly heartbreaking for the exam taker, we cannot avoid the observation that it reflects a lack of knowledge of standards and of techniques and practices in Canada. Those who are not up to the Canadian standard of knowledge and excellence should not, with all due respect, be allowed to practise.

I think my hon. colleague knows how the regulations of legal credentials work in Canada across the provinces. After an individual graduates from an English Canadian law school he or she must write a bar exam regulated by the provincial bar that allows him or her to practise in that province. My hon. colleague from the Bloc just pointed out some of the pitfalls in that region alone.

Is this protectionism? Is it guarding one's own turf? Of course it is and for good reason. I know I am stating the obvious, but this motion is so contrary to common sense when one sits down and really looks at it. A statement of the obvious is necessary to demonstrate that it is not workable.

Each province has its own laws, a wealth of laws, volumes and volumes of laws. Those specific laws require such a degree of specialized knowledge it is imperative that provincial bars

protect the consumers of the province by requiring tested knowledge of those laws.

[An hon. member]

Not in criminal law.

[Art Hanger, Reform, Calgary Northeast, AB]

Well criminal law is a partial exception but still there are requirements for the particular province. It is imperative to the consumers of the legal profession that local bars protect them from free floaters who would like to practise everywhere or anywhere in the country but would not have a degree of knowledge of the provincial laws that would allow for a proper and responsible practice.

I will admit that things might be easier to manage if the credential process were centralized if the feds took it over, or regulated credentialing. Easier is not necessarily better.

Yes, professionals and those with specialized trade skills are protected to some degree from overseas competition by strict credentialing. Granted, professionals in each province might even be protected to some degree by the control local professional guilds have over credentials but so is the consumer and so are standards of quality. The system is not perfect. Professional guilds can become protective and inward looking and there is no question about that. We have seen several examples of the barriers that are imposed.

However, we must ask the philosophical question: Who can do a better job of looking after quality standards of a profession and the interests of consumers of specialized services, professional guilds or the federal government? Who should be allowed to impose regulations, those who are intimately involved in the delivery of the specialized service or product, or the federal government?

Where should the onus for protection of consumers and the regulations of local standards be located? Locally or in Ottawa? Needless to say the Reform Party believes that things affecting provinces directly must be under the direct purview of the provinces. The more local the better; the more decentralized the better.

There is a fundamental philosophical difference between myself and my party and my hon. colleague from Winnipeg North. We believe Ottawa should play as small a role as possible in the affairs of the provinces and in the affairs of business and the professions.

We believe consumers must be protected from abuse not by Ottawa but by the provinces. Where the private sector can do an adequate job of something we believe the government at any level has no business whatsoever getting involved. I know that is not the opinion of my colleague. Obviously not.

The proof is in the pudding. The motion if passed, which I hope it never will be, would establish a bureaucrat monster not unlike so many of the bureaucratic monsters that currently lurk in this town.

In closing I applaud the intentions of my colleague but this will not work and it should not be allowed to happen.

[Ronald J. Duhamel, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works and Government Services]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by applauding this initiative of my colleague from Winnipeg North. Why? Because it is a very important point. What is he seeking? He is not seeking any special power for Ottawa or trying to impose undue constraints. What he is trying to do is bring some justice to the men and women who come to Canada. He wants their degrees to be considered in a fair, objective and serious manner.

Why is he proposing this? Because we have a number of Canadian men and women, born and educated abroad, who are qualified for specialized jobs, but cannot get recognition due to the lack of any mechanism to review their degrees.

I am sorry, but the hon. member did not understand what my colleague is proposing. Why he is proposing this? Because the present situation not only creates injustices, it also deprives Canadians or landed immigrants from finding the job they are qualified for, the job that would challenge them, the job they really want.

My colleague is seeking a process, a mechanism which will not only bring some justice to these people, but will also allow them to work in their field of expertise. That is what he wants, nothing else.

The motion would achieve a couple of very important objectives. It would address out of country qualifications which we must do. It is a mess right now. It does not ask that Ottawa do it; it asks that it be done. Bring the partners together and work it out. Of course we are going to be sensitive to language.

Clearly, except in an emergency, we do not want to send somewhere a medical practitioner who speaks neither French nor English, and will not understand his patients. Of course we will be sensitive to that, we have to, and that is what my colleague is proposing.

It would also address the in-country qualifications. We are like 10 or 12 separate countries. My colleague and I understand that there are profound differences but there are also similarities. We are not asking anyone to give up their culture, their language, their constitutional responsibilities, or whatever it is they have to do. We are asking people if we can sit down and make it better for Canadians whether they were born in the

country or out of the country. That is what my colleague is recognizing.

The previous speaker said that he hoped this would not happen. I have news for him. It may. I note that the Minister of Human Resources Development and the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration have recognized a need. I want to quote from a recent document which is a year old: "There are few examples of mutual recognition of foreign credentials within an occupation and between countries". In other words this does not exist. They have recognized that need. The report goes on to say: "Recognition of qualifications between provinces must exist prior to mutual recognition of professional qualifications between two countries". They could have added territories.

In a more recent report entitled "Into the 21st Century" the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration had this to say: "To facilitate adaptation so that recent immigrants who come to Canada with needed job skills and professional qualifications can more easily gain access to employment services and succeed in the transition to the Canadian labour market".

That is what my colleague from Winnipeg North is trying to do. It is not to create a monster in Ottawa. It is not to try to crush people, to take away the constitutional responsibilities or to be insensitive to their cultural rights, imperatives, dreams and desires.

There is more. This is a key for the speaker who just preceded me. These two departments will "work with the provinces, employers, unions and voluntary groups to develop a Canada-wide system of credits recognition to assist immigrants to find and keep meaningful employment commensurate with their skills and knowledge". That is what these two departments will do. I applaud that initiative and the insight of those ministers.

I want to repeat, as my colleague said, that there was an agreement signed on July 18 by the first ministers, the agreement on internal trade which established a process for mutual recognition of occupational qualifications and requirements. A lot has been done.

Here we are with 10 to 12 separate jurisdictions and we are going to quarrel about whether or not a doctor, teacher, plumber or electrician can come and work on my turf. If I am having a serious heart attack, Mr. Speaker, I hope you will not ask the doctor if he or she is from Manitoba; send him over very quickly.

Why is it that the European countries, even though they have different traditions and different languages, can come to grips with it and can resolve the problem? I guess my colleagues really think that we are not as able as the Europeans. I assure the House, with all due respect to those gentlemen and gentle ladies, that we can do as much. Perhaps we can even do more because we can use their example and hopefully we can improve it.

I have more news for my colleagues. There is what we call the red seal initiative in Canada. It involves 42 trades and professions that can go from one part of the country to another. Nobody gives them any hassle. Why? It is because it was a process. They have the red seal. If we can do it in certain areas and we have done it, why can we not extend it? Where is that huge monster that has been created in coming to grips with that? There is no huge monster. It is in the imagination of men and women who sometimes do not let their spirits soar.

There is also the Canadian Information Centre for International Credentials that helps people try to get some appropriate attention. I have more: the Council of Ministers of Education for Canada. I wish my colleague were still able to hear me; perhaps he can. There is so much information here that it may be overwhelming.

There will be a report out by September 1995 on public schools to say how we might be able to transfer more easily. Thank goodness. That is common sense. The Council of Ministers of Education intends to remove university barriers by the fall of 1996. There is more. Then it is the colleges. I would think it was about time.

I have some really good information for my friends in the Bloc.

He may not know it, but one of the best mechanisms to evaluate credentials is in Quebec.

I find it extraordinary, almost incredible, that he should be unable to support enthusiastically, energetically, my colleague's motion.

We have international agreements. We have GATT, we have NAFTA. We have all kinds of agreements everywhere in the world and more coming every day.

We are supposed to want to be more open to the world, yet we have barriers that prevent us from talking to each other, helping one another and working together. Barriers erected by men and women, because they did not know enough, because they wanted to protect their own little world rather than open up and say: "Here is what we have, what do you have? Can we work together?"

I want to end on that note. We have all these international agreements and there will be more. We are opening up to the world and the world is unfolding. We need to unfold with it. We need to open our minds to the possibilities that are reflected in my colleague's insightful and very timely proposal.

There is no monster here. There is a search for fairness and justice and equity for those who are born outside of Canada as well as those born in Canada so that we can move more freely from one area of our great country to another and so that we can move to other countries in the world and so that others who come into our country can be appreciated for their just worth. Let it not be an arbitrary process. Let it be a process that good thinking men and women have thought out and have applied so that we can treat our fellow human beings with dignity.

[Karen Kraft Sloan, Liberal, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great regret that I follow the member for St. Boniface. I would have preferred to speak before him. He has certainly given a very passionate and powerful articulation of support for my colleague for Winnipeg North.

In my own modest way I would also like to stand and give my own support to this member's motion. I have two personal situations I would like to put before the House with regard to this particular issue.

I worked previously in the field of employment equity with the Ontario universities before coming to the House as a parliamentarian. I would like to congratulate the member on this motion because he addresses something of real concern to the academic communities in this country. By addressing these concerns we will realize more equitable employment practices in our universities.

Often foreign credentials are rejected not on the basis of real difference in academic standards but have more to do with the perceptions that are based on stereotypes and lack of information.

The member for Winnipeg North has truly recognized an opportunity to provide all Canadians, those who have been here for a long time or those who are new to this country, the ability to fully contribute all of their skills to Canadian society.

The member has also identified another serious problem which is portability within this country. I draw an example from my own family to the attention of the House. My sister was a dental hygienist in Ontario. She moved to Alberta and had to go through a recertification and testing process. If the member opposite were concerned about bureaucracy and all of this I would suggest this is a real case of bureaucracy and wasted resources for my sister to have to go through this. As well, there was a considerable level of stress.

I would also like to point out, as my hon. colleague on this side of the House has already done, there were a number of things ignored by the member opposite in terms of some of his remarks. A lot of professions and trades have standard practices and there are no problems with portability across this country for accreditation.

With new Canadians coming to this country, particularly in the medical profession, he said they have to pass stringent medical tests. I agree with him. We want to ensure that we have capable and skilled individuals practising medicine in this country. However, in many cases newcomers to this country are denied the opportunity to even take these exams.

If the member opposite has read any newspapers in recent months he would realize that the federal and provincial governments are moving to harmonization on many different fronts. This is just one example of how we can work together co-operatively in this country.

I mentioned bureaucracy. Let us talk about 11 kinds of bureaucracy in this country. We have to challenge those kinds of overlap and duplication.

The costs. There is a cost to our society and to human talent in that they have to continually go through these things if they choose to move to another province.

We had an idea in the red book which I hope this government will continue to act on called the national apprenticeship program. This was lauded by industry and a number of people in my riding. I campaigned on this. If we take a look at a country like Germany, one of the reasons it is so strong industrially is because it has a very strong national apprenticeship program.

The process this government had proposed was to have these standards co-developed by industry, government and the educational sector. Again I would like to say that I fully support this member's motion. I thank him for bringing this very important issue to the attention of the House.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to this motion with great pleasure because I have been very privileged to have received an education and also to have worked in the education field all of my life to this stage, some 31 years.

I taught high school for four years. It is illustrative to what the hon. member is saying when we talk about the portability of credentials to tell members about an occurrence when I first started my teaching career.

The hon. member for Saskatoon across the way will appreciate the fact that I am a graduate of the University of Saskatchewan in Saskatoon. When I first graduated from that illustrious institution and tried to get a job in my home province, because I had a high degree of loyalty, unfortunately most of the school boards in that province thought I was over qualified since I had two degrees. I was very young and inexperienced. They said they could get a teacher with some experience and less training for less money. I was not able to get a job, but they hired me in Alberta.

It was very interesting. I went to a rural county in Alberta. I applied for a job in writing. The superintendent phoned and asked me whether I could come and work. He offered me a job. I sad: "Ho, you have not interviewed me. You have not seen my credentials". He said something that is very fitting to this debate: "We have hired a great number of teachers from

Saskatchewan and we have not yet regretted one of them". We could all applaud that for the University of Saskatchewan.

There are differences in credentials accruing to the place at which one got an education. The University of Saskatchewan built a reputation in western Canada that teachers trained in the faculty of education-it was called the College of Education at that time-were well trained and were able to compete.

Hon. members are going to have to think very carefully when I state this statistic because it is a catchy one. One of the people who was from Saskatchewan who taught in that rural county in southern Alberta said that the worst teachers from Saskatchewan go to Alberta and the teaching standards in both provinces rise. If one knows statistics they will get the significance of that statement.

I would like to also relate the fact that I taught at a post-secondary technical institute for 27 years. Here I have a point that is very important. We need to hear this. It is a waste of financial resources to try to train people who are not ready, who do not have the prerequisites. I believe it is very important as our students go all the way from kindergarten through grade 12 that at each level there be a good degree of quality control and that they be passed on to the next grade only when they have achieved a certain standard.

Teaching in a post-secondary institute for 27 years, I have experienced receiving there many students, some of whom were really sharp, whiz kids with good intelligence and good prior education. They did very well. Some of those students however were not as intelligent. They did not have the same mental capacity. There is nothing wrong with that. It is the same when I run in a race. I am at the tail end of the race, physically speaking. Mentally there is also a variation.

I am proud to say that many students who were of average intelligence in the post-secondary institute where I worked did very well because they were able to compensate for that by good, solid, hard work. They did very well. They graduated, some of them with high marks, and they went on and chose their careers.

A number of my students passed me in earnings. A number of my students have already retired. They earned so much money they could afford to do that due to the training that they got. Not all of them were exceptional students. They were just hard workers.

I want to come to this point of international education. I also experienced on a number of occasions foreign students. We had a number of students from foreign countries who excelled just the same as we had students from Alberta, from other provinces in Canada, some from the United States and many from other foreign countries.

We had them on the whole spectrum. Some were really good students. They breezed through the work. Some were average and there were some with difficulty. I am thinking of one young man from a foreign country who came to us. Our prerequisites in the programs I taught in required a grade 12 when they came in. That is from Alberta standards. I do not know how that compares with grade 13 here but it is probably comparable to grade 12.

This poor student-I liked him-did not have the prerequisites. Somehow he got into this country on the credentials of his government. He enrolled in our institute and consistently got zero in his exams. It just tore me apart but I could not begin to give him marks because I was training a person who was going to work, providing services to other people. I could not give him marks that did not reflect his actual ability.

I counselled him and tried to help him. I tried to persuade him to go backward, to take a lower level course, to get the prerequisites and to get up to speed. There we found a real problem because of the fact that there were no international standards, no agreement.

That part of what the member is proposing in this bill in terms of standards between provinces-we could extend that-should simply be expanded so that we have a quality control system, a testing system. Before students move on and particularly before they graduate they should be required to demonstrate an ability, a competency that is truly worthy of the profession or of the trade that they have entered.

My last comment is going to be with respect to the federal government's involvement. We all know that the constitutional mandate for education at the pre-post-secondary level is a provincial jurisdiction. We need to move in this country not to a federally mandated, federally controlled, federally organized, federal bureaucratic system but to a system whereby provincial governments will voluntarily get together in order to establish some national standards.

The same is true for post-secondary institutions, whether they are technical institutes like the one I worked at or universities or trades. It is very important. We need to have national standards so that there can be free trade among our trained people as well as among our goods. We need to have free trade in this country in order to be strong economically and to be able to compete internationally.

I would favour that. I would be opposed to the federal government doing that. Let it help in terms of getting the provinces together but let us not create another federal bureaucracy. I have found in my experience that when we work with a federal bureaucracy we all get pulled down to the lowest common denominator.

Let us, rather, establish standards and allow the individual provinces to work and work hard in their organization, in their training, in their statistical quality control so that we have the very best trained people who we can possibly have.

I am very grateful for the opportunity to be able to add this to this debate.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

The time has lapsed but I will underwrite a reply and recognize the member for Winnipeg North. This item is not votable, therefore I would ask the member to pose his remarks within the framework of no more than two minutes.

[Rey D. Pagtakhan, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your kind consideration. I would like to thank all the participants in the debate, those who supported the motion and even those who were not prepared to support the motion at this time. I am an optimistic person and I hope that in due course they will see the beauty and wisdom of this motion.

My point is to ensure that an orderly process, a mechanism, be put in place. The best way that I can think of is to challenge and allow the federal government to play the co-ordinating leadership role, not to take from the jurisdiction of the provinces but to ensure that in this process we will attain the ultimate goal and that is what Canada can do for its citizens and what citizens can give to their country.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.

Pursuant to Standing Order 96(1) the order is dropped from the Order Paper.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[Warren Allmand, Liberal, Notre-Dame-De-Grâce, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on October 21 I asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs when Canada would introduce legislation to ratify the chemical weapons convention and what Canada was doing to support the enforcement agency which was to be set up in The Hague.

The chemical weapons convention is the result of 24 years of work at the Geneva disarmament conference and had its origins in the first world war when poison gas attacks caused 1.3 million casualties and 100,000 fatalities. Canadians will recall that many Canadian soldiers were killed by gas attacks in the first world war. Therefore this treaty should mean a lot.

Following the first world war and the horror of people all over the world at the use of gas during that conflict, there was an attempt to get a treaty to ban chemical weapons. We did get the 1925 Geneva protocol which banned the use of chemical weapons in war, but there was no enforcement agency and there was no provision against the production or stockpiling or trading in chemical weapons.

This treaty that I am talking about tonight was signed in Paris, France in the middle of January 1993. It bans the use of chemical weapons and also the development, manufacture, distribution, transfer and stockpiling of chemical weapons. It also provides for the monitoring, inspection and enforcement of the treaty and provides for penalties when the treaty is broken.

It is the most complete disarmament treaty ever developed and has the most comprehensive system of verification and compliance of any multilateral disarmament treaty.

The problem is that while the treaty was signed by 150 countries, it requires 65 ratifications to make it enforceable. So far only 16 have ratified after nearly two years. Only 16 have ratified and we need 65 to make it enforceable.

I put my question to the Minister for Foreign Affairs: When will Canada table legislation to ratify this treaty and what is it doing to support the enforcement agency which is called the organization for the prohibition of chemical weapons to be set up in The Hague in the Netherlands?

I would hope the minister's parliamentary secretary would have an answer for me tonight.

[Jesse Flis, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I know that the hon. member is the past president of Parliamentarians for Global Action and is a continuing member on the international executive.

Through that organization I know the hon. member has devoted much time and energy to convince leaders and politicians around the world to ban the production, stockpiling and use of all chemical weapons.

In view of the fact that 150 countries signed such a treaty indicates that the will is there, but it must be disappointing to the hon. member that only 16 countries out of the 65 required have ratified the treaty in their Parliaments.

I can assure the hon. member though that with his assistance our government will likely table the required bill in this House in the new year, contingent on interdepartmental and industry consultations which are currently under way.

In addition to the information provided to the hon. member by the secretary of state I can tell him that pending ratification of the chemical weapons convention Canada pays a yearly contribution to support the activities of the preparatory commission for the prohibition of chemical weapons, the enforcement organization known as OPCW.

Canada has also created the chemical weapons convention action fund which provides grants to organizations or individuals who undertake activities to raise awareness about and compliance to the chemical weapons convention either internationally or within Canada.

In addition to this direct financial contribution, Canada has created two positions at our embassy in The Hague to participate in the various preparatory activities and to represent Canada's interests at the preparatory commission or the OPCW.

Other Canadian officials with special expertise have been made available to the OPCW for work on special committees, in particular a Canadian chairs the committee on chemical weapons storage issues which is responsible for drafting the model facility agreement which will be the basis for all future facility agreements.

I congratulate the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce for taking international leadership in making this planet a safer place for our children and their children.

[Bonnie Brown, Liberal, Oakville—Milton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to emphasize the importance of the Prime Minister's announcement of October 26 which created the Canadian Tourism Commission and added a new boost of federal funding to the tourism industry.

Most Canadians do appreciate the features that our country has to offer from our shores to our plains to our mountains and the fact that these are simply backdrops for a variety of cultural and sporting pursuits that Canadians and visitors can follow.

I wonder if Canadians are aware that the care of those visitors employed 1.2 million people in 1993 and generated $30 billion in revenue which lead to $11 billion in tax receipts. These numbers are impressive but we know there is tremendous room for growth here because Canada has recently slipped from being the sixth most popular tourist destination in the world to the tenth today.

In this competitive world it is important to know your strengths and to emphasize them. That is why the Prime Minister has shown leadership here by recognizing this industry and this particular way that we might improve our economy by investing federal funds.

Today when most Canadians are concerned about the deficit and the financial situation of their country this is good news because this is going to be money well invested.

It also is an opportunity for Canadians to help with that deficit reduction, with that increase in jobs and increase in the economy because Canadians make decisions about their tourism destinations, where they are going to go on their vacation and how they are going to spend their money.

I think the Prime Minister is showing leadership and he is inviting Canadians to join in this effort to pick Canadian destinations, to show their children Canadian attractions, Canadian mountains, Canadian rivers, et cetera, and to help us in this pursuit.

Canadians have been asking me in my riding how they can assist with the deficit reduction. They are showing tremendous generosity and a team spirit in this effort and I wanted to share this idea with them today because perhaps they are planning their vacations for next year right now.

I would like to follow up my earlier question with a question to the parliamentary secretary, asking him what he sees as far as future job possibilities based on the Prime Minister's announcement of the Canadian Tourism Commission and the investing of a large number of federal funds in this industry.

[John English, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to the characteristically eloquent and excellent question asked by the hon. member for Oakville-Milton on the tourism industry in Canada.

As the member has indicated, the government has recently announced a tourism strategy that recognizes the importance of this industry. Tourism is big business in Canada.

As the member has also stated, it is an industry that provides hundreds of thousands of jobs and produces billions of dollars for our gross domestic product.

We believe that tourism also has the unique ability to create jobs not at the entry level alone but, contrary to the perception of some, in higher skilled, higher paid categories.

The Prime Minister's special advisor on tourism, Mr. Buchanan, stated in his report that a Team Canada approach is essential in the tourism industry. As the Prime Minister said, the federal government for its part accepts Mr. Buchanan's recommendations.

Mr. Buchanan and the Minister of Industry will work together to establish a Canadian tourism commission by the new year. This commission will be a partnership of the industry and both levels of government with the board of directors made up of

representatives of the tourism industry, provincial and territorial governments and the federal government. It will help us to co-ordinate our efforts and get the most out of limited resources.

We agreed with Mr. Buchanan and the hon. member that for the tourism industry to be able to create new jobs the federal government should increase its spending on tourism promotion at home and abroad. The federal government is increasing its spending on tourism by $35 million to a budget of $50 million. The goal in this new partnership is to create a $100 million marketing fund that will re-establish Canada as a force in the global tourism industry.

When we fully achieve the partnership between government and the industry that the Buchanan report has recommended we will create many thousands of new jobs for Canadians all over the country. We will generate considerable new revenues for companies, for Canada and for all levels of government. I might add that we will substantially improve our balance of payments.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I tried to get an answer to my question. I hope to get one today. I am not sure who will answer. In any case, it is up to the government to decide.

Yesterday, I asked the Minister of Human Resources Development about an incident reported to the media. It involved a young unemployed who had been told not to go to Carrefour Jeunesse-Emploi, in Gatineau, but instead go to another centre, to find work. The reason given was that Carrefour Jeunesse-Emploi had a job-search group which had lost its funding of $240,000. In spite of enjoying strong support from the community, that agency had not managed to convince the Department of Human Resources Development to review the decision. We know that the money thus saved was given to other centres, including a new one set up in the neighbouring riding, which just happens to be the riding of the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.

So, this was not a real saving: It was a transfer of funds. One excuse made was that Carrefour Jeunesse-Emploi wanted to provide its services to people who were not getting UI benefits. In this case, the young man was entitled to unemployment insurance benefits, but could not avail himself of the new service provided by Carrefour Jeunesse-Emploi, because the civil servant concerned forbade him to do so. He wanted the young man to go to another centre.

We asked the minister if he could justify this action. Unfortunately, the minister says that it is a judgment by employment counsellors as to the advice they give to clients of our employment centres as to the best services that can be provided to them.

In other words, having delegated his authority, the minister was saying that nothing could be done. He allows civil servants to resort to blackmail. He added that the La Relance project has a 75 per cent success rate, which is why people were referred to it. Carrefour Jeunesse-Emploi also has a 75 per cent success rate.

In the second part of his answer, the minister stated that cuts were made, but that Carrefour Jeunesse-Emploi receives $550,000 from the federal government, compared to only $100,000 from the province of Quebec.

On checking today, we find that the province contributes approximately $600,000 to Carrefour Jeunesse-Emploi and that the contribution of the constituency is $50,000. This is far from the five to one ratio that the minister mentioned yesterday during Question Period, which was more a question period than an answer period, since the answer was not satisfactory.

As we can see, cuts are being made in youth training centres by the Department of Human Resources Development while consultations are being held on the social program reform. The government did not even wait for the consultation results to go ahead with these cuts. If only this was to achieve savings. But no. The money saved will be transferred to other ridings, and the province and the federal government will continue to wrestle with each other. This will only maintain the indescribable mess in manpower training in Quebec.

Meanwhile, the federal government is trying to establish the Canadian Youth Service Corps at $10,000 per participant, when Carrefour Jeunesse-Emploi in Gatineau only cost $1,000 grant for each and every young participant. A survey of the people who found a job in previous years with the help of Carrefour Jeunesse-Emploi shows that, with an investment of $240,000, those who found a job paid $1,385,000 in federal taxes.

So, it was profitable for the government. In spite of this, the government still continues to thwart Quebec's job training objectives, by going after a centre in Quebec which already was a one-stop service centre, and provided a great number of services to young people. And because one criterion to lower the number of people receiving unemployment insurance benefits is not being met, young men and women are being blackmailed.

I am hoping for a satisfactory answer and especially a comment indicating that this will stop.

[John English, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, one of the priorities of this government is the training and adjustment needs of youths.

Until recently two job finding clubs were in operation in the Outaouais region offering many of the same services. Given budget limitations and based on the needs of the local labour market in that area, the local Canada Employment Centre in consultation with the Outaouais community has chosen to finance La Relance which has a 75 per cent success rate in helping participants find a job within a three month period.

This choice will enable us to serve 25 per cent more clients than we would have had we kept both contracts with reduced budgets. This decision was supported by the community. L'association des services alternatifs de développement de l'employabilité de l'Outaouais unanimously proposed that there be only one job finding club in the area and supported La Relance job club proposal.

With respect to the hon. member's accusations, the department of human resources is responsible to Canadians as to the use of their tax dollars. Because of this responsibility, it must purchase the most effective programs available for its clients.

When referring UI claimants for training, employment counsellors ensure that the needs of the clients are met. Counsellors always try to be flexible in order to accommodate their client's wishes.

The local Canada Employment Centre will no doubt continue to refer some UI claimants to Carrefour Jeunesse-Emploi. Even though the club's primary objective is focused on non-UI claimants, each case will be examined individually.

It will be noted that for 1994-95 Carrefour Jeunesse-Emploi is receiving more than $550,000 from human resources development to offer other training and job finding services to disadvantaged youth. This funding has been maintained.

This government is committed to assisting Canada's youth through programs and services that will help them integrate into the labour market as quickly as possible.

[Gilbert Fillion, Bloc, Chicoutimi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, I put a question to the Minister of National Defence and did not receive a satisfactory answer. This evening, speaking on behalf of the people of Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean, I would appreciate a reply to this question.

The Special Joint Committee on Canada's Defence Policy submitted its report last Monday. The publication of this report has caused some concern among many people, especially in my riding, and not without reason, I believe.

The importance of the base in Bagotville for the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean area is ample justification for questioning the minister, to find out what his intentions are. The future of the base is closely linked to the development of the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean, since several hundred people are employed on the base.

Should the representative for this area not have the right to demand a clear answer from the minister? One can hardly expect a whole region to wait indefinitely, without knowing what will happen.

Recent cuts in defence spending have led to the closing of the Collège militaire de Saint-Jean. Will this happen in the Saguenay as well? That is what we would like to know.

The Bloc Quebecois dissociated itself from the report on Canada's defence policy on several points; one of the major points raised was of course the cuts which could further affect Quebec.

Yesterday, in my question, I stressed Quebec's neglected status. Quebec is one of the most disadvantaged regions when it comes to economic spin-offs from the Department of Defence. It is important to emphasize that only 13 per cent of Canadian defence infrastructure is located in Quebec compared to 34 per cent in western Canada, 27 per cent in the Maritimes, and 25.8 per cent in Ontario. And yet, Quebecers account for approximately 25 per cent of the defence budget.

In a brief presented on May 9 to the Joint Committee on Defence by the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean consultation and development regional council, people from my area stated their position as follows: "We believe that efforts must be made to bring some degree of fairness with respect to defence spending, infrastructure location, and personnel distribution in Quebec. The national defence policy review gives us the opportunity to take corrective action in favour of Quebec".

The Bloc Quebecois has been asking the government to redefine its role within NORAD without delay.

The future of the four F-18 squadrons depends on Canada's willingness to participate in the protection of the North-American territory in full partnership with the United States.

Choices have to be made, significant cuts are required because of our economic situation and we think we have given the minister interesting suggestions on ways to save money, in line with a real redefinition of what our defence policy should be.

Government members have come up with proposals which are basically cosmetic, while our mandate was to do an in-depth review of our policy.

A fact remains, the government must answer to the people from my area and Quebec who are concerned with the future of Bagotville and the place it will have in the military infrastruc-

ture, since we get far less in military spin-offs than the 25 per cent we contribute.

The people from the riding of Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean are proud of Bagotville and they intend to keep it.

[Clifford Lincoln, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, to have a good idea of what the Department of National Defence spends in Quebec, you must look at all the facts.

In 1993-94, 22.1 per cent of total military spending was in Quebec. This is an increase from 19.5 per cent in 1992-93.

In fact, Quebec received 33 per cent of military capital spending in 1993-94.

Of course, no single measure can provide an answer for such a complex subject as defence; the Canadian Forces do not exist primarily to ensure regional balance but to meet the defence needs of the country from coast to coast.

The military presence in Quebec is quite significant: the headquarters of the land forces command is in Saint-Hubert, one of the three brigades is based in Valcartier and one of the two main bases of operation for the CF-18 fighters is in Bagotville.

Six of 24 naval reserve divisions are still in Quebec. And a Naval Reserve school is presently under construction in Quebec.

As the Minister of National Defence told this House yesterday, the government will carefully consider the special joint committee's report, including those recommendations made by Bloc Quebecois members. All recommendations will be considered in the development of a new defence policy for Canada. Once that is done, the minister will take any necessary action.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Pursuant to Standing Order 38(5), the motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 7.07 p.m.)