Ronald J. Duhamel

[Petitions, November 24th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, this petition is about unnecessary violence and abuse on radio, television and in other forms of the media.

These petitioners have great concerns as to the impact on the Canadian population of abuse and violence in the media. They request that the CRTC regulate all forms of unnecessary abuse and violence. Parents point out that often what occurs there is counterproductive to what they are trying to do in raising their families. They point out that there have been some advances made and the CRTC is to be commended for some of the steps it has taken.

Not only do they want this to go on, they want more progress. They believe it is necessary for their children.

[Louis Riel, November 16th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, many Manitobans and Canadians remember Louis Riel today.

This morning in my riding the Manitoba Metis Federation held a ceremony to mark the 109th anniversary of his death, to recognize Metis Week and proclaim November 16 as Louis Riel Day.

On March 10, 1992, in response to a government petition, I applauded the government's gesture of recognizing Louis Riel as the founder of Manitoba and his contribution to Canada. That same day, I requested that we go one step further and recognize him as one of the fathers of Confederation. This is still my position.

[Petitions, November 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the petitioners want to remind parliamentarians that our young people are our greatest asset and that they face many challenges such as breakdown of the traditional family, additional violence in society. They want parliamentarians to ensure that these young people, young men and women, get the education, training and jobs they require to integrate fully into society in order to create a better country.

[Credentials, November 3rd, 1994]

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.

[China, November 3rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the largest foreign delegation ever assembled will be leaving Canada for China tonight, led by the Prime Minister; most premiers, with the exception of one; and businessmen and women from throughout the country, some of our most talented people. They will be going to sell our services and our products in that large country.

As part of this Team Canada they are going to show the Chinese people that we are willing to sit down and do business with them.

We promised that in our red book. It is a part of our program. It is important to develop foreign trade and trade relations. We promised we would, and we are delivering the goods.

I know everyone will want to join me in congratulating the Prime Minister of Canada and wishing him and his team good luck.

[Quebec Referendum, November 1st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform the House that the leader of the Bloc Qebecois has just sided with the Prime Minister, whom he now supports. Indeed the leader of the Bloc Quebecois said yesterday that he now wants a referendum "as soon as possible".

This new position of his is in contrast with what he was saying on September 20, when he pleaded for a referendum at a time where it would be likely to be won. Now that the official opposition and the government agree on holding a referendum as soon as possible, we hope that the leader, the self- described partner of Jacques Parizeau in the referendum saga, will be able to convince his associate to proceed forthwith. Then, as the Prime Minister was saying, we can put to rest the uncertainty that now prevails.

[Petitions, October 31st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from seniors in my riding who point out that much of what we have in Canada today is in great part as the result of their sacrifices and what they have contributed to society.

They point out that they are growing in numbers. As they grow in numbers programs such as health and pensions et cetera will be under additional stress. They want to accentuate the fact that they need comfortable housing, social and community involvement, as well as affordable medical care.

These petitioners on behalf of seniors want to underline that whenever governments are changing programs or making any decisions, they should keep in mind the contribution seniors have made to this country.

[Parliamentary Interns, October 31st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, welcome to our parliamentary interns. The Parliamentary Internship Program is in its 25th year.

I welcome all these new young people. They are bright, hard working, energetic and highly motivated. They have made and continue to make a tremendous contribution to all of us. We wish them well as they celebrate their 25th year of providing service.

I have said before and I would like to say again that I wish I were in a position where I could facilitate that each member of Parliament who wanted such a young man or young woman to work with him or her would be able to do so.

I want to congratulate everyone who has supported them.

The private sector especially deserves a great deal of credit because with the support of government and with the young people it has created a program that is among the finest in Canada and perhaps throughout the world.

I thank all these young men and women.

Thank you all, young people, for your assistance.

[Supply, October 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, for one year now that party has been the party of gloom and doom, the end of the world is coming. It has been the cut, cut, cut party. In fact if those members are looking for an alternative name they might call themselves the gloom and doom party or the cut, cut, cut party. I rather prefer the second because it has more rhythm.

Looking at the opinion polls, why is it that Canadians have favoured the Liberal Party, the party that is in government today, with its gradual approach to the creation of jobs and the reduction of the deficit and the debt? Why is it that their party's support, whatever little support it had, is evaporating quickly? Surely the majority of Canadians have a good sense of judgment. Surely the majority of Canadians know what is happening.

Those hon. members talk about the infrastructure program as being inappropriate. First of all, they know as well as I do that it was not new money, it was reallocated money. I wanted to correct that.

Is the hon. member supportive of his other colleague's remarks that the infrastructure program is not good for Canada, that the infrastructure program jobs are not appropriate jobs? I want him to confirm or deny that. Because the infrastructure program has created a better, superior infrastructure, does that not make it easier and better for us to be competitive, thereby creating long term jobs?

Will the cut, cut, cut party, the gloom and doom party respond to that please?

[Status Of Women, October 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, in the red book, the government indicated that it wanted to improve the standard of living of all men and women across Canada. Women and, of course, children.

In my riding we have an agency called Network which does advocacy work in economic, social, political, educational and cultural areas, for instance. It has some advice for the government, and I would like to quote: "The federal government has announced its intention to amend the Alimony Act; since the vast majority of alimony recipients are women and their children, these women call upon the minister responsible for the status of women to pressure the government to find an equitable solution that takes into consideration the real needs of women and children".

Mr. Speaker, I support this proposal.