Debates of Feb. 16th, 2004

Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply

[Brenda Chamberlain, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada]

Mr. Speaker, the minister who just spoke is absolutely right. There are gaps in our policies and in the way we have done business.

As members know, I have a special interest with the Métis. I have learned a lot in a short time. Aboriginal groups have some areas in which they do need help. I am glad to hear the minister speak about the horizontal nature of how we will begin to work because it is absolutely imperative to moving ahead.

I met with president Chartier from the Métis. We talked about health care issues and other issues, but health care was one of the areas where he felt there were a lot of gaps. I hope we can all work together.

The Prime Minister, in his Speech from the Throne, talked about addressing all groups and all Canadians. That is what we must do. To me, a Speech from the Throne means a better quality of life for all Canadians. This is what it is all about.

It is easy to sit and say negative things, but it is very important to identify where we need to go ahead. The Prime Minister has set out a strong agenda in the Speech from the Throne. One of the things he talked about was health care. Health care is absolutely the number one issue right across the country right now.

People are worried. If they need to get in to see a specialist, they cannot see one in a timely fashion. Many of them, as in Guelph, do not have general practitioners. That is a serious issue and clearly, it is one over which the provinces have jurisdiction.

Having said that, it is really important that we as a federal government take a leading role in working with the provinces to figure this problem out. People cannot wait to be looked after when they are sick. They feel strongly that they need help in this area and our Prime Minister has pledged to work with the provinces. That is a number one issue.

We have given money, but it never seems to be enough. That tells us that in health care, in addition to needing more dollars, we need different ways of doing things. We will only be able to do that by working with the provinces and with the doctors themselves. We must work closer with the people in the profession to find out exactly where it is that we need to reform this area.

We must look at health care and all the issues that surround it, for example, the latest epidemic of SARS which broke out across the world. When diseases break out, even though they seem a long way away, we know that within 12 hours they can be here in Canada. It is very important that we develop a proper response to that. The Prime Minister has put in place a mechanism that will do that now. All parties should be in agreement that it is an important thing.

We must realize that with a doctor shortage there are things that we can do. We can look at the immigration process and the provinces can look at the credentials that these doctors have. We need to cut through the process and figure out what credentials they need. It is easy to say to just bring the people over and let them practise, but they must have a level that is consistent with Canadian standards. That is very important.

That is an area where we can train and recruit to ensure that doctors are accredited properly. I had the president of the Guelph General Hospital write to me not too long ago about a case of this very nature where he had someone working with him who was in Canada on a visitor's visa that was about to expire. Right now we are working with the immigration minister to get some help so that this person can stay to help administer to the people of Guelph.

My hon. colleague across the way asks, what can we do? These are the things we can do; these are the things we should do. These are the things that all parties need to agree upon because we are trying to help Canadians. We are trying to do the right thing. That is in the Speech from the Throne and that is crucial to who we are as Canadians.

In 2002 I did a survey and 95% of my respondents said universal health care was a must. We want to know that we will not be like the U.S. When we are sick, we want to know that we will not lose our homes or our cars and not be able to go to the hospital to get help. That is absolutely crucial to this country and to who we are. That has been the Liberal plank and party platform in the 10 years I have been here. We will continue to hold on to that universal health care because it is absolutely important.

Another area that the Prime Minister talked about was the Canada student loans program. We want to introduce a new grant for low income students. I think that is imperative. We have students out there going to school who are having real problems. They need to be able to afford and have access to college, university and skills training.

Skills training is a very important part of who we are in Canada. We do not have enough electricians, plumbers, pipefitters, et cetera. I hear the hon. members in the Conservative Party making snide remarks about that, but we need skills training. It is very important.

These skills are the backbone of our community. In our community, we are crying for them, quite frankly. We never have enough of them. It is an important component of who we are.

Not everyone is the same. That is why it is important to address the differences. Not everybody will go to university. Not everybody will excel and be a doctor. Not everybody will be an electrician. Not everybody will be a teacher. That is what makes this country great. We can be what we want to be. The Speech from the Throne will help in those areas.

As I mentioned earlier, when I questioned my colleague from the Bloc, cities are an important part of who we are. Cities have had a really tough time. They do not have enough money for infrastructure, even though we have had an infrastructure program that has helped them greatly. In this area, there is never enough money to go around. That is the problem. If there were enough, we would be all set, but there never is enough. For our community in Guelph, the GST rebate will mean $2 million, and that is the important thing.

There are many other things that we are pledging in the Speech from the Throne. One of the important things is that we want to maintain sound fiscal management. We will not go back into debt. We will continue to support things like R and D.

These things are important to who we are. They will make our country strong. The Speech from the Throne will give Canadians a better quality of life.

[Rob Merrifield, Canadian Alliance, Yellowhead, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for her comments with regard to the reply to the Speech from the Throne.

I am intrigued with her discussion and dialogue about the health care system. When I look at the last decade and what the Liberal government has done to health care, it has not been very pretty. When I look at the Prime Minister's words that if we want proof of where he is going, we should look at where he has been, I will look at where he has been.

What he has done is cut $25 billion out of the health care system. That hurt and that cut was to the CHST, which is health care and education. The member talked a lot about health care and education being a priority and a value that Canadians appreciate. She is absolutely right.

There is a lack of human resources, of doctors and nurses and of individuals who will be trained as professionals in Canada. The number has shrunk significantly, so much so that we have a disaster on our hands with the shortage out there. Wait lists are growing. There are a million plus Canadians right now who cannot get into our system, who are dying on those wait lists.

How does the member square that with what she just said as far as identifying those problems with the words of the Prime Minister compared to his actions? I wonder if the member senses that there will be a change, because that change is not very apparent when we look at the history of the Prime Minister.

[Brenda Chamberlain, Liberal, Guelph—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I can square it easily. The reality is we have put back more than that $25 billion. The reality is that the government has given tax points that no one ever seems to want to talk about. Once they are given, they just disappear. No one wants to talk about the fact that we have attached stability on an ongoing basis. Is it enough? I will address that. It is never enough.

Having said that, I was very concrete in the things I said on accreditation and immigration with respect to doctors and helping them train here and become accredited. I also mentioned having a dialogue with our nurses and doctors to know exactly where we are going and what are the right things to do.

When I am asked what answers do I have, I give them and so does the Prime Minister. He is spelling them out and saying very clearly the things we want to do to move ahead. He is saying that this is a priority for the government and for all Canadians.

The reality is that the member's party talked about health care in the last election and I am not sure where the Conservative Party is in the upcoming election because we do not know its policies yet. We do not know who the party's new leader will be. Quite frankly, we know nothing about where that party stands. In the last election those members did not stand for universal health care.

The Liberal Party absolutely does stand for universal health care. We will not have people lose their cars, their homes, lose everything they have in order to go to the hospital for an operation. We will not have this in Canada. That will never ever be.

[Greg Thompson, Progressive Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to bring attention to the member's recognition of throne speeches and government commitments.

I have in my hand a fact which no one will dispute, but I am sure the government will try to argue around it. Of the 199 promises and commitments made in the various throne speeches, 1999, 2001 and 2002 included, less than 23% of them have been acted on. In other words, there were promises but no action.

If my math is correct, that means 77% of all the government's promises in throne speeches have never been acted upon. How can the member reconcile this great throne speech with the past record of the government, of which she obviously was a part of and still is?

[Brenda Chamberlain, Liberal, Guelph—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be a part of the government, very proud.

The reality is that I can reconcile it easily. The member is being quite cute but we all know, as does the hon. member across the way, the reality is that a throne speech is sort of a wide brush of things we will do and work toward. The reality is that the budget is a much more streamlined mechanism that tells people exactly where the money will be allocated.

The member knows that a throne speech maps out a vision of where the government wants the country to go, the things it wants to work on. The Liberal government has a very good record of strong fiscal management. The country's debt has been decreasing every day and so has the deficit. The government will continue to work hard for the Canadian people. Health care is our number one priority.

[Diane Ablonczy, Canadian Alliance, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to add my comments to the Speech from the Throne. I hope the member who just spoke will listen to them because it will be a very good object lesson for her in how the government has failed miserably and repeatedly to keep a key promise. This is the promise with respect to recognition of foreign credentials.

I am the immigration critic for my party. There are many issues I wish I had time to address, but I only have a few minutes as I will be splitting my time with my colleague from Wetaskiwin. Therefore, I want to spend this time looking in some detail at the government's record with respect to the important key issue of recognition of foreign credentials.

I would like to quote from the throne speech. I know the Liberals will love this. This is what they said:

We will also deepen the pool of Canada’s talent and skills by ensuring more successful integration of new immigrants into the economy and into communities. Immigrants have helped to build Canada from its inception and will be key to our future prosperity. The Government will do its part to ensure speedier recognition of foreign credentials and prior work experience.

That was a promise in the Speech from the Throne just a couple of weeks ago.

I will now quote from the Liberal Speech from the Throne in 2002, two years ago:

The government will work with its partners to break down the barriers to the recognition of foreign credentials and will fast-track skilled workers entering Canada with jobs already waiting for them. It will also position Canada as a destination of choice for talented foreign students and skilled workers by more aggressively selecting and recruiting through universities and in key embassies abroad.

The member opposite just said that the Speech from the Throne is about a better quality of life for all Canadians. That is what she said. What could be a better quality of life for new entrants to Canada than to have their credentials recognized, to be able to work in their chosen professions and trades where they have talent and training? The member said that the Speech from the Throne is about a better quality of life.

I have just quoted from two speeches from the throne. I could quote more if I had time, but I would like to quote from a report by the immigration committee in March 2002. I refer to the recommendations of the immigration committee, which is a committee of the House with members from all parties. Recommendation 27 says the following:

The recognition of foreign credentials should be given priority when the federal and provincial governments meet to discuss immigration issues. Partnerships between the federal and provincial governments and licensing bodies should be pursued.

What did the government say in March 2002? It said:

The Government is committed to making progress on this issue as illustrated in the 2001 Speech from the Throne.

That is one I did not quote.

These strategies commit the Government to working in partnership with provinces and territories and key stakeholders to develop fair, transparent and consistent processes to assess and recognize foreign qualifications before and after the immigrant's arrival.

Then we move on to June 2002. In June 2002 the immigration committee in another report made Recommendation No. 51:

The recognition of foreign credentials should be given priority when the federal, provincial and territorial ministers of immigration meet later this year. Partnerships between the federal, provincial and territorial governments, and the licensing bodies, should be pursued.

That is what the immigration committee said. It is easy to mix them up because they keep saying the same thing. Now let us hear the answer. Does it sound familiar at all to anybody?

This was the response from the government:

The government intends to hold discussions on the barriers to successful integration as part of its Innovation Strategy. The government is committed to working in partnership with the provinces and territories and key stakeholders to develop fair, transparent and consistent processes to assess and recognize foreign qualifications before and after an immigrant's arrival.

The government keeps recycling the same old language. Recommendation No. 16 in the June 2003 committee report states:

The federal-provincial-territorial working group established to address the recognition of foreign credentials should move as quickly as possible in this endeavour.

The government replied as follows:

As highlighted in the Speech from the Throne, the Government is committed to working with the provinces and territories to help immigrants integrate into the Canadian workforce quickly and successfully.

Recommendation No. 18 also from June 2003 states:

The Government of Canada should provide greater support and assistance to foreign-trained workers through loan and internship programs, as well as other means.

The government responded as follows:

The Government of Canada assists foreign-trained workers through a variety of means and is supportive of exploring new ways of facilitating the entry of foreign-trained workers into the job market.

The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act came into effect in June 2002. The government said in its own legislation, in section 3 of the act, that the act will work in cooperation with the provinces to secure better recognition of foreign credentials of permanent residents and their more rapid integration into society.

I have now quoted from two throne speeches, three committee reports and the government's response which refers to another throne speech in 2002. I quoted from the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the government's own legislation which it put into place in 2002, which is two years ago. This is a letter I received on February 3:

Dear Diane,

First of all, I would like to introduce myself. I am a landed immigrant residing recently in Calgary. I came to Calgary in August 2003. My original country is Indonesia.

I am writing this letter because of my concern about getting a job in Canada. I have read several articles on newspaper and also heard from TV about how difficult for landed immigrants to get an employment. Initially, I believed that cultural adjustment processes and language caused the difficulties. Over time, however, I apparently need to change my mind. The cases are so rampant. Many high skilled immigrants should inevitably take any job to survive, most often very low [paying] jobs. It is not easy either. Because of such rampant difficulties, I assume that there is a serious problem in the immigration policy. The landed immigrants become less productive compared to their productivity in their original countries and the original countries lost their most skilled workers, while their contribution to the Canadian economy is not significant due to low [paying] jobs. Consequently, the world becomes worse off.

I have the same difficulty in getting a job. I have master degrees in public policy and administration and also in economics, both from the United States. I also have doctoral degree in economics from the University of Missouri-Columbia. With those kinds of training, I came to Canada with strong hopes and optimism. I don't have problems with culture and language. But reality forces me to adjust my hopes. Now, I don't know to whom I have to talk. Also I don't know whether or not writing a letter to you is appropriate. If it is not appropriate I apologize. But one or two words from you are very important to maintain my optimism.

I look forward to hearing from you. Thank you very much.

This is a real live person with two masters degrees and a Ph.D. who cannot find a decent job in this country.

What did the Prime Minister say the very next day, after this letter was written, at a town hall meeting? He said, “I raised this issue at the meeting of the provincial premiers”. That is what the government has been saying for the last decade.

I would say this to the government. The throne speech does nothing but throw hot air at a problem that is hurting and costing good people every day. It is time it put some real jobs and real money where its mouth is.

[Lynne Yelich, Canadian Alliance, Blackstrap, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the remarks by the hon. member who just spoke. She is one of my colleagues from Calgary.

I want to ask her about what we can do. I had a letter from the manager of the International Student Office at the University of Saskatchewan, Kurt Tischler, who really wants to bring attention to the long delays in Vegreville and the implications for international students when they are applying to come into our universities and into the University of Saskatchewan.

I forwarded his letter to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, and this is the letter I received back. I am wondering if this is good enough. I will read a couple of points in it, and I would like the hon. member to comment. It states:

Supporting a robust foreign student program in Canada remains a priority of Citizenship and Immigration, and we are continuing to look forward to additional efficiencies within existing resources and legislation to reduce processing times. We will also be seeking the input of our external stakeholders, such as the Canadian Bureau of International Education, the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada and the Association of Canadian Community Colleges to explore creative solutions.

I would just like--

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

I am sorry to interrupt the member for a response by the hon. member for Calgary--Nose Hill.

[Diane Ablonczy, Canadian Alliance, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, no it is not good enough. It is the same old talk that I just quoted. The government says that it will talk to the stakeholders and that it will do something about it. Promises, promises but nothing, it is hollow. As my colleague said, only 23% of the promises the government makes in the throne speeches are any good.

I wish I had more time to talk about settlement programs and how the government has abused, misused and cut funding for needed settlement programs. I would like to talk about the backlog where people are lined up for years and years without know what their status is in the country. Now students are losing opportunities to study and losing opportunities for jobs because of the backlog in processing.

I really have to wonder. The Liberals keep saying how much they value immigrants. I wonder if that is not just empty talk, just a pose to garner votes from newcomers and immigrant groups. I do not see that the government delivers for those groups. I do not see that it delivers anything except of a lot of empty rhetoric.

Even the Prime Minister, when asked this month what he would do for medical people, doctors who could not get residencies in the country, said, “Why don't you tell me what the answer is?”. He said that to the poor doctor who could not get a residency so he could practise in our country, which supposedly needs qualified medical people.

In throne speech, after throne speech the Liberal government has promised to do something about the problem of foreign trained professionals being able to practise their profession in our country.

“Why don't you tell me”, said the Prime Minister. Obviously, these Liberals do not have a plan. They do not have a clue. They do not have any real compassion for the highly qualified people who are frustrated by being unable to get on with things in the country.

[Bill Graham, Liberal, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, the first point I would make is this. What is the government doing? The government is acting in conjunction with the governments that have responsibility for professional qualifications; that is to say, the provincial and territorial governments which the member knows full well determine who have engineering qualifications and who have medical qualifications.

Can we change this by ourselves? No. Can we work with other governments in Canada to change this? Yes. Is the Prime Minister raising it with his counterparts in the provinces? Yes. Are we trying to do this? Various ministers are.

I respectfully invite the member, who has asked if we are helping groups of immigrants who come to Canada and do they believe we are helping, to come to my riding in downtown Toronto. Any time she wants she can meet with groups from practically every country and they can tell her directly whether they believe they are more likely to get a fair--

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

Order, please. The hon. member for Calgary--Nose Hill.

[Diane Ablonczy, Canadian Alliance, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is cleaver how the member opposite suddenly changes the argument.

In case the hon. member missed it, the issue was recognition of foreign credentials. Now he says that the government cannot do it by itself and that it is asking. It said in 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004 that it would talk to the stakeholders and fix it. How many years has it said that it would talk to the other people and make it happen? How many years can it get away with it? At some point it will have to show some leadership and actually deliver on all this loose talk, and it is not doing that. A lot of immigrants, newcomers and professionals who cannot practise in the country know it.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for Davenport, Agriculture.

[Dale Johnston, Canadian Alliance, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, when we speak to the Speech from the Throne, traditionally we like to talk about our constituencies and how the Speech from the Throne, which is the government's plan for the future, will affect our constituencies.

Over the weekend I was acclaimed as the candidate for the Conservative Party in my riding of Wetaskiwin, and I would like to thank my board of directors and the candidate nomination committee for all the work they have done. I look forward to representing them for another term.

My constituency of Wetaskiwin has a lot of petrochemical industry. There is every aspect of it, including exploration, a seismograph, drilling, production, the refinery and the shipment. We even have some substantial value added product whereby different products are made out of ethane and those products are shipped all over the world. Some of the largest ethane producers in the world are situated in my riding. This augments the work in our constituency and adds to employment and so forth.

The backbone of our community has been and always will be agriculture. Even after the petrochemical industry has been replaced by some other technology, agriculture will remain the backbone of our community.

My constituency is situated between Edmonton and Red Deer and is ideally suited for agricultural production, but not for agricultural export, and that is too bad. All of this is extremely important to me because agriculture drives the economy in my constituency, yet it has not even rated a mention in the throne speech. I find that appalling and absolutely unpardonable.

Producers in my area have suffered through three years of drought and have had a tremendously difficult time making ends meet. Their natural gas, chemical, fertilizer and fuel costs have increased. Their input costs are going up all the time. The price they get for their product has been going down ever since the discovery last May of one cow in Alberta with BSE. The largest problem in western Canada today did not rate a mention in the Speech from the Throne. I cannot understand that.

Probably it is just as well because we have heard that tradition is a very important thing in the Liberal Party. The Liberals bring in a Speech from the Throne and then follow through with or carry out only 23% of their promises or directions. It is probably just as well that western Canadians did not get their hopes up thinking that maybe the government would do something for them because actually it would do nothing for them.

For months people have been coming to my constituency office asking for the culled cattle slaughter forms. I do not have any idea where those forms are. We keep contacting the department, but those forms are not available to us.

In October I wrote to the then minister of agriculture and the then minister of finance about our situation. As a result of the drought and because of a lack of feed, people started to sell off their breeding stock for whatever they could get rather then starve their animals. They had about four or five years worth of income. They sold their breeding stock, their calve and their yearlings all at once. As a result, they had a large chunk of income that they would have to declare in one year and probably pay out half of it in income tax.

In the first year, government said it would defer part of that payment. Part of that could be deferred into next year's income. In October of this year, I think it was, I wrote to the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Finance to ask if they would extend that deferral so that producers could lessen their hit from Revenue Canada, because now their herds are gone and eventually they are going to have to buy them back. If they paid out all that tax money, they simply would not have the revenue, the wherewithal, to buy back the herd when the rains did come again.

Do you know, Mr. Speaker, when the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Finance announced that the program would be extended? It was on December 19, when there were five more business days in the year. They waited until everyone had made decisions, decisions that they did not have to make. They bought cattle to try to defray some of their taxes.

None of that was necessary. None of that was necessary, because this government has placed a low priority on the agricultural sector. I cannot imagine anybody in western Canada involved in the agricultural business seriously considering supporting the Liberal Party in the future.

The government does not have a plan to deal with the cull cows. To start with, the government said we had to have a slaughter ticket in order to pick up the subsidy on the cull cows. Because there was no program available, because the cull cows were worth only $40 a head or something, the producers asked, “What are our options?” Their option was to turn those cull cows back out with the bull and hope they were impregnated; then maybe they could get a calf out of them and by that time maybe the border would be open. Maybe, maybe, maybe.

Now that has exacerbated the problem. We are going to have more calves born this year from cows that should have been knocked on the head and made into hamburger. It is going to make a bad problem even worse.

It was not addressed. I pointed out the problem to the Minister of Agriculture. I pointed it out to the Minister of Finance. I asked them if they could make a decision on this. They dragged their feet. At the last possible minute, after it was too late, when every producer had already made decisions that were irreversible, then and only then did they decide yes, by golly, farmers could roll some of that income into 2004.

There is more bad news. As if things are not bad enough, cattle receipts for the third quarter of 2003 fell by nearly 75% over the same period in 2002. What are those people supposed to do? Are they supposed to live on 25% of their income? In the early part of last year before we made the discovery of BSE in that Alberta cow, Alberta producers had strong export sales: nearly $160 million worth of cattle per month went out of Alberta into export markets.

This is a $30 billion industry that provides nearly a quarter of a million jobs in this country and yet the Prime Minister and the finance minister continue to ignore this industry. I cannot understand that. I think they ignore it at their peril.

Last week, the federal agriculture department warned that Alberta farmers could expect a 57% decline in their 2003 income compared with that of previous years. Both of the previous years were drought years and yet we are expected to suffer another 57% decline in our receipts.

This has a large spinoff in our community. When I was a kid, one of my first jobs was delivering groceries and stocking shelves in a Co-op store in Ponoka. That Co-op store has been in business for 87 years. Two weeks ago, it closed its doors forever. That gives us an idea of what the agricultural industry is going through in my area.

This is a devastating problem. So far we have not seen any movement on the part of the government to address it.

I appreciate this opportunity.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to what my colleague had to say. His statistics for Alberta really are extraordinary. I looked at some of the figures for cattle across the country; the predominance of Alberta among the provinces with respect to cattle, particularly beef cattle, is quite extraordinary.

On the other hand, there are millions of cattle in Ontario, Quebec and elsewhere in the country, as he well knows. Also, in my riding I am very conscious of the fact that we are dealing here with ruminants, as he knows. There is the beef industry as such and the dairy industry, which is kind of related, but there are sheep. We have substantial sheep farms in my area and we have goats. I have one very well established buffalo farm of 60 years or so in my riding, which is also being affected by this.

First I want to applaud what the member said. Anything we can do to deal with this BSE crisis, we should do. The thing that concerns me is that in terms of science there is no sense to it and in terms of health there is no sense to it. We are left with politics. I know that we have opposition parties on that side of the House and the government on this side, but what we are actually left with is U.S. politics and Canadian politics.

Truly, what does the member think we have to do to persuade the Americans to open the border, which, as he knows, is the only solution?

[Dale Johnston, Canadian Alliance, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly do recognize the amount of cattle that there are in Ontario. At the heyday of our cattle producing in Alberta, we shipped a lot of feeder cattle by train to Ontario feeders, but I did preface my remarks by saying that I would be speaking specifically about my riding.

I want to answer my colleague's question directly. What do I think is necessary? I think we need to convince the Americans that any restrictions they place on us will be restrictions that they are really placing on themselves. We need to convince them that we have to look at the continental market. The 49th parallel, for the purposes of cattle, should be erased. We need the slaughterhouses in the United States.

From the time we start to put the shovel in the ground to the time we actually get the coolers running might be a year and a half. By the time we build a slaughterhouse in a year and a half, I certainly hope that the border would be open. By that time we would be shipping live animals to be killed in the United States, where they really need the beef. The price of beef has gone through the roof in the supermarkets in the United States. If the Americans could take our beef, it would put a little pressure on their retail price and give the consumers a break. The slaughterhouses need to be investigated, I think, to see whether or not they are coming up with a decent markup or are actually guilty of gouging the producers.

The primary thing we need to do is build a good rapport with the United States government and convince it that America needs our beef as much as we need that border open.

[Greg Thompson, Progressive Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister was on television in a public forum a couple of weeks ago and said that if he could not deal effectively with the aboriginal crisis and the alienation of the west, he would deem his prime ministership to be a failure. But it appears to me that by leaving agriculture out, he is not off to a very good start. Maybe the member could comment on that.

[Dale Johnston, Canadian Alliance, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is actually a very good point. I know that the Prime Minister has said he feels that the western alienation is real. Unlike the previous prime minister, who did not think it really existed, this Prime Minister at least has acknowledged that the western alienation is a problem. He has said he will do something about it, but I think he got off to a very bad start by neglecting to be upfront and proactive about agriculture.

As my colleague from Peterborough said, the opening of that 49th parallel to get the cattle flowing back and forth, particularly live cattle going south, is of utmost importance.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to speak for the first time this session. Indeed, it is my first time speaking as a minister of the Crown. You and I have known each other for an enormously long time, Mr. Speaker.

I love to read speeches that are well thought out. Some people in my department thought that this would be a great time for the minister to make a great impression on all the government programs. They wrote this wonderful speech. Then my colleague from Mississauga South decided that he too wanted to say some positive things about the Speech from the Throne, a speech that is so detailed and so precise in the enumeration of the programs the government is outlining for all Canadians to see and judge that one would almost suggest it is budget-like.

I could not possibly say no to my colleague, Mr. Speaker, so you will have to allow me to forego the opportunity to do justice to those who have laboured so mightily in crafting the words necessary to make a member of the ministry look thoughtful.

If I may be forgiven, I will sound rather pedestrian and representative of those people who really want to see the government of the day, the Government of Canada, address the needs they see every day.

Here are some of those needs. Members will have seen them already in the Speech from the Throne because, despite the naysayers on the other side, the government has put its finger on some of the most important necessities of the day.

On the first of these necessities--if I may be allowed because they pertain to my department--we spoke rather specifically not only about the problem but about how to address it: the first is, of course, investing in the human capital of this country. It is the most important investment that any government could make, in fact, not only this government but government of any stripe.

We have heard others speak of the necessity to build a physical infrastructure, whether it is in the industrial, agricultural, farming or fishing sectors. All of those things are important. This is especially important as well for those who live in larger municipalities, when they talk about the technological innovations of the day that make it necessary for us to build a knowledge based economy. These are all nice, tangible words, but we know that all of them hide something. For all of them, in every single line and in every single sector, we need to invest in our human capital.

All of us in this room, because of our age, have people that depend on us or have depended on us. Those people are now our premier citizens, those in whom we would place all of our faith and all of our hopes: the young people. They are people who are developing an ability to learn, to build capacity, to adapt to the challenges of the day, and to move those challenges as they meet them to the benefit of our society.

The Government of Canada has to do the same. It cannot do less. We want to foster lifelong learning. We recognize that not only must we give people an opportunity to pursue greater levels of education, we must give them the opportunity to advance and develop their skills in the workplace. We must give them the opportunity to adjust to the new challenges of a changing economy.

For example, within five years 70% of all new jobs created will require post-secondary education or better. Only 6% of the new jobs to be created will require less than a high school education. We need people to be adaptable.

What does education mean? Does it mean to be able to read, to add, to fool around with a computer? No. It means that a person is able to adapt whatever skills have been learned, both on the academic side and on the manual side--dexterity--to the new jobs that develop. We need to be able to do that.

We have the means for it. We have seen it in the Speech from the Throne. The government has already made several commitments. Many people will pooh-pooh this, but those who are most likely to be recipients of it recognize the great vision and the direction that the Prime Minister has already allowed us to examine.

We will be looking at the student loan program and we will enhance it. We want more students to have access to loans that will allow them to attend community colleges and universities. We will be extending the period allowed for the repayment of such loans in order to reduce that debt load. We will be introducing and enhancing the interest relief portions of the student loan mechanism so that no one will be overburdened by the loans they take for the purpose of pursuing higher learning.

We will also make sure that we do not limit this opportunity only to a select few but that we recognize that society is becoming much more than what it has been in the past in terms of its economic abilities, and that expenses have increased. We will be including a larger swathe of our population, a larger group of middle income families, in order to release them from the burden that has been placed on them.

In addition to that, we recognized long ago that those who are often left out are of course those young men and women who come from families that are more disadvantaged. They are the ones who do not have the opportunities to access these loans and programs that the Government of Canada put in place in the past. We will be offering students in the first year of a community college or university program an opportunity to access additional funds.

I do not want to scoop the Prime Minister or the Minister of Finance when they present the budget, but I am so excited about what I know they will be doing that I cannot hide the smile on my face. I am sure you have noticed it, Mr. Speaker. Those students will be delighted that finally a government has the courage to put money beside a commitment to engage those people from the classes in our society that have not demonstrated the greatest ability to finance their children's education.

That is something we have ignored for too long. Therefore we have decided that we should take a look at those families that do not have the sophistication and understanding of the economic instruments of investments that would allow them to make early investments into their children's education from the moment their children are born.

We have in the past, and this is a compliment to our administration, put in place a registered education savings plan, but we did not recognized that a lot of families do not have the economic means or the investment sophistication to do this. Therefore we will be putting in place a learning bond where the Government of Canada will come up with the opportunities for them to make those first down payments and provide them with the opportunity to begin to understand how these instruments can be best utilized for their own children.

This is not just idle talk. My colleagues opposite would say we cannot handle this because it is too specific for us. It is a vision that has substance. It is an idea that has a mechanism. It is a plan that has steps along the way.

Those kinds of steps lead me, as well, to what I said a few moments ago about skills development. We have an opportunity to build a culture of learning for those people who leave the educational parameters of a classroom. For example, we have learning institutions from labour groups, management groups and sector councils. We have labour trusts that are engaged in providing skills for their members as they are required to meet the demands of the marketplace as they see it. They are best equipped to make that connection with both business and with the requirements of their employees, their members. We need to engage in plans with them to ensure that the outcomes of their exercises are productive for all Canadians.

I myself studied this issue and had the opportunity to observe current practices. We have seen that it is possible to create a partnership between the government and these groups for the well-being of Canadians.

I thank you for giving me at least these few minutes to start elaborating on the government's plan. I hope that the Chair will give me more time in the future.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first I want to congratulate my colleague on his appointment as minister. To be perfectly honest, I cannot recite the exact title yet, but he is in effect our minister of lifelong learning. I congratulate him on that and on the way he dealt with it in his speech. We have needed such a department for many years. I hope, not that he will take over the whole federal government in the area of lifelong learning, but that he will develop within his new department an expertise in these matters which reaches out to the other federal departments.

I have two specific things that I hope the minister will take under advisement. He mentioned student loans and the problems they create. I would point out that right now less than 15% of the students in our medical schools come from homes with what we call lower middle class incomes or lower; 85% come from upper middle class or higher. Would the member take under advisement the matter of residency? Is residency for a medical student training or work?

Second, would he consider working through cabinet so that he and his successors become Canada's permanent representative to the Council of Ministers of Education of Canada in order to have consistency in the federal government's dealings with the provinces in these matters?

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first, with regard to the second part of the question, I am very interested, as minister, to take part in this council of ministers of education.

Of course, there are jurisdictional problems, but my department has already indicated the interest of the current minister and of those who will come after me in becoming members of this council.

Indeed, it is important to have a truly Canadian concept that goes beyond classroom education, which is under provincial jurisdiction.

Therefore, my answer is yes, I am open to that.

With respect to the first part of the member's question, I am pleased to say that I met with students from the medical profession just a few moments ago. They expressed to me the same kinds of concerns that the hon. member for Peterborough has indicated.

Consistent with what I said earlier, we have already taken into consideration some of the costs that are borne by students that have not in the past been considered as part of the legitimate or eligible cost for deductions either for their parents or the students themselves, and we are heading in that direction.

[Greg Thompson, Progressive Conservative, New Brunswick Southwest, NB]

Mr. Speaker, first I want to congratulate the minister on his appointment. He came into this place in 1988, as did you, Mr. Speaker, and I am sure he will do a good job. He is more than qualified, being a former educator. And we have had our sparring matches in this place.

I met with some medical students who were on the Hill today lobbying members of Parliament concerning their level of indebtedness as students. They are saying that the answer is not in being able to borrow more money, although that is a problem. The students are basically saying that yes, student indebtedness is a problem but they are suggesting that under the present conditions of the student loan program some of them actually cannot borrow enough money to keep going.

I see that my time is up. Could I seek unanimous consent to finish my question?

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

Is there unanimous consent for the member to finish his question, which means lengthening the time for questions and comments?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.