Lynn Myers

[Personal Information Protection And Electronic Documents Act, October 19th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to debate this very important issue. I do so on behalf of the residents of Waterloo—Wellington.

It is difficult to underestimate the growing importance of the global communications network to economic activity. To a very large degree Canada's success in the 21st century will depend on the ability of Canadians to participate and succeed in the global knowledge based economy. Clearly this is the way of the world.

A knowledge based economy is driving global growth. This trend can only intensify. Canada's future prosperity will reflect our success in this economy. The Government of Canada has been extremely active in helping Canadians gain access to the opportunities of the global information culture. We have made Canada's participation in the knowledge based economy a top priority and rightfully so.

We have set the goal of making Canada the most connected nation in the world by the year 2000. This is truly a visionary move and one which will pay huge dividends in the future. Initiatives like the community access program and SchoolNet are ensuring that all Canadians no matter where they live have access to the electronic highway and the information economy.

Through the community access program alone by the year 2000-01 we will have connected every rural Canadian community with a population of more than 400 people, as many as 5,000 communities. SchoolNet is a broad based private and public sector partnership working to ensure that all of Canada's 20,000 public schools and libraries are connected to the Internet by the end of this year. As a former teacher and as chairman of the Waterloo regional library I know firsthand about the importance of SchoolNet and what it represents for Canadians.

Our government is committed to helping Canadians access the information and knowledge that will enable them, their communities, their businesses and institutions find new opportunities for learning, interacting, transacting business and developing their economic and social potential.

Electronic commerce is at the heart of the new information economy. Building an environment where electronic commerce can flourish is a key part of our commitment. By the year 2000 we want Canada's legal, commercial and technological environment for electronic commerce to rank among the world's best. We want Canadian industry to be a leader in the development and use of electronic commerce.

Electronic commerce will benefit consumers and businesses alike first, by lowering transaction and distribution costs; second, by increasing market access and consumer choice; third, by improving product support and information; and finally, by generating new products, services and business opportunities.

Every day $1 trillion U.S. in currency and a quarter of a trillion U.S. dollars in securities are traded electronically around the world, yet only a small portion of these transactions are done over the Internet. But this will change and soon. Electronic commerce conducted over the Internet is currently estimated at about $45 billion Canadian. However, exponential growth is forecast with e-com revenues expected to reach $600 billion by the year 2002. The potential impact of e-com is enormous. Any nation which desires its citizens to prosper must move forward to capture these opportunities.

If the world economy is soon to rely on e-com, we must first build trust in it. We have to assure privacy, and that is absolutely important. The rules for the digital marketplace must be set both domestically and among global trading partners. A large part of creating this trust and confidence has to do with assuring privacy and protecting personal information.

If electronic commerce, e-com, is to flourish in Canada, a clear, predictable and secure environment is an absolute requisite. Consumers, business and government, all of us need to feel confident about how our personal information is gathered, stored and used. We need to have control over our personal information and feel assured that it will be protected whether we use the Internet to shop or bank, plan a vacation, seek out medical information, browse on the web, use a debit card to make a purchase, or correspond with family and friends via e-mail.

Canada's privacy commissioner has described our present privacy protection as a patchwork of laws, regulations and codes. His colleagues in the provinces agree. They have been calling for privacy safeguards that would protect consumers from coast to coast.

The federal government and most provinces have laws governing the public sector's collection, use and disclosure of personal information. The federal Privacy Act applies to all federal government departments, most federal agencies and some federal crown corporations. The Privacy Commissioner of Canada oversees this act.

Protection in the private sector is sporadic and uneven. Only Quebec's law respecting the protection of personal information in the private sector provides a detailed framework for the collection, use and disclosure of personal information.

Clearly the present situation with regard to the protection of personal information in cyberspace is unacceptable. To build trust in the digital environment and put Canada at the forefront of electronic commerce, the government has tabled legislation to protect personal information in the private sector and to improve the way it conducts its own business via electronic media.

That is the purpose of Bill C-54, the personal information protection and electronic documents act. It makes the legislative adjustments that are necessary if electronic commerce is to flourish.

In January 1998 the government released a public discussion paper entitled “The Protection of Personal Information: Building Canada's Information Economy and Society”. This paper outlined the various issues which must be addressed in developing legislation and sought input from all Canadians.

Canadians have told us that they want legislation that is light, flexible and effective and that provides meaningful recourse for consumers. They support building on an existing instrument, such as the model code for the protection of personal information of the Canadian Standards Association. They want oversight to ensure compliance and investigate complaints.

Bill C-54 provides all of these things. It establishes a right to the protection of personal information and clear rules for how the information shall be collected, used and disclosed in the course of commercial activities interprovincially or internationally, or indeed in connection with the operation of a federal work, undertaking or business. The Privacy Commissioner of Canada will oversee compliance and investigate complaints.

This legislation will provide other benefits as well. It will enable the federal government to be a leader in the use of electronic media as it conducts its business with Canadian citizens. It will do this by updating and adjusting our laws so that electronic communications and electronic service delivery can be practical and secure options for doing business with government.

One aspect of the bill in particular has significant implications for e-com. Provisions in the new legislation introduce the concept of secure electronic signatures for use in electronic transmissions. Such signatures would be unique, would identify and be under the sole control of their users, and would be securely linked to the documents used in a given transaction.

Bill C-54 will help pave the way for the federal government's use of electronic technology as it delivers its programs and services in a timely, cost effective and secure manner. It will help ensure continuing federal leadership as the Canadian economy increasingly adopts e-com as the normal way of doing business.

In conclusion I want to note that by passing Bill C-54, the House of Commons will place Canada at the very forefront of that electronic commerce. It will help ensure that Canadians will be able to take advantage of the opportunities offered to them by the new information economy.

[Salaries For Stay At Home Mothers And Fathers, October 19th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to discuss this very important issue. I have to say at the outset that I have some serious reservations about the hon. member's motion. I ask the question, would it improve the lives of Canadian children more than the current initiatives undertaken by the Government of Canada and our provincial and territorial partners?

It may be helpful at this time to consider the initiatives presently under way to help give our children every opportunity to develop their full potential as Canadian citizens. I am sure that is what the hon. member is hoping to adopt if his motion in fact were to proceed and go forward. I commend him for his initiative.

Some of our hon. colleagues have already outlined the effectiveness of the Canada child tax benefit and other measures that benefit families with children. I would like to talk a little about the national children's agenda. I will begin by briefly outlining the positive history of the development of this agenda.

In January 1997 at a meeting of the Ministerial Council on Social Policy Renewal, federal, provincial and territorial government officials agreed to work together to develop a national children's agenda. This agenda was confirmed as a priority for government in the September 1997 Speech from the Throne. To quote from that speech “Federal, provincial and territorial governments will work together to develop this broader agenda for children, including clear outcome measurements by which to gauge success”.

Further confirmation to the high priority given to the national children's agenda was evident in the publication of “Securing our Future Together” and again at the December 1997 meeting of first ministers. In fact the development of the national children's agenda to date is a superb example of what can be accomplished when we work in partnership.

The national children's agenda has a broad scope. The government and its partners recognize that the full development of our children cuts across many sectors: health, social services, justice, and education to name a few. It involves participation at many levels of authority.

In a February 1997 speech to the Ottawa-Carleton Board of Trade, the Prime Minister said that the national children's agenda will be “an effective, modern, truly national approach to benefits and services for children and for families”.

At the same time, the government and its partners are not about to reinvent the wheel. The national children's agenda will build upon efforts already under way by federal, provincial and territorial governments, community groups, business and voluntary sectors, child care professionals and of course families themselves who have the greatest responsibility for their children's welfare.

One of the major provisions of the national children's agenda is that it will act as a springboard for future and further initiatives. It will be a magnet that will draw partners together to continually enrich the provisions under that agenda.

Some people may ask why a national children's agenda is necessary. There is strong evidence including scientific research which shows that what happens to children when they are very young shapes their health and well-being throughout their lives.

We need the national children's agenda because unfortunately some Canadian children are especially vulnerable in today's rapidly changing world. We know that although children in many families experience a great deal of love, others experience abuse and neglect and suffer from physical and mental health problems. We need then to pay particular attention to family difficulties to ensure that these disadvantaged children have the chance to get a good start in life.

Many people and levels of government are already involved in helping Canada's children grow into healthy and well adjusted adults. There is however widespread recognition that no one individual or organization can meet all the child's needs. That quite frankly is why we need a national children's agenda. We need a truly comprehensive and complementary approach to ensure that there is no wasteful duplication of services and to ensure that no child falls between the cracks. That is very important for all of us as Canadians.

Some of the national children's agenda initiatives have already been announced, such as the national child benefit. The learning readiness indicators are another priority which is being worked on. A lack of readiness to learn can harm a child's chances of fulfilling his or her potential. Data from the national longitudinal survey on children and youth indicates that up to 15% of all Canadian children who begin school may not in fact be ready to learn. Learning readiness indicators also will help us to measure the readiness of our children to learn. That will enable us to assess just how well we are doing at giving our children the very best possible start.

Under the national children's agenda the Government of Canada will also expand the aboriginal head start program to cover First Nations children living on reserves. Begun in 1995, aboriginal head start already helps First Nations, Metis and Inuit children living in urban centres and large northern communities to prepare for school. This initiative responds to the report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples which underlined the importance of extending corresponding assistance to First Nations children living on reserves.

The national children's agenda will establish centres of excellence for children's well-being. This also is important to note. The purpose of these centres will be to help us understand and respond to the physical and mental health needs of children and to understand the critical conditions for healthy development.

This represents an overview of the national children's agenda. I would ask the hon. member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik to support this agenda and other measures mentioned today and to work with the government to implement them before we take on the massive legislative changes necessary to adopt his motion.

I believe we should take one approach and evaluate the results before trying another. I appreciate the intent of the hon. member's motion but I am unable to support it at this time.

[Programs For Young People, October 8th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to enter this debate on this very important subject. I am especially happy to have a chance to outline the efficiency and the effectiveness of the Government of Canada's youth programming.

There is no question Canadians have a right to expect the best possible performance from Government of Canada investments. Certainly young Canadians are looking for results. They deserve and expect results.

I assure the member for Madawaska—Restigouche that the monitoring and evaluation of the Government of Canada's youth programs is already underway. When it launched the youth employment strategy the Government of Canada instituted a comprehensive strategy to monitor the performance of its programs for youth and to evaluate their impacts.

Even more assuring, our youth employment initiatives are producing concrete results. Thousands of Canadian youth know from their own experience that the Government of Canada's youth employment strategy is working to help them find work.

I want to explore these two important points one issue at time. The first is a matter of program monitoring. As I mentioned, the Government of Canada's youth employment strategy has a built-in system to measure the strategy's success. This system includes participant follow-up surveys, longitudinal studies and individual program evaluations.

I will do a quick review of some of our key findings to date. I think they will be found very important. Youth internship Canada, a program that provides wage subsidies to employers who create work experience opportunities at home and abroad for youth, has a stellar record. This program will create 25,000 internships in the current fiscal year. Each year Human Resources Development Canada conducts follow-up surveys with former youth internship Canada participants to assess the results of the program.

The most recent survey was in November 1997. That indicated that 88% of former project participants are now employed or have returned to school. The youth service Canada program has an equally impressive record. This initiative provides funds to community organizations to help higher risk youth find their place in the workforce.

This year some 5,000 young people will receive youth service Canada support.

The 1997 survey of the youth service Canada program found that 6 to 12 months after taking part in a youth service Canada project 85% of the youth are employed or have returned to school, and that is very impressive. Incidentally, this year Human Resources Development Canada will be going ahead with an in-depth evaluation of youth service Canada.

The Government of Canada student summer job action has enjoyed similarly positive results. Like other youth programs, this initiative is reviewed periodically through follow-up surveys with young Canadians. The 1996 survey found that 55% of placements provided work experience in the student's area of study and, just as important, we discovered that 69% of employers would not have hired a student without the Government of Canada subsidy.

Findings like these demonstrate that we are on the right track. But let me assure my hon. colleague this government is not about to rest on its laurels in this matter. In addition to the measures I have already outlined, all federal departments and agencies involved in all our 250 youth programs under the youth employment strategy are required to conduct and report on the evaluation of their youth employment strategy initiatives.

To give members some sense of our commitment to quality of this program let me profile just one department. Human Resources Development Canada alone is conducting an interim formative evaluation as well as a final summary evaluation of its youth employment strategy initiatives. The formative evaluation is already in progress. We should be able to report back to this House on its findings by the fall of next year.

Equally valuable, all these review activities are being incorporated into longer term evaluations of the Government of Canada's youth initiatives. Human Resource Development Canada has developed an evaluation framework to integrate the results of individual departmental evaluations into an overall evaluation of the youth employment strategy. This massive undertaking will be completed within two years.

Even the newest initiatives such as those developed for youth at risk are going under the microscope. These initiatives which provide work experience and assistance to young people facing multiple barriers to employment are currently being assessed as part of the comprehensive evaluation of the youth employment strategy.

I point out that all the major initiatives under the youth employment strategy grew out of our experience with early youth programs such as youth internship Canada and youth service Canada. Our new programs are built around feedback and refinements to these pioneering programs.

Clearly there is no shortage of opportunities to identify any program weaknesses, nor is there any lack of willingness to address them properly should problems be found. That is important to note.

The fact that our youth programs enjoy such remarkable ratings, however, reinforces that Canada's youth employment strategy is meeting is commitment to help young Canadians find their way in the world of the job market. Yet we are still not content that enough is being done. That is why this year we added the Canadian opportunities strategy as well.

The Canadian opportunities strategy provides Canada study grants, Canada education savings grants, the Canadian millennium scholarship fund, tax measures for interest on Canadian student loans, part time student and child care expenses as well as more funding to university granting councils. We are making these investments in young Canadians because we know there is no better investment in the future. Learning is the absolute best guarantee for better jobs in the new millennium and the new economy. I was happy to hear the hon. member for Madawaska—Restigouche acknowledge in his speech early on that the government is making an enormous investment in our young people.

If there is any lingering doubt about this government's ability to maximize young people's chances of joining the labour force let me bring my fellow parliamentarians up to date on our overall success. I point out that youth service Canada has helped 12,000 young Canadians in three years. Youth internship Canada has given work experience to more than 89,000 young people since 1994. I also point out that student summer job action had over 75,000 participants this last summer. I finally point out that approximately 100,000 work experience opportunities are provided each and every year. Anyone looking for evidence of the effectiveness of the Government of Canada's youth employment initiatives need look no further than these figures.

Do not get me wrong. This government is always receptive to new ideas about ways to improve our youth programs. We regularly consult with our public and private sector partners who help us to implement the youth employment strategy. Partnerships and collaboration form the cornerstone of our approach to youth programs and are the primary reason for the strategy's overwhelming success.

I do not want the hon. member to conclude that we are not open to his input and support. We are. I hope he will recognize that his motion is not necessary. This government is already doing its job of ensuring that our programs to put young people into jobs are fulfilling their mandates. That is in the best interests of young Canadians and all Canadians and in the best interests of this great country of ours.

[Committees Of The House, October 8th, 1998]

About misinformation.

[Committees Of The House, October 8th, 1998]

Get your facts straight.

[Supply, October 5th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite for the question. I can say to her that we as a government have not destroyed. Rather we have built on a strong foundation that over time is the foundation of the very country we call Canada, and rightfully so.

We are a nation of builders who have done the right thing in terms of our social safety net and other issues. Quite frankly we have a record to which we can point and we can prove it.

In terms of where the hon. member is coming from, is she today wooing the labour people or is she wooing business? I find it a little galling to take all this from the member opposite and her party, a party that would promise significant spending on health and social programs while cutting the GST and trying to balance a budget. I would take a little exception to the fact that she would try to promote that kind of nonsense. It really makes no sense.

We on the government side have made the kind of sense that Canadians want. We have done it in a manner consistent with Canadian values and Canadian institutions. That is something we can be enormously proud of.

[Supply, October 5th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite for his question. I know he has some firsthand evidence with respect to his own situation and I appreciate that he brings that to the debate.

However, I listened in astonishment to the sheer hypocrisy of the kinds of things he said when in fact it was the Reform Party in its fresh start and in its so-called 1995 taxpayer's budget that called for a $3 billion cut in transfers to provinces for health, post-secondary education and welfare.

Added to that was another $3.6 billion to other transfers. On top of that, as if that were not enough, there was another $7.4 billion slashed from programs funded directly by the federal government for things like seniors' pensions and employment insurance and another $1 billion in cuts to social security, for a grand total of $15 billion.

The sheer audacity of the member opposite to get up and raise that kind of garbage is beyond comprehension. It is the Reform Party that should take a look in the mirror to see what programs it would cut and decimate in the process Canada and our social union.

[Supply, October 5th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite for his question.

Canada has a tremendous social safety net in place to help people in need from time to time and to help people who require it throughout the term of their life, or whenever it is needed at the appropriate time.

Perhaps the hon. member is disconnected. This is really all about a social union framework that will assist Canada and make it work better. It will strengthen the federation. It is part of partnerships and it is part of the kinds of things that Canadians, no matter where they live in this great country of ours, want us to do in a co-operative fashion.

Perhaps the hon. member fails to realize that we as the federal government since 1993 have taken over 17 definitive and fundamental steps in ensuring this would happen. This is absolutely key for wherever one lives in this great country of ours, knowing that our government is making the changes necessary to make the social union work.

[Supply, October 5th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin my comments by noting that the motion by the hon. member urges the Government of Canada to accept the provincial governments' initial position in the social union framework negotiations and put forward no principles or objectives on behalf of all Canadians. This is wrong. With the greatest of respect, the hon. member should know that all the provincial and territorial governments recognize that this is a process of negotiation. They understand that there will be give and take between the two levels of government before we come to an agreement.

The hon. member seems to think of this in terms of who should give in to whom. That is the old way of looking at things. This is not the way we are proceeding today.

Our overall goal is to figure out how we can serve Canadians better by working together. This is after all what Canadians have asked us to do. I am surprised that the hon. member does not recognize this fact and conduct himself accordingly. Perhaps I should not be surprised.

The Government of Canada has tabled a position and we are respecting the protocol agreed to by all the governments involved in negotiating in public. However, the motion before us indicates that the hon. member does not wish to acknowledge that the Government of Canada has any interest in or responsibility for the social union.

Let me address this question of the social union and what it represents then.

First, what is Canada's social union? It is the means by which we as Canadians share our resources and help one another. It means collaboration and it means solidarity. This after all is the Canadian way. Newfoundlanders help Ontarians, Ontarians help Manitobans, Manitobans help Quebeckers, Quebeckers help British Columbians; making sure that we all have access to the basic social services we need when we need them, like education, old age pensions, social assistance and health care; making sure that we all help each other in times of crisis, like the floods in Manitoba and the Saguenay, and the ice storm in southern Ontario and Quebec.

First and foremost, the social union defines what it means to be a Canadian. It represents part of our values, our institutions and our symbols which define us as a people and unite us as a nation. It represents our values, values that include sharing and compassion, fairness, respect for the dignity of individuals, and a sense of collective as well as individual responsibility for our mutual well-being.

Our social union is the way in which we as Canadians pool our resources, act on our shared values and look out for one another. It distinguishes us from any other nation in the world. We are very proud of what this means for us as a country. It is why year after year Canada is judged by the United Nations as the best country in the world in which to live.

Because it transcends provincial and territorial boundaries, the strengthening of the social union is a fundamental responsibility of all governments, but of course it is of special concern to the Government of Canada. After all, this is the only government elected by all Canadians and therefore accountable to all Canadians.

How did we get to this social union? It was not by sheer luck or by happenstance. We built it together piece by piece. Provinces, working to meet the social needs of their residents and constituents, pioneered new programs. The Government of Canada encouraged other provinces to try similar programs and help make the benefits available to all Canadians.

That is how medicare started in Saskatchewan. Today it is how we are building the child tax benefit. Look at Quebec and its innovative family policies for example. Programs help people get back into the labour force. We have a lot to share and a lot to learn one from the other.

Building the social union then was not an easy process. There were challenges and disagreements along the way. But we have ended up with one of the world's best social security systems and that is partly due to the fact that there are differences of view between different levels of government. These differences have forced us to be more imaginative and to work harder to design better programs that suit everyone. In the end, working out our differences with respect and accommodation on both sides has made our social union stronger. This is true just as much today as it ever was.

Over more than half a century, our social union has evolved so that both orders of government now have a range of distinct responsibilities. In general, provincial governments are responsible for education and the delivery of health services and welfare. The Government of Canada's responsibilities include pensions, employment insurance, health protection, interprovincial mobility and the redistribution of wealth and resources across the country through equalization payments to provincial governments.

There are shared responsibilities as well. Both orders of government, for example, have a constitutional responsibility to promote equality of opportunity for all Canadians. Securing equality of opportunity is a responsibility that the Government of Canada takes very seriously. This is a value that is very dear to Canadians from all parts of the country.

One of the main instruments that can be used to promote equality of opportunity is federal spending power. Every major federation in the world provides for this kind of spending power for the federal government, but nowhere in the world is this power used more flexibly and with fewer conditions than in Canada; not in the United States, not in Switzerland, nowhere. This is a point that is always lost on the members from the other side of the House. They cannot contest it so they simply do not discuss it.

This is a good thing. No country as large and diversified as Canada could function as well as we do any other way. We must have strong provinces that can try out solutions that fit their own populations and cultures.

However, it is no secret that provincial governments have been demanding changes in the way that spending power is used. I remind the House that the Government of Canada has made changes. As a government we have been sensitive and responsive to the various demands of people throughout Canada, and rightfully so.

This government has committed itself not to create new cost sharing programs in areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction without the consent of a majority of the provinces. This government has committed to compensate non-participating provinces provided they establish equivalent or comparable programs.

At the same time, we have to make sure we do not put too many constraints on the use of spending power. This would lead to paralysis. We would be unable to keep up with changing needs and with circumstances.

Premiere Romanow stated: “The federal spending power gives the federal government the opportunity to encourage all provinces to adopt ideas that have been broadly supported throughout the nation so that all citizens can benefit from equal access to new social programs”.

This supports the contention that the Government of Canada must preserve its capacity to use spending power to promote equality of opportunity for all Canadians. However, as we have just said, we are fully committed to using it in a way that respects the provincial governments' legitimate responsibilities in many areas of social policy.

In recent years we have made real progress working with provincial governments to design and deliver new social programs for Canadians. This work has been carried out in the spirit of co-operation and mutual respect. We have begun to implement the national child benefit which is providing more federal income support benefits to low income families with children. This enables provincial governments to invest in new programs and services for these families. Nutrition, child care and readiness to learn programs are but examples.

We have signed agreements with provincial governments on labour market and employment programs. This has removed overlap and administrative duplication and has been successful in addressing a major irritant in federal-provincial relations.

What are the challenges facing our social union in the future and what should we be preparing for now is a very important question. What are the pressures we face down the road that a social union framework agreement would help us deal with?

We live in an increasingly interdependent world. Today's social and economic policies intersect like they never have before. Those who argue that we can have an economic union without a social union in this day and age are sadly mistaken. One only has to think about adapting to a knowledge based economy and ensuring that individuals, especially our young people, have the skills they need for the jobs of tomorrow. This is a social and an economic issue.

There is globalization and the need to stay competitive in the international marketplace to secure our standard of living; an aging population and new demands on social programs associated with people living longer and healthier lives; innovation and new technologies, particularly in health care, which we want to ensure benefit all Canadians; the need to continue maintaining a balanced budget and reducing debt.

We must emphasize that we can modernize our social programs and services and create new social programs where required that will address these pressures.

It means governments working together to clear the way for more rapid progress, to modernize and strengthen medicare, working together to help us move forward more quickly with new and better programs for children and persons with disabilities, working together to do more to address youth unemployment and learning.

Despite the assertion implicit in the motion of the hon. member, provincial governments recognize the participation of the Government of Canada is required to sustain progressive social programs that will benefit all Canadians.

What is the Government of Canada looking for? Where are we in negotiations to develop a social union framework agreement?

The Government of Canada has three objectives. The first is to promote equality of opportunity for all Canadians wherever they live or move in Canada. The second is to ensure that governments are working collaboratively on the social union. The third is to make governments more accountable to Canadians for the results achieved.

There is no question that the social union framework agreement would help to strengthen our social programs and services if designed to meet those objectives. To ensure quality of opportunity for all Canadians through our social programs we must then reaffirm the principles that underpin our social security system.

We must agree on some fundamental principles that would guide us in strengthening social programs. These principles include access to comparable basic services. They include freedom of mobility so that Canadians can move within their country without fear of losing important social benefits. Finally, they include making sure Canadians are treated fairly by their governments.

There is the principle of flexibility. Our social union cannot mean uniformity. It cannot mean one size fits all or identical programs. It cannot mean one level of government dictating to another.

We must respect the principle of flexibility to ensure that social programs can be designed and delivered in ways that respect Canada's diversity. This includes the unique character of Quebec society arising notably from its French speaking majority, its culture and its tradition of civil law.

We believe that taken together, these principles will ensure Canadians have the best of both worlds, the flexibility of programs tailored to meet the needs at the community level with principles that ensure access and fairness for all Canadians wherever they live or move in Canada. In short, this is the genius of the Canadian federation.

Canada is the envy of the world. The federal government remains committed to act in the best interests of all Canadians.

Canadians are concerned about social issues. They are worried about the integrity of our health care system. They are worried about child poverty. They are worried about the employment prospects facing Canadian youth in an uncertain global economy. They are worried about the well-being of elderly Canadians.

The time has come to stop playing politics with these concerns. While there is a legitimate place for differences of view between the two levels of government, Canadians' tolerance for federal-provincial feuding has worn thin.

Confrontation only diverts attention from the issues that really matter and is an insult to the Canadians who are struggling to cope with change. It undermines the public's faith in the government's capacity to serve the public interest. Quite frankly, it must stop.

This is an important goal for the Government of Canada and the social union framework agreement. We must work out our legitimate differences in a manner that is constructive and non-confrontational. We must find ways to continue building our social safety net together, putting new programs in place to address changing needs in an amicable, dignified and respectful manner.

To do so obliges both levels of government to share more information, to provide advance notice of any new initiatives or planned changes to current programs and to consult and to plan together. It obliges governments to always put the interests of Canadians first.

Canadians want their governments to be more responsive and accountable. As citizens, clients and taxpayers, Canadians want more of a say in how programs are designed and run and they want to know more about results. Canadians want taxpayer dollars spent wisely and they are concerned about the health and well-being of their fellow citizens, particularly children.

Canadians want to know that what we are doing is working. They want hope. They want to see evidence that our social programs and services are making a difference. They want to be sure we are improving the health of Canadians, that fewer Canadian children are living in poverty, that our young people really do have the skills they need for the jobs of tomorrow and that our elderly citizens are living out their lives in dignity.

This requires public reporting on outcomes. This way Canadians can decide for themselves whether their governments are living up to the commitments made.

These are just some of the benefits that we believe a social union framework agreement could lead to. But in these negotiations the Government of Canada has only one bottom line and that is what is good for Canadians and good for Canada. It does not have to be more complicated than that. The social union is not something we can cut up and divide. It is the very foundation of our society and we must build on it together.

I point out to the hon. member that his colleagues in Quebec are now full participants in the social union framework negotiation. The Government of Quebec recognizes that this is a process of give and take and that we are in fact making progress. As recently as last Friday the new Quebec minister for Canadian intergovernmental affairs said he is confident that the process is moving forward.

So what is the hon. member hoping to achieve by his motion? For the good of Quebeckers and all other Canadians I urge the hon. member to follow the lead of his colleagues and work for collaboration instead of confrontation. This is what Canadians everywhere, no matter where they live in this great country of ours, want and deserve.

[Teachers, October 5th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, today is world teachers day. Around the globe we are paying tribute to those who educate our children and who at one point educated us. I take this opportunity on behalf of all Canadians and especially my constituents of Waterloo—Wellington to thank the teachers of Canada and the world for their hard work and dedication. As a former high school teacher, I realize the profession is being constantly scrutinized by many people. I also realize it is becoming more and more difficult to do the job efficiently. It is for these reasons that I would like to thank the teachers for sticking by today's youth and I would like to commend them on their strength and courage in this area. Our youth is the future and it is with teachers' help that our young men and women will be able to continue in our footsteps and proceed beyond our accomplishments. Once again, I thank teachers everywhere in Canada.